Sri Gur Sobha: authenticity & dating

[chatanga1]

Dal, I've found the reference for my claims. This will be interesting to all those seriously looking into this Granth.

Bava Sumer Singh in his Prem Parkash (late 19th century) does mention that Kavi Sainapat left the Gurus court and did not come back even when the Guru asked for it. 

From this we can conclude that Sainpat (the real kavi) did not live with the Guru for a long time, or atleast not till the last days in Nanded. 

So even if we ascribe this Granth to the Darbari kavi, we can be sure that all he wrote after a certain period was based on hearsay as you said (this is also corraborated by internal evidence where the author says he bases his account on hearsay).

​See, now this IS interesting. And to think you quibble over dates . I have the book by Bawa Sumer Singh. Will have a look at it over the weekend.

[dalsingh101]

​See, now this IS interesting. And to think you quibble over dates . I have the book by Bawa Sumer Singh. Will have a look at it over the weekend.

​Be sure to post any interesting extracts. 

 

See if we can find out Bawa Sumer Singh's source.

Edited June 16, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

It is interesting, but not as interesting as the internal evidence tbh.

[dalsingh101]

Talking of interesting:

 ਭਏ ਤਯਾਰ ਹਿਥਿਆਰ ਪਾਚੋਂ ਕਸੇ ਸਿੰਘ ਤਿਹ ਠਉਰ ਬਨ ਬੇਗ ਆਏ। 
ਏਕ ਸੋ ਏਕ ਬਲਵੰਤ ਸੂਰਾ ਸਰਸ ਟਾਂਕ ਦੁਇ ਤੀਨ ਆਫੂ ਹੜਾਏ। 599

Ami translates it as:

 

Armed with five weapons they were ready and the Singhs arrived at that place promptly.

Each and every brave warrior had some opium with him.

Definitions of ਆਫੂ 

 

ਮਾਫ਼, ਬਖ਼ਸ਼।

 

Mahan Kosh Encyclopedia

ਦੇਖੋ, ਅਫੀਮ. "ਅਮਲੀ ਮਿਸ਼ਰੀ ਛਾਡਕੈ ਆਫੂ ਖਾਤ ਸਰਾਹਿ". (ਵ੍ਰਿੰਦ)। (2) ਦੇਖੋ, ਅਫਵ. "ਗੁਨਹਿ ਉਸ ਕੇ ਸਗਲ ਆਫੂ". (ਤਿਲੰ ਮਃ ੫).  Mahan Kosh data provided by Bhai Baljinder Singh (RaraSahib Wale); See http://www.ik13.com

[SikhKhoj]

***

Edited June 18, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

I'll tell you what page to read for Prem Parkash, Chatanga.

[dalsingh101]

DalSingh, whats your take on that?

Well firstly post YOUR interpretation of those lines for us to reflect on for God's sake! lol

 

And yeah, you got some very interesting points. Obviously the author couldn't be at all of the places he writes about. I mean the narration even goes into details about Daya Singh's journey with some communication from dasmesh pita to Aurangzaab (thought to be Zafarnama). It seems highly unlikely that he could have been at all of these places - so yes, it stands to reason that he used information from other people. 

 

It also interesting to contemplate the idea that maybe this Sainapati was not the darbari kavi with the same name. But again, serious comparisons between extant manuscripts would have to take place to try and establish this.  I mean in militant times a name like Sainapati (commander) may have been common? What is obvious is that the writer is very talented, and VERY thorough with his subject. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

Why even look for another Sainapati when it does not mention the name Sainapati once? I thought you were trying to be unbiased and consistent in your approach? Don't take it as an attack but you seem to be chained by the idea that Sainapati wrote this, despite lack of evidence.

Don't mind but can't share my translation at the moment, got some other senstive information too but will leave that for in the article/book analyzing Gur Sobha and other books like Mukatnama (Sau Sakhi), Vijay Mukat, etc. Thats why I was refraining from adding new perspectives to the discussions. Perhaps due to the necessity to have a contemponary source to Guru Ji, our historians forgot to adress some important issues regarding the manuscripts, language, comparison in style with the 2 books ascribed to Sainapati and internal evidence.

