Sri Gur Sobha: authenticity & dating

[chatanga1]

Will change the authenticity of the things reported in the Granth.

 

The Gur Sobha talks about Singhs looting

How will a change of  authenticity have any bearing on the content?

What do you find repulsive about Singhs looting?

​

[dalsingh101]

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.

I'm surprised that you are surprised with this?

Bachitar Natak refers to something similar. 

Plus have you mixed with pendu Singhs?  That's exactly the type of stuff they would get up to if they were given an opportunity. lol

 

I got to say: it does appear as if you are whitewashing history according to your own imagination/projection of how you think Singhs in dasmesh pita's time would've behaved.

[SikhKhoj]

DalSingh, have you read the full acount? Don't beat around the bush because you're not in a position to talk about it if you haven't read it.

Secondly, you haven't been able to refute all my points regarding to Sri Gur Sobha being dated to early 18th century, but when I give my personal opinion, which I have not used in any of my arguments, you claim I'm whitewashing history? 

There is not a single proof in the book saying Sainapati wrote it. The writer made some stupid mistakes regarding the Sahibzadas. The date given inside of completion is 1701 which is false, other manuscripts have 1741 which makes more sense. I want to know what kind of agenda people like you and amardeep who are hell bent on giving this manuscript an early 18th century date when there is no proof and you guys and the previous scholars have only been relying on the INTERNAL date which is not a sufficient proof.

[SikhKhoj]

There are Granths of the early 18th century saying Guru Tegh Bahadur did atam hatya, do you believe that too? You have to be critical of these books, many were written on the sole intention of distorting Sikhi. Don't believe me? Read Bani floated under the name of Mehla 7/8. Do you think the Panj Mels did not try to attack Sikhi in such ways?

I am not ascribing Sri Gur Sobha to one of these sects, just saying that some books do claim things that can't be true. 

There is a Puratan Granth of 18th century (early) that says Guru Hargobind kidnapped a woman. Now comeon Dal, open your eyes. You couldn't give a single argument in favor of Gur Sobha being early 18th  century when I was giving factual evidence but when I gave my (personal) opinion on the matter you suddenly become vexed on me whitewashing history? 
You could allege whitewashing if I had not given a single argument against the early 1700s date, but I have given several arguments and then put forward what I personally think. 

I do agree that it is not very scholarly but it is not my main argument either, unlike people (not you) who claim Gur Sobha was written 1711 because it doesn't mention Banda. Now that being used as a main argument is so weak (Ganda Singh did). I gave several arguments so there is no talk about whitewashing.

Edited June 13, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

And Dal, I am not surprised by the fact that it mentions Singhs looted. Have read more puratan Granths than you can imagine and have come across stuff that would give you sleepless nights.

[dalsingh101]

And Dal, I am not surprised by the fact that it mentions Singhs looted. Have read more puratan Granths than you can imagine and have come across stuff that would give you sleepless nights.

​It may give YOU sleepless nights. Not me. Firstly I'm not a pussy, and secondly I don't imagine all Singhs to have been angelic beings in the past. 

Not everyone who disagrees with you has an 'agenda' by the way. Some of us are simply not sure of specific details, or bizarrely insistent that they have deciphered the truth. You're exhibiting a somewhat paranoid  mindset. I think you've got some serious personality issues. 

I've gone through it all, but as Panjabi isn't my first language, a lot wasn't clear to me. I've got the English translation but unfortunately a heavy workload doesn't allow me to dedicate the time I need to go through it and compare it to the original text. 

By the way: just because you've read a million 'puratan granths' it doesn't mean you can't be an idiot....

 

Don't forget: In the end, all you've got is theories - just like the rest of us.

Edited June 13, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

Apne muho miyan mitthu ni banida mittra, pussy kaun aa te kaun nai ehda faisla tu aap na kar. Sama karu os cheej da faisla

We all know Singhs were not angelic, but we also know (if you have read some puratan likhats) that alot of bakwas and gandh has been attributed to both the Gurus and the Singhs, so we need to be wary before accepting anything & everything.

I don't have theories. I give facts. 

Manuscripts have two completion dates; 1701 and 1741. 1701 can be ruled out, only possibility remaining is 1741 if you discard the bullock and weak theory that 'nothing mentioned between 1708-1741' means it was written in 1708. A book about 9/11 does NOT have to mention the subsequent invasions and wars, each book has a topic.

