Sikh History Vs Gurbani

[SikhKhoj]

Does that Raagmala above refer to the Sri Raagmala Sahib in SGGSJ, or the Raagmal of poet Alam?

Most Orthodox sects/sampradas believe in Sri Raagmala Sahib jee as Gurbani.

You should get some basic knowledge or atleast santheaa of whole Suraj Parkash as Taksalis ought to have.

Poet Santokh Singh says Guru Granth has ends at Mundavni. He can't be clearer than that.

ਰਾਗਮਾਲ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਨਹਿ, ਹੈ ਮੁੰਦਾਵਣੀ ਲਗਿ ਗੁਰ ਬੈਨ॥

[paapiman]

You should get some basic knowledge or atleast santheaa of whole Suraj Parkash as Taksalis ought to have.

Poet Santokh Singh says Guru Granth has ends at Mundavni. He can't be clearer than that.

ਰਾਗਮਾਲ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਨਹਿ, ਹੈ ਮੁੰਦਾਵਣੀ ਲਗਿ ਗੁਰ ਬੈਨ॥

I am not a Taksaali bro.

[paapiman]

What is the proof that those Granths on the paintings are Guru Granth and Dasam Granth?

It could be two Guru Granth Sahib birs as is done now during some akhand paaths too.

So you don't believe in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib? Is that right?

[SikhKhoj]

Where did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. Just being critical about the painting. I know Malcolms 'Sketch' mentions Dasam Granth/Guru Granth Sahib and another English source mention Dasam Granth gurmatta. I have done my homework

[paapiman]

Where did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth. Just being critical about the painting. I know Malcolms 'Sketch' mentions Dasam Granth/Guru Granth Sahib and another English source mention Dasam Granth gurmatta. I have done my homework

I am asking you a question - Do you believe in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee? Is that very hard to understand? If it is, I apologize.

Edited May 17, 2015 by paapiman

[SikhKhoj]

Yes it is.

[paapiman]

Yes it is.

Sorry about that mate.

[SikhKhoj]

No problem brother.

[paapiman]

No problem brother.

Also, which Taksaal did you go to? For how many years?

[amardeep]

Pandit Tara Singh Narotam was a great scholar indeed but I think he was also constrained a bit by the British camp. He was working in an akhara that was ultimately funded by the Patiala Raj which was heavily linked with the angrezi raj. The brits had a vested interest in downplaying and destroying the martial and independant elements of the Khalsa which is the spirit that is imbibed in Dasam Bani. Therefore they had a great interest in distancing the Sikhs from their martial Khalsa heritage as expressed in Dasam bani.

[paapiman]

Pandit Tara Singh Narotam was a great scholar indeed but I think he was also constrained a bit by the British camp. He was working in an akhara that was ultimately funded by the Patiala Raj which was heavily linked with the angrezi raj. The brits had a vested interest in downplaying and destroying the martial and independant elements of the Khalsa which is the spirit that is imbibed in Dasam Bani. Therefore they had a great interest in distancing the Sikhs from their martial Khalsa heritage as expressed in Dasam bani.

Bro, did Pandit Tara Singh jee, not believe in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee as Gurbani?

[amardeep]

He believed in the Dasam Granth but not in the Sarbloh Granth.

[SikhKhoj]

Pandit Tara Singh Narotam was a great scholar indeed but I think he was also constrained a bit by the British camp. He was working in an akhara that was ultimately funded by the Patiala Raj which was heavily linked with the angrezi raj. The brits had a vested interest in downplaying and destroying the martial and independant elements of the Khalsa which is the spirit that is imbibed in Dasam Bani. Therefore they had a great interest in distancing the Sikhs from their martial Khalsa heritage as expressed in Dasam bani.

Why was he pro Dasam Granth if he was influenced by British who 'had a vested interest in downplaying and destroying the martial and independant elements of the Khalsa which is the spirit that is imbibed in Dasam Bani'? Doesn't make sense, contradiction.

He was one of the first persons to locate Hemkunt thus he was a very credible source atleast for pro Dasam Granth people.

The fact that he was a staunch believer in Dasam Granth and even did most of the work in tracing Hemkunt, was of Nirmala background (and not Singh Sabhia so you can't play the British card that easily) but then anti Sarbloh just goes on to show that he must have found some compelling evidence for his claims about Sarbloh & it was not just a biased view do the the Akhara in which he worked.

Don't put false allegations just because you can't fathom the fact that he was anti Sarbloh.

Edited May 17, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

He lived in an era where Dasam Bani as a total was slowly being disintegrated from the Khalsa. A form of cross over period, - thats why he might have believed in the Dasam Granth but had a more critical view to Sarbloh Granth. At this time in history the Nirmale were also consolidating their influence (in a way unprecedented in history) as they now had proper state patronage and an organisational institution whereas before it was much more sporadic and decentralised. The nirmalas of the early colonial period are an interesting subject in it self to research.

