Rise of the status of Dasam Granth

[SikhKhoj]

Yeah Gurdas or Bhai Gurdas. Tu amb lene? You make no sense, talk sources or don't waste my time.

[chatanga1]

whether i do or not, talk with respect when you take his name.

[SikhKhoj]

 

Didn't you say on another topic that you have never said anything bad about Dasam Granth? Yet you say that our community are fools for depending on it?

 

Ok, so what is included? That would be a good place to start.

I don't see anything of the kind. There is nothing to see and that is precisely the point. What the eyes can't see, the mind will invent.

You see, your obsession with 18th century Sikh literature is not like a dog barking up the wrong tree. It's because there is no tree there. You are barking at thin air. You can make more or less any assumption about Sikhi and Sikh traditions from this time, because of the extremely limited material that exists. It's the same with the Namdhari Sikhs, they spout exactly the same arguments you are, only to reinforce their viewpoint that Gurgaddi was not given to Guru Granth Sahib.

Whether Dasam bani was part or not cannot be proved totally. Don't waste your time.

 

 

Talking about cognitive whatnot, i see that liar Asatkirin has jumped to like your post.

 

1. I have not said things like porn or gand da tokra, thats what I meant by 'distasteful posts' in the other topic. Learn to read before assuming things: "You will not see a single distasteful post from me against the Dasam Granth, I try to remain objective in my study and keep the past baggage, assumptions, blind faith aside"

2. I have quoted so many sources that give only Guru Granth Sahib sources for nitnem from the 18th century and you have still your head up your bund. Take it out and read the sources I mentioned.

3. Extremely limited or not, whatever material we possess is in favor of GGS Banis as Nitnem. The only sources that talk about Japji Jaap are dubious as I debunked them, still waiting a rebuttal. And not a single source exists giving 5/7 Banis as Nitnem besides so called oral tradition.

4. Namdharis have been debunked with historical sources, try to do the same to me ;)

 

[SikhKhoj]

Stop polluting my topic by the way, the only person who can even try to defend DG based on history on this forum is Amardeep so let him try.

[chatanga1]

 

2. I have quoted so many sources that give only Guru Granth Sahib sources for nitnem from the 18th century and you have still your head up your bund. Take it out and read the sources I mentioned.

there you go with your 18th century again. the sources you mentioned. like they are spun gold or something.

your arguments are the same as what i would expect to find where my head is.

3. Extremely limited or not, whatever material we possess is in favor of GGS Banis as Nitnem. The only sources that talk about Japji Jaap are dubious as I debunked them, still waiting a rebuttal. And not a single source exists giving 5/7 Banis as Nitnem besides so called oral tradition.

but you seem to want to cast things in stone over "extremely limited or not".

These oral sources are more dependable than the sources you depend on so much. No two written sources say the same thing, yet the Amrit Sinchar is identical in todays time. That would tell me that the process hasn't changed terribly over the 2 centuries.

4. Namdharis have been debunked with historical sources, try to do the same to me ;)

what sources (eye-witness) do you have to say that Guru Ji gave gurgaddi to Guru Granth Sahib?

[chatanga1]

Stop polluting my topic by the way, the only person who can even try to defend DG based on history on this forum is Amardeep so let him try.

"defend" DG? so you are leading an offence against DG is what you are saying?

[amardeep]

Sorry for the lateness in response. Still reading up on some things so might make another post to add to this one in the upcoming days.

I have only found Jaap in undated texts that can not properly be dated. Secondly I have had talks with scholars who say that unless a text says 'Jap Jaap Due' the 'Jap Jaap' can only refer to Japji given than in some manuscripts there is no Aunkar with Jaap while there is with Jap. A somewhat far fetched theory but still worth keeping in mind.

 

As said earlier, dont refer to anyone unless you are gonna name them. Spelling is different in all Gurmukhi manuscripts so spelling can't really be used as an argument.

3. It is sad that just to fit in your narrative of '1690s' being a fruitful period for Sikh literature you are seriously considering an internal evidence alone. It is so easy to put a date on a text. Atleast one version of the text says Guru Granth therefore it is dubious, more research needed for the manuscripts. Besides that some Hukumname predating 1695 do mention Khalsa so what is your point, simply because Prashan Uttar does not mention Khalsa it is pre 1699? But on the other hand it does say Guru Granth so what about that? 
Mukatnama and Naseehatnama have no DG terminology either and they're positively dated in the 1710s to 1730s period. These are all weak proofs.