I have seen your level of intellect by the amateurish posts you used to make not long ago on sikhsangat etc (regarding puratan granths). So lets not resort to name calling 

[dalsingh101]

For someone who claims to have read so many puratan granths, you really do a poor job in expanding our knowledge based on all of this research. 

 

And I'm not trying to insult you by saying this btw. 

 

You'd be better off [and so would we] if you stuck to translating something and offering that out instead maybe?

 

[SikhKhoj]

You know your worth, I know mine. 

I am yet waiting for a decent answer to my arguments against dating it early 1700s nor will you because you can't. And don't come here and say you learnt nothing. You did not know that Sainapati  ran away from Gurus darbar. (it is mentioned in the preface to one of the Gur Sobhas floating around with relevant quotations). it surely did expand your knowledge.

You've not even read the full Granth, so do yourself a favor by spending the time you spend on here trying to push an early 1700s date for Gur sobha to instead read the Granth, and maybe in the process enhance your Punjabi skills.

Edited June 13, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

I'm currently in the process of locating a manuscript ascribed to a Singh with Banda Singh Bahadur. Besides that I'm busy analysing some Puratan Granth ascribed to Dasam Pita (Dharam Shaastr Vijay Mukt) & have had some good conclusions regarding its general authenticity, dating and language analysis.

Maybe you should also get in touch with some professors or places that house many unpublished manuscipts. BS Sahitya Kendar could be a good start and so would the different university libraries in Punjab. Translation is not whats needed most because it IS happening (slowly but it is...) but what is not happening is unpublished manuscripts being analyzed and published. Instead we are losing them with time. Panjabdigilib is doing a good job but they can't digitize everything because not every source is in Punjab or Punjabi.

Edited June 13, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

You did not know that Sainapati  ran away from Gurus darbar. (it is mentioned in the preface to one of the Gur Sobhas floating around with relevant quotations). it surely did expand your knowledge.

You want me to take your word for it? You could say anything in this way without providing evidence. If you'd scanned the original manuscript page (and provided a location) and maybe transcribed the text in Panjabi to make your point I'd be more inclined to believe what you're saying. Other than that, it's just another unsubstantiated claim on the Internet right now.  

 

 

You've not even read the full Granth, so do yourself a favor by spending the time you spend on here trying to push an early 1700s date for Gur sobha to instead read the Granth, and maybe in the process enhance your Punjabi skills.

I do plenty to try and enhance my Panjabi skills when I get the time mate. 

 

 

Translation is not whats needed most because it IS happening (slowly but it is...) but what is not happening is unpublished manuscripts being analyzed and published.

Are you kidding me? SGPC sat on part 2 of Bhangu's Panth Prakash for YEARS before they finally published it - for no apparent reason (probably trying to hide all the ugly truth about jatts inside??). Other translations have generally come from western universities like the translation of Chaupa Singh rehat, Gur Sobha, Prem Sumarag and other rehat-namas etc. You lot back home don't look like you're doing much in terms of opening up early sources for a wider audience (especially the English speaking diaspora Sikhs). Okay we have the odd exception like Habib's and Grewals translations of Persian sources but generally we've come to (sadly) expect little from you all. 

 

[SikhKhoj]

Ain't based in India bai ji.

And the claim of Sainapati running away is not in a manuscript, its in the preface of one of the published Gur Sobhas. I'll let you know if I find it. But in that preface they quote an old source of a communication where Sainapati refuses to go back to the court or something along those lines.

And open your eyes. Gur Sobha has not only been translated under GS Mann by Ami Shah but also Kulwant Singh from India. Here is a small link with what they WANT to translate but have not been able to due to lack of maya:

http://sikhinstitute.org/res.htm

so easy to point fingers at others. They have translated several books including Gur Sobha and Panth Parkash. Look at the list of books they plan to translate.

A book that is published can wait with translation, an obscure manuscript lying with some careless person won't stay there for years. Whatever you say, I don't agree that translation > printing unpublished manuscripts.

Edited June 14, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

And I told you earlier too not to expect anything from SGPC. They are phuddus and worse than masands and mahants.

[SikhKhoj]

Let me tell you a small story about something that happened with our scholar Dr Trilochan Singh. He was on a visit outside of Punjab to a historical place related to the Gurus and saw the sevadars doing safai and in the 'kachra/gand' there were some pages of a manuscript. Guess what? They were part of an quite authentic source from the early 18th century about Guru Gobind Singh. Had it not been for Dr Saab the pages would have been lost forever (most probably).

