Sri Gur Sobha: authenticity & dating

[SikhKhoj]

To all those who have read it:

1. does the text mention the name of the author? 

2. what could be a possible year for the writing, based on what? do not take the year written on the manuscript as a proof, we know of many manuscripts attributed to the gurus, pious sikhs and false dates added to gain credibility. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Here is what Gurinder SIngh Mann US has stated regarding the granth:
 

With a poetic composition entitled Sri Gur Sobha ("Praise of the
Guru"), texts singing about the Guru's life come closer to the Janam
Sakhi mode.113 There is no reference to the name of the poet in the text
itself but later sources remember him as Sainapati, a court poet at
Anandpur.114 The narrator begins with the Guru's activity at Paunta
around the time of his victory over the chief of Garhwal, and goes on to
trace the details of the happenings at Anandpur, the Guru's journey to
south India, and his demise in Nanderh. It concludes with a call to return
to Anandpur and revive the dream of Guru Gobind Singh.
I have had the chance to examine four manuscripts of Sri Gur Sobha.
The two of these four carry the date of 1701 (Samat satra sai bhai baras
athavan bit [1758] Bhado sudi pandars bhai rachi katha kar prit), the
third records it as 1741 (Samat satra sai bhai baras athanav bit [1798]
Bhado sudi 15 bhai rachi katha kar prit), and the last one does not
contain the section that refers to the date.115 Both 1701 and 1741 have
been considered and discarded by scholars who seem to be developing a
consensus around 1711.116Although 1711 may seem reasonable to many,
it is important to register that there is no supporting evidence for this date
in the extant manuscripts, and the logic that went into its formulation is
not very convincing.

The appearance of the date of 1701 within the invocation of Sri Gur
Sobha needs to be taken into serious consideration. Its presence at the
opening of the text could imply that the poet began writing it in 1701 and
continued to work on the text until late in 1708. This dating, mode, and
lengthy period of composition explain the detailed nature of its narrative,
and bring into focus its importance as a first-hand account of the events
that may have even been recited before and corrected by the Guru
himself, if one accepts references to this effect in another source

 

Notes

 

113. Ganda Singh’s edition of Sainapati’s Sri Gur Sobha is considered
the standard edition. For an important interpretation of this text, see Anne
Murphy, "History in the Sikh Past," History and Theory 46 (October
2007), 345-365.

114. Reference to Sainapti does appear in Guru Ratanmal, 80. Although
the name of Sri Gur Sobha is not mentioned, the description below may
point to it:
Sainapati kavita kahe gurdarsan te par,
Kare bhali va buri nit Satiguru lai savar (Guru Ratanmal, 80).

115. A manuscript of the complete text of Sri Gur Sobha is available in a
private collection in the Punjab, and some chapters of the text appear in
large anthologies presently available at Balbir Singh Sahitya Kendar,
Dehradun, Bhasha Vibhag, Patiala, and Sahitt Academy, Ludhiana.
116. Sainapati, Sri Gur Sobha, 5-6.

117. To support this date Ganda Singh invokes Sumer Singh’s Sri Guru-
Pad Prem Prakash [1882]. See Sri Gur Sobha, 5, 64. The explanation is
that since the dates indicated by the words athavan (1701), and athanav
(1741) do not fit, this must be a scribal error with the correct word being
athasath (1711). For the text of Guru-Pad Prem Prakash, see Achhar
Singh Kahlon’s edition (Patiala: Punjabi University, 2000).

118. See note 114. My reading of the closing sections of Sri Gur Sobha
points to their being composed soon after the Guru’s death in Nanderh. It
is hard to imagine a poet of Sainapati’s sensitivity to history singing
about reviving Anandpur after Sirhind had fallen and Banda Singh had
created the semblance of a center at Mukhlispur. I see Sainapati calling
the Sikhs to gather at Mukhlispur and

Edited June 8, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

*

Edited July 6, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Even proponents of the theory (like yourself) who say that it started in 1701 and finished in 1711 have no basis to conclude that it was finished in 1711.

Oh gosh you just can't stop it can you? How many times by now have I told you to stop making assumptions??? You seriosly is one of a kind aren't you??

When did I write my views on the Gursobha since you think you know my views on it??? Why are you making up stuff about me? You just make assumptions about me, and then refute those very same assumptions you made up. Technically you are just debating yourself. I told you to stop it so many times by now, Im getting really annoyed with you.

As to the rest of your arguments where some are quite good, i can't really be bothered writing a response anylonger. You're a complete waste of time.

Edited June 9, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

Are you just hurt because I showed you the logical fallacies you made in one of your arguments? Please keep the past aside, I have been correcting you and explaining things from my perspective without being offensive both here and on the Misl period. It is just in my nature to be critical and besides the initial posts I have not really attacked you anywhere.

Second thing, if I remember correctly you did say it started in 1701 and finished in 1711 but I'm not sure so I'll take that back. I edited the post reference to you, happy?

Lets continue on the arguments that you found good? 

Edited June 9, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

Don't let minor issues like this get inbetween dialogue. 