As I wrote he was a great scholar. His arguments against the Sarbloh Granth however are'nt that credible. Which one of his arguments do you find reasonable?

[SikhKhoj]

He not only believed in Dasam but also actively participated in locating Hemkunt. Thus it showed he was no shady character or easily influenceable.

You are just making up theories without credible evidence. Where is your evidence that he wanted to undermine Khalsa and was thus anti Sarbloh?

The fact that not only Pandit Tara Singh but Bhai Sahib Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha rejected this granth just makes it more interesting.

How come Sarbloh mentions a book written in 1719? Mentions Guru Granth as 'Guru' which only happened lateron, in October 1708.

[amardeep]

I am not saying he as a person was anti-Khalsa. I am saying that he lived in an era where anti-dasam thoughts were beginning to become prevalent and therefore had some influence on many of the thinkers of the time. This does'nt mean they were anti-Khalsa. I dont consider the Singh Sabha anti-Khalsa either though they did lot of damage in contributing to an environment wherein the Dasam Granth got isolated. Its not that black and white.

Which one of his arguments against the Sarbloh Granth do you find reasonable?

[SikhKhoj]

What you wrote is an hypothesis, an assertion. He was not anti Sarbloh 'because he lived in an era where anti-dasam thoughts were beginning to become prevalent' because then he would have been anti Dasam Granth too, which he was not.

In fact he was hardcore pro Dasam Granth, thus it disproves your point.

Dasam Granth was not even that available in those days (not available in Punjab in the 18th century according to Buddha Dal publication) so I wonder how the people started to become anti Dasam without reading it. It is only when Dasam Granth became more circulated throughout the 19th century that voices started coming in against it, Sodhak committee came, Bhasauria came. Pandit Tara Narotam lived slightly before that. And all of this happened mostly after 1880s, much after Pandit Tara Singhs prime because he died in that decade.

If i am not mistaken the first real voice against Dasam Granth was about Bhasaurs time which is around/after the time Narotam died (1890s) so your hypothesis 'anti Dasam atmosphere making him biased towards Sarbloh' doesn't seem that plausible.

I asked you some questions regarding Sarbloh in my previous post. Answer them.

People lied alot, Mahan Kosh mentions that some people used to say Sau Sakhi was written by Guru Gobind Singh. Some moorakhs claim Prem Sumarg was written by Guru Gobind Singh. You can't believe everything, alot of Granths were attributed to our Patshah for differing reasons and Sarbloh is one of them.

Edited May 17, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

I have never been able to find nor verify the dating of the Roop Deep Bhasha Pingla so can't comment on that one. Regarding the evolution of the Guru Granth Sahib then it is clear that the evolution to Guruship of the Khalsa began much earlier than 1708. Started to take place already in the 1690s as evidenced by the Prashnauttar Rahitnama of Bhai Nand Lal.It was a slow and steady evolution that climaxed in 1708.

Regarding the environment of anti-dasam,it seems that the first questioning of Dasam Bani is from Cunningham's History of the Sikhs in 1848. The Sarbloh Granth was known to earlier 18th century scholars. Some of the writings are for instanced referenced and quoted in the Bansavalinama Granth of 1769.

[SikhKhoj]

- Prashan Uttar is not authentic. I do not believe you have had any formal education in researching granths but Pyara Singh Padam had the privilege of compiling the most complete book on all Rehatnamas and he has this to say (after years of research) about all the Rehatnamas included in his book (including Prashan Uttar) on page 43:

"It looks like these Rehatnamas were written by some intellectual Sikhs in the 18th century. To increase the acceptance of these Rehatnamas and give them credence they linked these Rehatnamas to older prominent Sikhs like Bhai Nand Lal Singh, Bhai Daya Singh, Bhai Chaupa Singh, Bhai Prehlad Singh"

- Fact is that Guru Granth was only given Gurgaddi in 1708 while no one denies it was important before (pothi parmeshwar ka thaan). So a book that mentions Granth ji as Guru Granth ji was actually written after 1708.

- The fact that you haven't found any source doesn't mean anything, you are no scholar with academic values so I actually do not care. Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha, an accepted scholar, made that claim, make a counter claim with proof. And no I am not invoking "argumentum ad auctoritatem" but you are simply in no position to use your own 'not finding of proof' as an excuse.

- Cunningham is one author, that too mid 19th century. I fail to see how it is 'an atmosphere against Dasam Bani' as you so vividly described as if you lived in those times. The fact that not a single prominent Sikh spoke up against Dasam Granth untill Bhasaur + Dasam Granth remained Parkash even during Singh Sabha reforms in early 1900s shows that during the lifetime of Pandit Tara Singh Narotam there was no visible atmosphere against Dasam Bani. Thus your whole hypothesis is fake and you have no valid argument in debunking Pandit Tara Singhs claim.

You just used Argumentum ad hominen which is a logical fallacy - and failed miserably at it too because you fail to back up your claims about the so called atmosphere.