We might blame invaders, the Sarkar in 1984 for losing our invaluable wealth in literature but we are the biggest fools as we did not preserve the manuscripts properly, nor did we get many published and I am very sure that more damage was done by our own ignorant people than the 'Mughals, brahmins' or Indian sarkar'.

Thats why I say that translations are fine but there are people taking care of it, whether in India or abroad (GS Mann, late Mcleod as you mentioned) but I don't know of many people actually trying to locate manuscripts and print them? (Panjabdigilib is already doing a good job but we need dedicated Sikhs to locate several manuscripts of one granth to compare, analyze and subsequently get it printed so its available to the wider Panth and world)
Many books that I read from the early to mid 20th century always quote from certain Granths (unpublished) that are now not tracable?

So Dal... Hope you get my point of view and agree to an extent atleast.

Edited June 14, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Chatanga and Dalsingh:

I wondered about incidents of looting taking place amongst the 18th century Khalsa as well (sources mention this happening from the time of the early Khalsa all the way up to the late misl period). After having struggled with this for a long time (on a personal level - as Dalsingh says because sometimes we have a romantic view of the Khalsa so stuff like this do get to us) I came across an interesting man who told me that the looting DID indeed take place as mentioned in the writings. BUT it was not targeted against civilians in the villages. The looting was against the "tax collectors" and local authorities in the villages -  these taxes would under normal circumstances been transfered to either the Rajput or Mughal overlords . So when the Sikhs attacked the villages they were NOT attacking villagers but rather the local political structure of the areas, - vassalage, rulership etc.

By the early and later Khalsa looting the tax collectors, the Khalsa was challenging the political structure of the time -  it goes hand in hand with other Khalsa injunctionos of the time of either being rebels or rulers, not to acknowledge external judicial courts, not to obey external rulers or pay taxes etc.

[dalsingh101]

After having struggled with this for a long time (on a personal level - as Dalsingh says because sometimes we have a romantic view of the Khalsa so stuff like this do get to us) I came across an interesting man who told me that the looting DID indeed take place as mentioned in the writings. BUT it was not targeted against civilians in the villages. The looting was against the "tax collectors" and local authorities in the villages -  these taxes would under normal circumstances been transfered to either the Rajput or Mughal overlords . So when the Sikhs attacked the villages they were NOT attacking villagers but rather the local political structure of the areas, - vassalage, rulership etc.

You need to grow out of that way of thinking: although that point you made above about an overtly conscious political aspect to looting, is indeed valid and would have motivated some. To think that people in hordes restrained themselves from looting civilian homes (like say when Sirhind was overrun) is bordering on the puerile. 

It's that romanticist streak again (in my opinion). And it's a real big hindrance to analysing history. We've already had enough of that from Singh Sabha. Personally I prefer the truth - warts and all. 

For God's sake look how savage and backwards Panjabis are today in the 21st century! lol They were probably even worse back then!  

Edited June 14, 2015 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

We might blame invaders, the Sarkar in 1984 for losing our invaluable wealth in literature but we are the biggest fools as we did not preserve the manuscripts properly, nor did we get many published and I am very sure that more damage was done by our own ignorant people than the 'Mughals, brahmins' or Indian sarkar'.

I agree. Overly pious pendu idiocy like 'cremating' unwell granths hasn't helped. Difficulties with reading puratan lariwaar by modern day apnay plays a part too.  Families have obviously inherited manuscripts - the contents of which, they are completely ignorant of.  

 

Thats why I say that translations are fine but there are people taking care of it, whether in India or abroad (GS Mann, late Mcleod as you mentioned) but I don't know of many people actually trying to locate manuscripts and print them? (Panjabdigilib is already doing a good job but we need dedicated Sikhs to locate several manuscripts of one granth to compare, analyze and subsequently get it printed so its available to the wider Panth and world)
Many books that I read from the early to mid 20th century always quote from certain Granths (unpublished) that are now not tracable?

 

See, you have to remember that what we are doing here is like an English student studying ancient Ye Olde English writings like Chaucer's Cantebury Tales or Shakespeare. It's a very small group of people who do that, even in the (comparatively) highly literate society of England. Even the most patriotic English man or women isn't interested. But luckily for them, enough interest exists in the powerful elites of the country that there are no problems with funding some crusty old bores to study such texts at the highest level (i.e. Cambridge/Oxford). 

My point is that patronage and demand dictates progress in the type of projects you mention above. And I'd say right now, despite our own personal passions and interest, community-wise, there doesn't seem to be a much demand or interest.      Though there does seem to be a small but growing interest by Sikhs in the west.

