Debunking Sri Gur Katha

[chatanga1]

So you are saying that our first analysis of this text should be to debunk it? Rather than look at it and then see whether it it was it's claimed to be?

[dalsingh101]

On 5/17/2016 at 9:58 AM, chatanga1 said:

So you are saying that our first analysis of this text should be to debunk it? Rather than look at it and then see whether it it was it's claimed to be?

How did you manage to read that into my comment?

Our analysis should involve looking at it critically from different perspectives. And this MUST include the understanding that some apnay (for reasons best known to themselves) have created dubious accounts in the past (like the 'eye witness' account of 1699 purportedly in Aligarh University that apparently doesn't exist, but has God knows how many pendus believing it is the real deal) in order to support their  preconceptions. Some of our lot are not unknown to feel pressurised enough to start messing around with and editing manuscripts as they feel required at a particular time either. So we have good reason to tread carefully, more so given the gullible nature of a lot of our people. 

Different perspectives can help in the process of exploring/verifying manuscripts, including hyper-critical ones like Sikhkhoj (you don't have to agree with him ffs!!)  It's the debate that takes place around the subject that is potentially informative and productive, not any one person's opinion (including me, you and anyone else). 

Jumping around and making noise about someone's opinion like some over excited bander is of no help and most probably just pendu tribalism kicking in - you know, that need to create 'the good guys' group and the 'evil blasphemers' nemesis certain pendus can't seem to live without. 

 

[chatanga1]

9 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

How did you manage to read that into my comment?

From this:

On 16/05/2016 at 8:34 PM, dalsingh101 said:

The provenance of this granth is as murky as can be.

It looks like you have already come to some conclusion. I hope it's not on the back of this topic and 10 posts either.

On 16/05/2016 at 8:34 PM, dalsingh101 said:

 I think it needs a hell of a lot more research before people start jumping on it like it was 'gospel'. 

Let's do that before we make any aspertions on this text.

Kuttabanda is correct when he talks about how this text was approached here. "Debunking"?? That is not an honest way to enquire.

[dalsingh101]

Just now, chatanga1 said:

From this:

It looks like you have already come to some conclusion. I hope it's not on the back of this topic and 10 posts either.

Let's do that before we make any aspertions on this text.

Kuttabanda is correct when he talks about how this text was approached here. "Debunking"?? That is not an honest way to enquire.

Do you know about its provenance? Apparently it isn't even in the original language it was composed in. And no original manuscript is available. How much more 'murky' can it get? For me, that alone is enough of a reason to go cautiously with it. 

Then: you know what translation is like, it's an imperfect process. That's the reason why we always try and use the original text along side translations here. Even if we accept it for what people claim it to be, we don't even have a way of checking if the interpretation of the original (now missing)  text is on point.   Plus you know our people have been doctoring texts to fit into some preconceptions since annexation, so we should be careful.  

 

[chatanga1]

Careful yes,  but equally wrong if we approach it with anything but a blank mind. There is a pdf somewhere on the net in Gurmukhi and English.

Maybe if we can get through the Mata Kaulan sakhi in GP6 (only 1 or 2 pages left) we can look at some pages from this text.

[Kuttabanda2]

On 5/16/2016 at 0:34 PM, dalsingh101 said:

Speak for yourself. 

 

The provenance of this granth is as murky as can be. I think it needs a hell of a lot more research before people start jumping on it like it was 'gospel'. 

I personally don't see anything "murky". It's discovery doesn't seem fishy, there's still an extant manuscript. I also have a copy of the text at hand. If the fact that it mentions the Panj Baniya and Panj Kakkars throws you off, (considering the likes of McLeod have propagated the idea of the Kakkars and required Banis as a post-Dasmesh Ji concept that gradually evolved to where it is today.) It's not the only source that mentions the Panj Kakkars and Panj Banis. I have the books of Dr. Gurmukh Singh, Bhai Niranjan Singh Arifi, Neeti Singh, and Gyani Nishan Singh Ghandivind (his book is probably the most insightful) that deal entirely with Sri Gur Katha and it's history. 

[Kuttabanda2]

On 5/16/2016 at 9:55 AM, chatanga1 said:

This guy khoj is a very coarse individual. He made this topic and now that you mention it, the word "debunking" in the title makes it apparent what his intentions were/are. Nevertheless if you read our replies to it, we haven't agreed with him in any way, we have just listened to his views. It would be good if maybe in the short future we could look at one or two chapters in this book.