It is not a theory - this tiny period of some 3-4 years keeps popping up over and over again in Dasam Granth saroops, rahitname, Sarbloh Granth as well as the writings of the kavis (as refered earlier). So it was a productive period.

Good point in regards to the early mentioning of Khalsa in the hukamname of earlier Gurus. Thats a different topic, but im pretty sure we agree that the meaning of the word 'Khalsa' was slightly different in the period of the earlier Gurus and the meaning it had aquired during the reign of Guru Gobind SIngh. Just as the meaning of the word Khalsa in the Guru Gobind Singh was different to its meaning in later 19th century and even today. The meaning of words change over time - thats a fact. So when Kabeer uses Khalsa, the early Gurus and Guru Gobind Singh - though the word is the same, the meaning is not the same. 

I havent read the mukatnama, but i'll get to the naseehatnama further below as well as osme of the other rehitname.

And I am not picking the Guru Granth manuscript, but I do not trust Padam he even edited words in Naseehatnama and changed the order of the verses. Such historians can not be trusted, but sometimes no other printed versions are available therefore we have to base on his version. Even his Daya Singh Rehat is much different from the Daya Singh Rehats I have seen. So as I said, you or me can't comment on Prashan Uttar its dubious and the points you say regarding no mention of Khalsa and no DG words is weak as shown above.

I have'nt seen any evidence or articles to suggest that Padam was editing stuff - so can't comment on that.

4. Have you even read the Prehlad Rehatnama before coming up with that fantastic theory of yours? Abchal is not the only problem with the Rehatnama, the Rehat says 'guru khalsa maniai, pargat guran ki deh'. On one instance you say Prashan Uttar is 1695 because it does not mention Khalsa, on the other hand you place Prehlad Rehat in 1695 too which clearly says Khalsa is the Body of the Guru (page 67, Rehatnamey Padam). So besides the Desa Singh Rehat I think you can scrap Prehlad Rehat too, agree?

Dont patronize me! As you have seen many times i refrain from discussing a book or document unless i've actually read it. If I had'n read it i'd ask for some time out to read it rather than just start discussing immidiately.

You are contradicting yourself. In other debates you've clearly stated that many of the things we associate with Guru Gobind Singh were already there during the reigns of the earlier Gurus. So why is it a problem all of a sudden to have mid 1690s text talk about the Khalsa as Guru and the Granth as Guru?

Your second point regarding how I talk about the two rehitname is fair and good. I see them close to each other in time even though one talks about the Khalsa and the other does'nt. I am not saying that it means the Khalsa did'n exist, but I am saying the fact that it is not mentioned at all is very unusual and points at its dating before the Khalsa had risen to prominence.. All subsequent post 1700 talks about the Khalsa non-stop. So this in itself is significant - however it does'nt mean that the author was not aware that the khalsa existed. But its position was probably yet to evolve. Which it slowly did in the following year when the Prahlad Rahitnama was created in 1696.

The way I see it: The Prashanuttar was written in 1695 and the arguments have been given earlier in this debate. I dont see any convincing arguments to question the internal dating of this document.

Mcleod's methodological problem in his dating of rahitname was that he set up his own theories, boxes and categories. And then began to place the rehitname in accordance to how they fitted into his own boxes. I see you doing the same. You have a system and theory that japji jaap nitnem must be a later invention/tradition and therefore you reject every rahitnama that mentions these two together because  they dont fit into your system. But maybe its your system thats wrong, and not the dating of the two rahitname.  Since i dont beleive in this system I dont see a reason to reject them out right.

The two internally dated documents of the Prahlad Rai Rahitnama and Prashanuttar Rahitnama both mention japji jaap and both claim to be written within a year of one another - 1695/1696. As the years progress from 1695 onwards more and more focus is laid on the Khalsa in virtually all Sikh writings.