 

Amardeep, make your points and give as good as you get (if you need to). If you feel he has given you a dig: give a few back! lol

 

Focus points: why is 1701 mentioned in a number of manuscripts? Either it IS a mistake (being repeated through copying) or actually does refer to the date of commencement. The fact that the manuscript covers events upto 1708 makes it obvious it was completed in the early 18th century. Yes, it could contain eye witness information but other parts could be based on other contemporary/near contemporary sources which explain the confused parts.  

[SikhKhoj]

1. If the author deemed it necessary to put a date of commencement, why was none of completion included as was quite popular during those times? The word 'rachee' seems to be ref. to the fact that it was completed, atleast thats what Dr Ganda Singh asserts and I do agree with the point.

2. Most scholars ascribe this book to Kavi Sainapat who was a Darbari Kavi. Do you think a Darbari Kavi would get confused regarding the names of the chota sahibzadas? That is basic information. Ofcourse he couldn't be present at Sirhind during the time of Shaheedi of Sahibzadas (most probably) but he would not been confused between adopted sons and real sons of the Guru either, he would know the names of the youngest ones of the Guru. 

3. Since 1701 is out of question as a completion date the only other alternative available in manuscripts (1741) needs to be researched. What argument do both of you have against it being written in 1741 anyways? 

[dalsingh101]

3. Since 1701 is out of question as a completion date the only other alternative available in manuscripts (1741) needs to be researched. What argument do both of you have against it being written in 1741 anyways? 

Are you aware of your perpetual habit of putting words in people's mouths? 

 

I haven't made any decision regarding dating other than the obvious one that it was completed after 1708. In light of what you've mentioned previously I would agree that the 1711 date seems to verge on the arbitrary.

I must say, I personally do find it VERY surprising that it does not mention anything of the post 1708 events (i.e. Banda Singh) if it was composed in 1741.   

 

PS - I haven't discounted the possibility that the author might have been another Sainapati (i.e. not the darbari kavi). 

[SikhKhoj]

I am not saying that you are against 1741 date, I am asking you 'what arguments do you have against it'.

I must say, I personally do find it VERY surprising that it does not mention anything of the post 1708 events (i.e. Banda Singh) if it was composed in 1741.

 That is also what Ganda Singh says. But since the name is Gur Sobha and the book has a specific topic (i.e. Guru Gobind Singh) was there even a need to mention post 1708 events?

Well, again why do you even go for the 'maybe another Sainapati' if the text does not even mention Sainapati? Is it just because you (or I) feel uncomfortable at the idea that most previous scholars might have been wrong and perhaps the authors name was not Sainapati at all? It is the same as the 41st Vaar of Gurdas (Waho Waho Gobind Singh) being falsely attributed to Gurdas II when there is no proof, but just to find an easy way out they have attributed it to some Gurdas Singh which is wrong historically. I am not attacking you, just asking you politely.

[dalsingh101]

I agree with you: I have sometimes thought the link to Sainapati was tenuous.

 

I think we need a linguistic analysis of the manuscripts that can be attributed to Kavi Sainapati and compare with them Gursobha. This might help. 

 

But this type of high level analysis isn't our communities strong point and requires a lifetime of dedication, which the majority of people can't afford. 

[SikhKhoj]

True. But it is high time we dated our historical works appropriately and also rated them like Muslims have done for the Hadiths on their general authenticity.

There are two known works extant of Sainapati where he mentions is his name, perhaps we could compare both to this.

More manuscripts need to be researched too. Besides Shamsher Singh Ashok who had compiled a list of all manuscripts in the Sikh Reference Library we haven't had many scholars concerned with these type of activities. As a result some manuscripts have perished, some are kept in some unknown Gurdwaras around India and what not.

[dalsingh101]

But it is high time we dated our historical works appropriately and also rated them like Muslims have done for the Hadiths on their general authenticity.

 

Absolutely: who is going to do this though? 

[SikhKhoj]

SGPC won't, Takhts won't nor will most Sampardas. It is Khojis like you & amardeep that need to get started on this. Somehow. Maybe a 'mass collaboration' with like minded people under guidance of some professors. Don't know about the funding though, travel to search for and inspect manuscripts will take both time and money (and dedication).

 

 

[dalsingh101]

Truth is: whilst people like you and me might be fascinated with such a study and deem it worthwhile, the VAST majority of the Sikh community wouldn't be remotely interested or consider it significant to their lives. 

 

I'd love to see it though. 

 

Realistically speaking, the best I think we will manage is the odd partial translation. Have you ever translated anything?

Edited June 10, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

True. But it is necessary...

Well I have in the past but always discovered that translations already existed... afterwards! haha

My first try was at the Mukatnama in Sau Sakhi and in Suraj Parkash. Sau Sakhi one was already translated in English in the 1870s lol

What about you?

[dalsingh101]

Just tiny bits and pieces: it's all on this forum somewhere.

[SikhKhoj]

Good.

Many books have been translated in English but they're not widely available or its just not known. Mahan Kosh and even Prof Sahib Singhs Teeka has been translated I think. Gur Sobha is also available in English. This is why I don't focus on translating but rather doing an internal analysis, finding errors and trying to look up more about unpublished manuscripts.