I've noticed that he lies quite often and claims to have 'connections with scholars' (a complete lie) and never shows any proof whatsoever, he seems to be a lost individual. 

[Kuttabanda2]

On 5/17/2016 at 2:13 PM, dalsingh101 said:

Do you know about its provenance? Apparently it isn't even in the original language it was composed in. And no original manuscript is available. How much more 'murky' can it get? For me, that alone is enough of a reason to go cautiously with it. 

Then: you know what translation is like, it's an imperfect process. That's the reason why we always try and use the original text along side translations here. Even if we accept it for what people claim it to be, we don't even have a way of checking if the interpretation of the original (now missing)  text is on point.   Plus you know our people have been doctoring texts to fit into some preconceptions since annexation, so we should be careful.  

 

Actually, that's wrong, it's in the same form as it was originally, It's not a translation, Who said it's not original?.....it's in print now too... so this shouldn't even be an argument. 

 There still is a manuscript available, as far as I know, only one of two manuscripts have gone missing.  

To address your last point, People have been doctoring and interpolating texts to fit their preconceptions way before the annexation. 

[chatanga1]

8 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I've noticed that he lies quite often and claims to have 'connections with scholars' (a complete lie) and never shows any proof whatsoever, he seems to be a lost individual. 

The 2 years gyanis from missionary college are considered scholars by some.

 

7 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Actually, that's wrong, it's in the same form as it was originally, It's not a translation, Who said it's not original?.....it's in print now too... so this shouldn't even be an argument. 

 There still is a manuscript available, as far as I know, only one of two manuscripts have gone missing. 

Gurpreet Singh California in one of his recent kathas has said that he has personally seen the original manuscript. It was printed in 1952.

[Kuttabanda2]

6 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

The 2 years gyanis from missionary college are considered scholars by some.

 

Gurpreet Singh California in one of his recent kathas has said that he has personally seen the original manuscript. It was printed in 1952.

Not sure what Gurpreet Singh is talking about. However, I know for a fact that there were 2 manuscripts (written, not printed) that were recieved from the Mazhabis, the manuscript Gurpreet Singh discussed is probably the 'uttara' (copy) of one of the two originals that Gyani Garja Singh was given, the copy is still around, but the manuscript is missing.  Another manuscript (considered to be written by Shaheed Baba Jeevan Singh Ji himself) was found in Bhasha Vibhagh Ferozpur along with a manuscript of  'Panth Prakash', the Sri Gur Katha manuscript was kept with the Ranghretas of east India who were descendants of some 13th Bangsi Ranghreteh Misl warriors who were driven out of Punjab due to an apparent genocide (not sure if that's the right word) carried out against them by the other Sikhs, they had recorded their history in 'Bangsinama' which sadly was also lost before any analysis could be done of it.  

[lat]

On 5/14/2016 at 6:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

 

On 5/14/2016 at 6:02 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

On 5/13/2016 at 5:38 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

This thread is senseless, ignorant, and utterly foolish. No Scholar has ever doubted Sri Guru Katha By Shaheed Kavi Baba Jeevan Singh Ji. The language is not "new" in any form, you can probably find such similarities in other contemporary texts. Secondly, Gurpur Prakash by Shaheed Baba Binod Singh Ji matches up entirely with Sri Guru Katha. The word "Kakkar" or "Kakke" has also been in use since the times of Dasmesh Pita Ji, it's been used in Bhai Gurmukh Singh's own Rehatnama and the Chaupai that was attached to a manuscript of Mahan Kavi Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's Rehatnama along with the incorrect Samapti Dohra that he also added. It's also been used in the Bhatt Vahis, and again, In Gurpur Prakash By Shaheed Baba Binod Singh Ji. You can speak to any present day credible and Panthic scholar, such as Dr. Harbhajan Singh, Neeti Singh, Dr. Gurmukh Singh, Dr Perhaps Dr. Kamalroop Singh, Dr. M.K. Gill, Dr. Anurag Singh, Bhai Kulwant Singh, etc. many of whom of have come across a and examined this priceless text. 

There should be no doubt on Sri Gursobha Granth by Maha Darbari Rattan Kavi Saina Singh/Sainapat Ji as Bakwaas Khoj has implanted in your minds. 