Edited May 18, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Alright dude you're way out of line now. I dont know if you're having a bad day or if this is just your generel way of writing. The amount of personal attacks, assumptions and putting words in my mouth so far is complete out of order for any civil discussion. Are you here to do khoj and have new perspectives to things or are you just out to win debates?

Don't put false allegations just because you can't fathom the fact that he was anti Sarbloh.

You are just making up theories without credible evidence. Where is your evidence that he wanted to undermine Khalsa and was thus anti Sarbloh?

I do not believe you have had any formal education in researching granths

- The fact that you haven't found any source doesn't mean anything, you are no scholar with academic values so I actually do not care.

you are simply in no position to use your own 'not finding of proof' as an excuse

Thus your whole hypothesis is fake and you have no valid argument in debunking Pandit Tara Singhs claim.

You just used Argumentum ad hominen which is a logical fallacy - and failed miserably at it too because you fail to back up your claims about the so called atmosphere.

Dude seriosly get a grip of yourself. I've never claimed to be a scholar, nor have I said any of the things you assume. Try to read what I'm writing instead of adding your own crap negativity into my words.

We could easily have done good khoj on this subject but you're way out of line! If khoj for you is about winning then fair enough but im out. Im not gonna waste more time on you. And with your weird negative thinking in mind, you're probably gonna think that im backing out because I have no arguments bla bla bla..... Fair enough, you won if that brings you any glory.... Balle tera.

Edited May 18, 2015 by amardeep

[Guest]

Please avoid personal attacks, editing post is pain in the arse. I have better things to do then edit posts on here. Please don't make me do this crazy job of editing personal attacks, for my sake atleast..!!

[Singh123456777]

You should get some basic knowledge or atleast santheaa of whole Suraj Parkash as Taksalis ought to have.

Poet Santokh Singh says Guru Granth has ends at Mundavni. He can't be clearer than that.

ਰਾਗਮਾਲ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਨਹਿ, ਹੈ ਮੁੰਦਾਵਣੀ ਲਗਿ ਗੁਰ ਬੈਨ॥

As with many granths in that era a lot of infiltration happened. For example in the suraj parkash Granth there is no mention of giving guru gaddi to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji but there are a few puratan suraj parkash granths which do write about giving guruship to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Mahakavi Ji was employed by the raja of nabha(or patiala) and the raja gave him for writers and helpers help him create this Granth. Those people were British influenced and put stuff in that would cause controversy such as raag mala, the gurus doing opium, the gurus wearing earrings etc. Mahakavi Ji had nirmaley backgrounds and nirmaley believe in raag mala.

I know that you will try discrediting me and my post but so be it. You just need to win cause its all a competition for you anyways.

[SikhKhoj]

Amardeep, I don't really see a personal attack. You can attack Pandit Tara Singhs personality but I can't debunk your flawed logic? I am not here to win. If I came over as ahankari then excuse me for it, but I like to use names of the type of logical fallacies to put weight behind my arguments, maybe that seemed somewhat intimidating to you.

Fact is, you made a post where you questioned Pandit Tara Singhs credibility based on the atmosphere he lived in being anti Dasam while you haven't been able to prove it because the first major such phase started during Bhasaurs time post the 1880s, the time Pandit Tara died. Thus his position of anti Sarbloh does not stem from the atmosphere but his own research.

Thirdly if a scholar of a calibre presents a date for that Jayaprakash book mentioned in Sarbloh and you come up with 'i havent found any evidence' do you want me to take you seriously? I mean what kind of argument is that.

[SikhKhoj]

My brother Singh123..., I have nothing against you nor paapi or anyone on here.

I agree with you. I have always been of the position that many Granths are either fake or interpolated. But the thing is why the double standards? Because you believe in Raagmala, you say the part about Raagmala is added lateron but don't want to hear such an explanation for Guru Har Rai having 8 wives for example (not saying Suraj Parkash mentions 8 wives, I don't remember from my reading anymore, but as an example).

If these Granths can be wrong, then Bhai Gurbachan Singh Bhindran who quoted from these books can be wrong too because the books he read from could've been flawed. I am not going off topic because the topic is also about Gurbani vs History.

[CdnSikhGirl]

As with many granths in that era a lot of infiltration happened. For example in the suraj parkash Granth there is no mention of giving guru gaddi to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji but there are a few puratan suraj parkash granths which do write about giving guruship to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Mahakavi Ji was employed by the raja of nabha(or patiala) and the raja gave him for writers and helpers help him create this Granth. Those people were British influenced and put stuff in that would cause controversy such as raag mala, the gurus doing opium, the gurus wearing earrings etc. Mahakavi Ji had nirmaley backgrounds and nirmaley believe in raag mala.

I know that you will try discrediting me and my post but so be it. You just need to win cause its all a competition for you anyways.

Could the bits about women being inferior to men have been added the same way? I always thought that (in writing) Guru Nanak Dev Ji had taught full equality. Could it be *possible* that culture crept in and added the bits about women seeing men as God etc?