So what arguments can you think off against dating Gur Sobha in 1741?

BTW, why can't one PM you?

Edited June 11, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

I don't like PMs. My general policy is: you got something to say, say it in the open. Don't skulk about in the shadows. 

 

I got to add - to me personally, it seems very unnatural that Sainapati restrained himself from even remotely mentioning/referring to the unprecedented tumult and changes he must have witnessed (and/or heard about) in post 1708 Panjab if it was written in 1741. 

Your 'thematic' argument is a point, but I find it hard to imagine a writer that is so obviously preoccupied with recording details could have resisted relating the tumult he must have witnessed (or at least heard of) to the mission of the Guru. i.e. the subsequent killing of Wazir Khan. 

Plus I would imagine by that time (1741), the legend of dasmesh pita and the sahibzaday would have become concrete and common knowledge in Sikh folklore, and there would have been less chance of the errors he made in this respect. On the other hand, he IS a human, and we all know how easy it is to make a careless error when writing.  

Some things to explore - maybe the writer died soon after 1708? What dates do the the other purported Sainapati manuscripts have? What is the latest date on them? Is there any extant manuscripts indicating that he wrote other things after 1708? Or does the other stuff predate Gursobha?

Edited June 11, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

* The latest date found on Gur Sobha manuscripts is 1741.

The other manuscripts attributed to Sainapati include Chanakya so I think that was written in Gurus Darbar.

* Being written in 1741 does not result in making some things concrete and common knowledge, just read the few books written around that time like Gurbilas Pt 10 and Bansawlinama to see what kind of theories and stories were floating around. 

But my point, that a Darbari Kavi - who lived with the Guru - can't make a mistake on atleast the names of the Sahibzadas is valid... It was not just a 'careless mistake', the author is really confused on the sahibzadas names, mixes up adopted sons with the real ones and fails to give one name of the (I think) youngest Sahibzada.

* Well one of the Sri Gur Sobhas I read had an interesting thing to say about Gur Sobha. The fact that he ran away from Gurus Darbar and started farming (since he was a Jatt). The Guru called him but he did not go back. They even quoted a communication where Sainapat apparently doesn't want to go back. I did not find the historical proofs for such but this shows that perhaps he did not write after leaving Gurus darbar at all. 

* Another problem I have with accepting a writing of around 1708 with the author being a Darbari Kavi is:

If the author was a darbari kavi, then he had first hand knowledge and saw the Guru and Singhs in action. This means his written word is authentic and should be taken quite seriously. But then I find some things in his writings that seem to hint towards the fact that Singhs under the Guru were bandits, trouble makers and what not. This 'theory' has later been incorporated in Panth Parkash Pracheen by Rattan Singh.

If we are not sensible in putting a right date on this book, it will give rise to people (of other faiths) to use this as an authenticated source for the Singhs misbehaviour and criminal activies like plundering towns etc to in turn demean and belittle our faith. We need to react proactively, something we Sikhs never do.

Before proceeding, have you read the Gur Sobha fully?

Edited June 11, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[chatanga1]

Can i ask what difference it would make trying to date GurSobha? Sikh literature is extremely weak in the early 18th century so why not just go within a reasonable half century figure.

What would be more fascinating to read? A historical account from those times or a date?

[SikhKhoj]

No one is stopping you from reading the fascinating account, atleast don't obstruct others when they try to do something productive.

Dating a text is important. Both for ourselves and also to prevent from anti Sikh forces from using our own sources to debunk us. Its happening to major religions, and being foresighted it will happen to us in the future too. We need to be prepared for it.

DalSingh doesn't seem to have read the text fully I suppose. Dal, I suggest you to read the full Granth and then we'll talk about a possible dating.

[chatanga1]

Dating a text is important. Both for ourselves and also to prevent from anti Sikh forces from using our own sources to debunk us. Its happening to major religions, and being foresighted it will happen to us in the future too. We need to be prepared for it.

​now you sound like those murican end of the world types.

i fear your over zealousness in irrelevant detail is making you miss the bigger picture.

[SikhKhoj]

Thats why some phuddus quote historical texts and omit lines just prior to the one they quote. Do you know the meaning of 'chaant'?

And its not irrelevant detail, just because you don't have the mental capacities to comprehend the context or need for this doesn't mean its irrelevant. History is important. babaneaa kahaneea put saput karen

[chatanga1]

And its not irrelevant detail, just because you don't have the mental capacities to comprehend the context or need for this doesn't mean its irrelevant. History is important. babaneaa kahaneea put saput karen

​how will nailing it's date change anything in or about the granth?

[SikhKhoj]

Will change the authenticity of the things reported in the Granth. Why is it so difficult to understand that there is a difference in some random poet saying something about the Guru/Singhs in 1741 as compared to a Darbari Kavi in 1708? 

The Gur Sobha talks about Singhs looting (or plundering, I don't remember been a long time since Ive read it). And this was the early 1700s, the time when Sainapati was supposedly with Guru Ji in his court. So the dating of the document is important in my humble opinion.