Unless you guys have analyzed the writing style, languages and literature of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Darbari Kavis, and the poetry of that time, you can't pass any judgement or valid criticism of the text. The way the words are spelled in Sri Gur Katha is not evidence of it's inauthenticity, Gurbani Vyaakran of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the system and style of of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji's poetry and language can't be applied here at all, let alone any other Granth of the time. Thus the arguments are invalid and of no strong foundation. 

 

Isn't an compilation of the others khojan done by Kavi including the granth written by Baba Binod Singh ji

[lat]

On 5/13/2016 at 5:38 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

This thread is senseless, ignorant, and utterly foolish. No Scholar has ever doubted Sri Guru Katha By Shaheed Kavi Baba Jeevan Singh Ji. The language is not "new" in any form, you can probably find such similarities in other contemporary texts. Secondly, Gurpur Prakash by Shaheed Baba Binod Singh Ji matches up entirely with Sri Guru Katha. The word "Kakkar" or "Kakke" has also been in use since the times of Dasmesh Pita Ji, it's been used in Bhai Gurmukh Singh's own Rehatnama and the Chaupai that was attached to a manuscript of Mahan Kavi Bhai Prahlad Singh Ji's Rehatnama along with the incorrect Samapti Dohra that he also added. It's also been used in the Bhatt Vahis, and again, In Gurpur Prakash By Shaheed Baba Binod Singh Ji. You can speak to any present day credible and Panthic scholar, such as Dr. Harbhajan Singh, Neeti Singh, Dr. Gurmukh Singh, Dr Perhaps Dr. Kamalroop Singh, Dr. M.K. Gill, Dr. Anurag Singh, Bhai Kulwant Singh, etc. many of whom of have come across a and examined this priceless text. 

There should be no doubt on Sri Gursobha Granth by Maha Darbari Rattan Kavi Saina Singh/Sainapat Ji as Bakwaas Khoj has implanted in your minds. 

Unless you guys have analyzed the writing style, languages and literature of Guru Gobind Singh Ji's Darbari Kavis, and the poetry of that time, you can't pass any judgement or valid criticism of the text. The way the words are spelled in Sri Gur Katha is not evidence of it's inauthenticity, Gurbani Vyaakran of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the system and style of of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji's poetry and language can't be applied here at all, let alone any other Granth of the time. Thus the arguments are invalid and of no strong foundation. 

Gur pur parkash from what I know is a compilations of different granth and one of the granths utilized by the Kavi sant ren prem singh is Baba Binod Singh's granth. 

[intrigued]

It's been about 9 years since this thread was created, what do you guys think about it now?

@dalsingh101@chatanga1

[dalsingh101]

17 hours ago, intrigued said:

It's been about 9 years since this thread was created, what do you guys think about it now?

@dalsingh101@chatanga1

I'd say my knowledge of the manuscript hasn't grown whatsoever since then. I'd also say that Mazhbhi accounts of the panth need to be carefully collected, valued and studied, but I think that certain casteist prejudices are major obstacles to that. 

 

That being said: I think I've just realised that I might have done a major clanger and confused Kavi Kankan's text with the one attributed to Bhai Jaita ....duuhh!!

Here's another thread on this if I'm not mistaken:

 

[intrigued]

4 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

but I think that certain casteist prejudices are major obstacles to that. 

To my knowledge Bhai Jaita was low caste so I would think that his writings are less controversial than those of higher castes.

[chatanga1]

On 5/29/2021 at 2:55 AM, intrigued said:

It's been about 9 years since this thread was created, what do you guys think about it now?

@dalsingh101@chatanga1

Well given that I was never here to "debunk" it, I still feel the same about it. I have the book, and it forms part of a larger book detailing the input of the Mazhabi Sikhs in the wider Sikh Panth. It is still a valuable source of information as a granth by itself. However the book...

 

On 5/29/2021 at 8:31 PM, dalsingh101 said:

I'd say my knowledge of the manuscript hasn't grown whatsoever since then. I'd also say that Mazhbhi accounts of the panth need to be carefully collected, valued and studied, but I think that certain casteist prejudices are major obstacles to that.

You're right Dal. The book is written by Niranjab Singh Arifi, a Mazhabi Sikh himself who has at times vilified other castes. His whole other work in this book is just a inflammatory jibe at other castes and denigrating their service to the Panth at the expense of his own caste. I read the first chapter on Sri Gur Katha, which includes a translation, but the second chapter by Arifi is just horrendous.

[chatanga1]

Just wanted to share this video. Please watch and give your views. I have a couple of things I want to share but I want to just research them first to make sure as it's been a long time since I read them.