 

[SikhKhoj]

Chandra sain was a common name. Sainapati was not.

[dalsingh101]

Why even look for another Sainapati when it does not mention the name Sainapati once? I thought you were trying to be unbiased and consistent in your approach? Don't take it as an attack but you seem to be chained by the idea that Sainapati wrote this, despite lack of evidence.

Don't mind but can't share my translation at the moment, got some other senstive information too but will leave that for in the article/book analyzing Gur Sobha and other books like Mukatnama (Sau Sakhi), Vijay Mukat, etc. Thats why I was refraining from adding new perspectives to the discussions. Perhaps due to the necessity to have a contemponary source to Guru Ji, our historians forgot to adress some important issues regarding the manuscripts, language, comparison in style with the 2 books ascribed to Sainapati and internal evidence.

 

​I hear you. 

 

Right now, so many people have a vested interest in it being by the Jat Sainapati, I mean J. S. Grewal (as can be expected from him...) kind of uses it for proof of Jat literacy at that time. Ganda Singh may have pushed the theory on weak ground? Who knows? There are deep issues surrounding the text as you allude to: It's taken as a contemporary, eye witness account (where they are sparse to say the least). It bolsters a group that is determined to dominate and dictate the panth. 

All that being said, the way we need to see it (in my personal opinion), is that critical Sikh historiography is, in reality, in its nascent stages. I mean how many of the things we took for granted as fact growing up have turned out to be of murky provenance. Note how Gursobha also repeatedly refers to panj hathiar and not panj kakkar for example. 

 

Truth is that a critical reading of early sources rewrites a lot of what is commonly accepted as truth today. Anyone with half a brain could figure out that this will lead to more acrimony and conflict within the ranks...

Edited June 16, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

I agree. And btw, Gur Sobha being attributed to Sainapati dates from far before Ganda Singh; after the initial references in the 20th century, this fact was accepted by both Kahan Singh Nabha and Akali Kaur Singh. 

 

All that being said, the way we need to see it (in my personal opinion), is that critical Sikh historiography is, in reality, in its nascent stages. I mean how many of the things we took for granted as fact growing up have turned out to be of murky provenance. Note how Gursobha also repeatedly refers to panj hathiar and not panj kakkar for example. 

​Spot on. But who will risk openly writing articles about this without being labelled a GOI, RSS agent and being beaten in the khet? (I refer to the video where some missionary who was taken to the fields and beaten with battons for 'questioning' Guru Granth Sahib).  

A serious study is needed and it will indeed challenge accepted notions and may make us feel uneasy but we definitely do need it. I find it funny that (most of) our previous historians wasted months if not years on trivial issues instead of looking at the bigger picture, trying to preserve/document Guru Nanaks footprints in several countries (that have faded since), trying to locate manuscripts in the many museums, gurdwaras, gursikh families and libraries etc etc

[dalsingh101]

But who will risk openly writing articles about this without being labelled a GOI, RSS agent and being beaten in the khet? (I refer to the video where some missionary who was taken to the fields and beaten with battons for 'questioning' Guru Granth Sahib).  

You have to be tactful and put your research across gently and not like some obnoxious, know-it-all twat. As I've said previously, you're just putting across some theories, you're not infallible or incapable of oversights yourself (just like the rest of us). Coming in to explore and share information/ideas is very different to coming in to 'demonstrate' your cleverness or how stupid our previous scholars have been - and if anyone is coming onto the scene to feed their ego in this way, on some level they probably deserve a slap (or two).  

The other thing is, if your an apna, by now you should realise (and be prepared for) the backward savagery that is the norm in our society, especially amongst rural pendus (i.e. jats). My point is that anyone with even half a brain should be able to see what's coming.   

Have you got/seen the Akali Kaur Singh edition btw?