 

So Dal... Hope you get my point of view and agree to an extent atleast.

I get what you are saying but still, the fact that there aren't translations of Koer and Sukha Singhs' Gurbilas, Kesar SIngh Chibber's work, Gurbilas Patshahi 6 and other well known early sources like that is disgraceful . You can't deny that. 

[SikhKhoj]

Amardeep:

Stop being a jnani. You can direct posts at me too ;)

[SikhKhoj]

Dal

I won't deny that its disgraceful, it really is. Attar Singh (even though one might call him a pitthu of the firanghis) was busy translating several books like Sau Sakhi & Rehatnamas for the British already in the 19th century, it is sad that we did not continue doing that. He also translated a late 18th century book called Sakhi Pothi. Don't know if its available at the moment, try to see if you can get it.

Definitely right about patronage. If we find someone really interested in Punjab we could do some wonders, 15,000 rs is a decent amount to earn in Punjab for simply locating manuscripts, digitizing them etc while it is close to nothing here in the west. (dedh sau pound) But apna kinda hath tight chalda at the moment so yeah.

 

 

[chatanga1]

Are you kidding me? SGPC sat on part 2 of Bhangu's Panth Prakash for YEARS before they finally published it -

 

​Dal how did you find this out? Its published by IOSS which is not known as close to the SGPC.

[chatanga1]

Let me tell you a small story about something that happened with our scholar Dr Trilochan Singh. He was on a visit outside of Punjab to a historical place related to the Gurus and saw the sevadars doing safai and in the 'kachra/gand' there were some pages of a manuscript. Guess what? They were part of an quite authentic source from the early 18th century about Guru Gobind Singh. Had it not been for Dr Saab the pages would have been lost forever (most probably).

We might blame invaders, the Sarkar in 1984 for losing our invaluable wealth in literature but we are the biggest fools as we did not preserve the manuscripts properly, nor did we get many published and I am very sure that more damage was done by our own ignorant people than the 'Mughals, brahmins' or Indian sarkar'.

Thats why I say that translations are fine but there are people taking care of it, whether in India or abroad (GS Mann, late Mcleod as you mentioned) but I don't know of many people actually trying to locate manuscripts and print them? (Panjabdigilib is already doing a good job but we need dedicated Sikhs to locate several manuscripts of one granth to compare, analyze and subsequently get it printed so its available to the wider Panth and world)
Many books that I read from the early to mid 20th century always quote from certain Granths (unpublished) that are now not tracable?

So Dal... Hope you get my point of view and agree to an extent atleast.

​I do, and I agree the primary focus should be on preservation.

[SikhKhoj]

Just to clarify, I don't feel uneasy at the things mentioned before. In fact I love to point out that territory was seized by the Gurus Singhs to people who oppose an independant Sikh raaj (not the 'khalsa rule world' type mentality). I also don't feel uneasy digesting the fact that Banda killed loads of sullay or that Nalwa used to instill fear into those lawless Pathan sullay by some drastic measures. But the Guru ordering the loot is not right, or 'Khalsa' doing such without Guru reprimanding them is not a possibility because that goes against Sikh tenets. 

I see Chatanga liking Amardeeps theory, but lets talk facts & not fancy stuff. What does Gur Sobha say? I refer you both to Adhyay 11:

TABAI KHALSA AISI KARAI
HOYE ASVAAR GAVN PAI CHARAI
JO AGAY TE MILNE AVAI
BAST RAHAI KACHU BHET CHARAVAI 
KARAI BLAM BHET NAHI DEYI
TA KO LOOT KHALSA LEYI

My translation:
then the Khalsa did the following, the mounted on horses and went towards the villages. Whoever (jo agay) came with offerings was left alone. The ones who did not make offerings, the Khalsa looted from them.

 

So lets not read too much in between the lines. 

[SikhKhoj]

And glad we agree on something at last, Chatanga. Even though we did agree intially on the importance of preserving Pak Gurdwaray 

[chatanga1]

 

My translation:
then the Khalsa did the following, the mounted on horses and went towards the villages. Whoever (jo agay) came with offerings was left alone. The ones who did not make offerings, the Khalsa looted from them.

 

​can't see a problem or anything unusual with it.

[SikhKhoj]

Okay, I respect that. But the Gur Sobha doesn't support amardeeps theory of only looting the tax collectors or whatever.

Another fact is that the manuscripts either say 1701 or 1741. Trying to find a date near 1708 would defy all existing proofs just for the sake of obtaining a 'contempnary source'. Gal khatm.