Sri Gur Sobha: authenticity & dating

[dalsingh101]

See what you can find out about the biography, it might be another early source?

[SikhKhoj]

I definitely will. All extant manuscripts of RCS are divided in the same way, i.e. rehat part, biography part & tankhah part. Some have an additional prologue explaining why the document was created.

But that shows that GS Manns theory (which does sound plausible) that the 3 parts belong to 3 different authors might never be proven unless manuscripts are found which lack one or more segments.

[dalsingh101]

Dude, you seem to have access to lots of manuscripts.

 

What I now say, I say respectfully and not as an insult:

 

Are you ever going to do some serious study into all of this and then share your findings, beyond just talking about it?

If you just complete 1 or 2 projects before you die, it would be worthwhile (same for me).

 

 

[SikhKhoj]

You are right DalSingh. Even one or two projects would be worthwhile. Definitely thinking of doing something along those lines but as I am not a full time researcher it does get a bit complicated with ghar parivaar. But its a lifetime thing, 1/2 projects a lifetime should be doable.

What about yourself? Any plans? How often do you go to Punjab?

[SikhKhoj]

*

Edited July 3, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

What about yourself? Any plans? How often do you go to Punjab?

I try and avoid it like the plague. Makes me sick. All those pendus... lol

 

In any case, I think just translating and commenting on what is already openly available would be enough for someone like me (and no walk in park either!). Asides from that, given modern technology, I don't think it is (or at least it shouldn't be) necessary to have to travel to see documents. Come on man! What is the point of the web!  Traveling would cost a huge fortune in aeroplane tickets,  let alone the massive carbon footprint.

Edited June 21, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

lol @ pendus.

You are right about the 'not having to travel' part. But not all documents have been digitized, and some need to be discovered before they can be digitized. You can't wait Panjabdigilib to digitize them all. As I said earlier, if I had the means I would get someone in Punjab to digitize for me. For now it is limited to the times I visit the places myself, which is not so often either.

Whats your thoughts on Prem Sumarag?

[dalsingh101]

lol @ pendus.

You are right about the 'not having to travel' part. But not all documents have been digitized, and some need to be discovered before they can be digitized. You can't wait Panjabdigilib to digitize them all. As I said earlier, if I had the means I would get someone in Punjab to digitize for me. For now it is limited to the times I visit the places myself, which is not so often either.

 

Everyone has their own role(s). 

The role of locating and securing access to manuscripts is one that requires a lot more diplomacy and patience than I'll ever have. lol

 Where are you based ​if you don't mind me asking?

 

 

Whats your thoughts on Prem Sumarag?

 

I think it is a illuminating and seriously fascinating granth. The section on marriage is so far ahead of its times that we still haven't reached its wisdom in the community today in the 21st century...

 

Bits that were not included in the Randhir Singh/McLeod edition are also of interest: what did the manuscript have to say about consuming halal meat? Date wise we can conservatively argue that it may well have come from the late 1700s (if not earlier).

 

As a rehat it is unusually sophisticated, and obviously written by a highly educated person. Again, a lot of historical research keeps point to the fact that our past community wasn't dominated by the mentality and backwardness of rural, pendu farmers like it is today. It's a shame really. 

 

By the way - had a quick read of the opening pages of Ganda Singh's Gursobha where he writes about the authorship of the document. In light of what we've been talking about here recently, it REALLY does seem to be on the tenuous side...

Edited June 22, 2015 by dalsingh101

[SikhKhoj]

*

Edited July 3, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

I have read that McLeod rejected his own dating (early 19th century?) in favor of an early 18th century date later in his life.

He was forced to.revise his dating because G S Mann (UK one), found an old translation of Prem Sumarag by a white man from the beginning of the 19th century. He was pushing for a later date than this previously. 

 

Don't know about the bits that were left out but as for any Granth detailed research must take place.

 

For this one we have major work done already. What we need is for someone to copy down the missing sections and analyse them. 