 

I find it funny that (most of) our previous historians wasted months if not years on trivial issues instead of looking at the bigger picture, trying to preserve/document Guru Nanaks footprints in several countries (that have faded since), trying to locate manuscripts in the many museums, gurdwaras, gursikh families and libraries etc etc

I don't think they wasted time. I think a lot of good ground-work was done especially by Ganda Singh. I think what happened under colonialism was that apnay were struggling to negotiate all the changes in power dynamics around them, and got slyly mugged off by Anglos who spun them this way and that (and patronised the more compliant). Plus by Ganda Singh's own admission, interest in critical history amongst the masses is a relatively new phenomena amongst apnay.  Ganda Singh writes in Gursobha's preface (translation my own):

 

 

 

 

When Panjabi magazines and newspapers started to be issued under the Singh Sabha movement’s drive for religious propagation and social reform, a desire for preserving and publishing literature in Panjabi arose too. The drift towards an affection and enthusiasm for history begotten through Bhai Santokh Singh’s Sri Gurpartaap Suraj Granth and Giani Gian Singh’s Panth Prakash and Twarikh Guru Khalsa, also caused some further attention to be drawn in this direction.

At the start of the 20th century the Chief Khalsa Diwan established a Historical Research Subcommittee and Sardar Karam Singh made up his mind to dedicate his life to the investigation and scrutiny of history. At this time Bhai Takhat Singh ji began to collect books for people conducting historical research and enquiry, making this [a central] consideration of the Bhai Ditt Singh library in Ferozpur. This was also the period where Bhai Vir Singh, in 1914, had Rattan Singh Bhangu’s Pracheen Panth Prakash published and composed many other historical tracts. During these very days Akali Kaur Singh ji Nihang inititated his own hunt for historical works and other literature. It was during this search that he came to receive two handwritten volumes of the poet Sainapati’s composition Sri Gur Sobha, and after performing a comparison between them, he had them published in Poh 457 Nanakshahi, Bikrami (December 1925 AD) through Bhai Nanak Singh Kirpal Singh Hazooria in Amritsar. It was in this way that this book [Gursobha] came to light.

Edited June 17, 2015 by dalsingh101

[chatanga1]

I'll tell you what page to read for Prem Parkash, Chatanga.

​Thanks

[chatanga1]

​Right now, so many people have a vested interest in it being by the Jat Sainapati,

​Didn't know Sainapati was a jat. where did you get this info?

[chatanga1]

Truth is that a critical reading of early sources rewrites a lot of what is commonly accepted as truth today. Anyone with half a brain could figure out that this will lead to more acrimony and conflict within the ranks...

​ So true.

[amardeep]

I dont think you guys are being completely fair. Sikh scholarship in Punjabi and English is long ahead compared to its small size and attention. Critical editions and analysis of manuscripts have been published of most major writings from Patiala University etc. which go far beyond a mere transliteration of text. The prefaces are critical and exhibit high standards of critical analysis which in many cases challenge popular perceptions and traditions. In the many published editions you will find the challenging of authorship, relations to similiar writings of the period, evolution of texts etc. Even this whole notion of lack of mentioning of 5 K's is not new in Punjabi scholarship - you can find it written in the books of Pyara Singh Padam etc.

 

Scholars like Pyara Singh Padam, Fauja Singh, Kirpal Singh, Sita Ram Kohli, Indu Banga, Ganda Singh, Randhir Singh, (SGPC wala), Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Sahib Singh etc. have done immense work that we should applaude. Be appreciative of the work done by people before you, - if it was'nt for them you probably would'n even be interested in all these topics.

Edited June 17, 2015 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

​Didn't know Sainapati was a jat. where did you get this info?

​

That's one of the things we've been discussing on the thread. There appears to have been a kavi fron a Jat background called Sainapati in Guru ji's darbar. But the author of Gursobha isn't explicitly mentioned in the original text. It MAY have been a mistake to attribute the text to Sainapati? 

 

 

[amardeep]

Chatanga: In his medicinal granth Sainapati gives some biographica data about himself: The name of his Vidiya Guru, his parents, where he was born and lived as well as his caste.

[dalsingh101]

Scholars like Pyara Singh Padam, Fauja Singh, Kirpal Singh, Sita Ram Kohli, Indu Banga, Ganda Singh, Randhir Singh, (SGPC wala), Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Sahib Singh etc. have done immense work that we should applaude. Be appreciative of the work done by people before you, - if it was'nt for them you probably would'n even be interested in all these topics.

Fair point. Like I said, some good groundwork has been done. Ganda Singh is especially appreciated for the way he brought outside sources (European and Persian) into the mix. Even though he did slant the information a particular way. Kahn Singh Nabha too. 

Look, I'm not saying what came before was rubbish, I'm just saying we are potentially on the cusp of major leaps in understanding, but that these may be in stark contradiction to how 'Sikhism' is practiced today. This easily becomes a problem given the nature of certain dogmatic sections of our people. 

 

[SikhKhoj]

I respect the previous scholars, ofcourse they did a lot of good things. But when I see the potential some had, and the topics they choose to write on, it is sad because they did not exploit their complete talent and potentials. Bhai Kahan Singh Ji did more than enough, big seva and so did a few others.

Besides that some historians actually did more wrong than good. I won't name some of them because they are no more, but some historians edited manuscripts badly before publishing them. And I am not only talking about Panth Parkash but many other Granths. Just because of some vested interests, to prove certain theories they made changes. I am not saying this without evidence, I have had personal talks with several scholars who have confirmed some bad things (omitting, changing paragraphs, etc) about some of our respected 'scholars'.

Yet we should appreciate what we have. True.

Dal, I have made a conclusion based on sound evidence that Gur Sobha is not Sainapati krit. I can't share them, since all of you were going berserk on me I did share a tiny clue regarding internal evidence.
I do agree that we have to put our points across carefully but the way Amardeep is acting and keeps referring to the scholars who date Gur Sobha in 1708-1711 by Sainapati Darbari Kavi made me pissed. So I wanted to put him in his place regarding Gur Sobha for future discussions.

Edited June 17, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

Critical editions and analysis of manuscripts have been published of most major writings from Patiala University etc. which go far beyond a mere transliteration of text. The prefaces are critical and exhibit high standards of critical analysis which in many cases challenge popular perceptions and traditions. In the many published editions you will find the challenging of authorship, relations to similiar writings of the period, evolution of texts etc.

​That is only for a few books. What about Das Gur Katha that was published based on one sole manuscript, directly attributed to Kavi Kankan because of the internal name reference and similiarity to Dasam Granth? If that is a critical analysis of high standard, then sadke tere lol

 

[amardeep]

"but the way Amardeep is acting and keeps referring to the scholars who date Gur Sobha in 1708-1711 by Sainapati Darbari Kavi made me pissed."

I've only reffered to ONE scholar who says that... I think the reason you got pissed is due to you having some sort of mental problems.

[SikhKhoj]

Or maybe because I don't like your pseudo intellectual attitude where you open your butha and refer to so called historians who give no proof. You refer to a **** like GS Mann who goes to the extent of saying Guru Ji might've correct Gur Sobha while direct internal evidence contradict it severely. Is that scholarly? Anparh pendu like me found the internal reference to the work being hearsay but a scholar like him keeps on doing bakwas without evidence. And you quote him like some brahmgyani chamchey keep quoting their brahmgyanis.

[amardeep]

Yeah bla bla fair enough if you can find a few examples where critical scholarship has not been applied. Even in those cases where the critical preface is missing, at least they are publishing the books which gives negative minded people like you the opportunity to read some of the gems in the manuscript archives.

 

Plus you are mixing up stuff as usual. You might find independendant publishing houses who merely print a text without having any analysis. And then you have the larger ones connected to Patiala university, Guru Nanak Dev University etc which have all those critical introductions of high standard.

 

But behold - the world has awaited your arrival to bring forth the truth.

Edited June 17, 2015 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

Chatanga: In his medicinal granth Sainapati gives some biographica data about himself: The name of his Vidiya Guru, his parents, where he was born and lived as well as his caste.

​If I recall rightly, Ganda Singh quotes the above information in his edition of the Gursobha (in case you want to chase it).