 

Good to see that you read the preface by Ganda Singh on Gur Sobha. It is indeed very tenuous... Thats what I have been saying on the past 6 pages haha. Basically all historians just accepted the notion that Sainapati wrote it because it was a common belief, no one from Bhai Nabha to Ganda Singh tried to challenge this belief.

True. 

[SikhKhoj]

*

Edited July 3, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

To be honest even if the omitted portions allowed the use of kuttha meat its not surprising; there is a specific context. Generally halal is not acceptable even according to Gurbani, thus we could argue that halal was forbidden/discouraged since the earlier Gurus times.

But I have often heard from elders that during the times Singhs used to attack Mughal camps (at twelve o clock lol), our forefathers would not only kill sullay and do kabja on their weapons/money but also food which ofcourse contained (halal) meat. They would get a kirpan to touch it and deem it parvan. I have no sources but just heard it from many elder Singhs. So yeah.

Edited June 23, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[dalsingh101]

 

Mcleod compared one of his translated chapters with the chapters translated by Leyden (late 18th century at most) and found that the former was much larger, hinting at big time interpolations over time (I know you will say 'but that is normal, one should expect this... but this also means there exists a probability of an older ms being there). There have been claims about early 18th century manuscripts. Maybe some search work can lead to ... an older and (more) authentic manuscript? Apparently there is one author who claims there is an extant manuscript from Banda Singh Bahadur time, who knows it might be true?

​Who is this author who claims to have a manuscript from Banda Singh's time? 

Prem Sumarag is even more interesting for me because the style of writing is unusual for Sikh rehat type writings. By this I mean the sort of rolling narrative. No rhyming. An almost measured delivery. It's sophistication is what really surprises me today.  Of course we need to locate and identify the earliest versions. Even in the case of interpolations, its nice to see that the writer didn't bundle in a load of pendu shite in the mix. I mean, it's still all sophisticated.  

I know you will say 'but that is normal, one should expect this...

See you're doing that obnoxious thing of attributing words to people in a stupid way. I don't think we should 'expect this' but we should try and obviously identify when this has clearly happened.

 

One thing though; many people love dating this to Guru Maharajs darbar and early 1700s but do not like when it is shown that there is a difference in regards to Rehat Maryada of Khandi Ki Pahul amongst other things... Double standards? 

I think it is more simpler than that. The drive for standardisation stemmed from the colonial experience. It was probably in reaction to criticisms that the Sikh faith was inconsistent and incoherent (probably mainly from the Abrahamic faiths). So this lead to a pressurised drive to  prove otherwise to both outsiders and confused insiders.

 

We've come up in a generation that is unravelling this but we still get people raised up in the standardised paradigm that react very badly to any sort of questioning or challenge to what they have been taught. It's probably down to cognitive dissonance than double standards? 

[SikhKhoj]

I might have the name of the scholar claiming it somewhere in my notes, will get back to you on that. If I'm not mistaken Kamalroop Singh also claims to have seen a 1701 copy, don't really trust that though.

Agreed about standardization process being linked with British annexation of Punjab. And perhaps also about it more being a cognitive dissonance thing rather than double standards.

Regarding what I said earlier about Chaupa Rehat (in its current form) not being the work of a single author:

 Grewal and Mann have argued that the prologue and the rahit  part of the Rahitnama  known
after Chaupa Singh were composed in the time Guru Gobind Singh, and the two narratives
and the tankhah part in the text published by McLeod were added later. Thus, we find that four
Rahitnamas  in full and a substantial portion of the Rahitnama associated with Chaupa Singh
can be placed in the time of Guru Gobind Singh. This new perspective calls for fresh interpretation.

Some internal evidence also seems to be in favor of it being 3 seperate texts.

[Crystal]

On 6/13/2015 at 1:25 AM, SikhKhoj said:

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.

The english translation I read was guruji was with singhs when they looted certain villages who were against them on their way to the deccan, talks about them all being armed with five weapons.