The Thankhahnama 'found' by Jeevan Deol from the 1719 manuscript it interesting.. Firstly because it is a copy of an earlier writing which means that it is much earlier than 1718. When it was originally compiled we do not know since - unlike the Prahlad Rai rahitnama and Prashanuttar - there is no internal dating.

You are good at questioning internal dates-  have you done any research to see if the 1718 is even genuine? It could be a false date as well.. Have you looked into this or do you not do critical analysis to writings/pothis that fit into your system of thought? The internal 1718 date is as much of a claim as the 1695s claims of the early rahitname.

 

Going back to the question of the Bhai Prahlad Rai rahitnama, here are some interesting facts about it which makes me believe it to be amongst the earliest rahitname - as it is devoid of much of the later 'trends' seen in much of the mid 18th century Sikh writings... ... Since we both agree that the Desa Singh Rahitnama was written in the late misl period - where you said the japji jaap started becoming mainstream - it would be fruitful to compare at to this rahitnama along the way - as the Bhai Desa Singh rahitnama exhibit clear influences of the times it was written in (hindu influences, anti-Muslim atmosphere, great focus on warfare etc): The rahitnama

- lacks a strong emphasis on weapons and warfare as is seen in later rahitname that were compiled in great contexts of war

-  lacks Dasam Granth influence in terms of terminology etc. as the Dasam Granth had yet to be mainstreamed amongst the Sikh writers (happened a few decades later progressively and steadily)

- it is more 'pure' and Khalsa-centric: it lacks weird references to Brahmins, worship of "Hindu" Gods, caste system as is seen in later rahitname and their corruptions (again compare with the 'hindu' influences of the Bhai Desa Singh rahitnama)

-  Less hostile towards Turks than later rahitname and their corruptions (again- Desa Singh but also other writings of the 18th century ie gurbilas patshahi 10, bansavalinama etc).

 

So to sum up: there are no proper arguments against the early dating of these two rahitname.

 

 

.  You often quoted GS Mann for a baseless theory that irked me.

 

9. Do not piss me off by saying that there is no

 

Take it easy dude.

12. Not interested in that xyz stuff man. Have fun doing that.

This is actually something that has to be done by a Sikh researcher at some point. In biblical studies they've managed to prove that out of the four gospels (which earlier counted as four independent sources) two of them had read the writings of one of the other. This means that today there are only 2 independant sources in the gospels. 3 in one cluster (as they influences each other) and one independant where there is no evidence that the author had ever read the other gospels.

 

Next post will be regardign the Prem Sumarag.

[amardeep]

Oh there were more posts by you. I'll get to the Prem Sumarag in the next topic then.

Just a small correction, you are wrong in saying that the only writings we have from the early post Guru Gobind Singh period were influenced or familiar with the Dasam Granth.

Naseehatnama shows no Dasam Granth influence, neither in its vocabulary nor in the Nitnem section and is dated a mere 11 years after Guru Gobind Singhs death.

The Mukatnama is also clear that only the Granth (GGS) is to be followed and again gives only Japji, Rehraas and Sohila as Nitnem. The Mukatnama has been placed in 1734 and was later re-used by Kavi Santokh Singh in his magnum opus Suraj Parkash. A very important thing to note is that while Santokh Singh re-iterates the earlier Mukatnama he alters the Nitnem to suit what had become common at his time in the 19th century; instead of Japji alone, the Mukatnama of Suraj Parkash gives Jap, Jaap, Tav Prasad as Nitnem.

There are a very few Dasam Granth influences in the Naseehatnama:

- Respect of Loh - great punishment for he who touches it with his foot.

- Focus on being armed at all times

- the Mcleod translation mentions Kaal as a name of God though I can't find the word in Pyara Singh Padam's book.

- The idea of a Khalsa Raj stretching from east to west Uday Ast is from the Sarbloh Granth

You are right that the influence of Dasam Granth is still very little on this rahitnama which indicates its early dating. However it does'nt negate the two other (and possibly even earlier) rahitname that has the jaap sahib included.

 

Very interesting point with Kavi Santokh Singh's corruption of the Mukatnama. This is definately something that needs to be looked further into by researchers!

19^th century sources for Amrit Sanchaar with predominantly more DG Banis & last but not least the comparison how a similar document (the Mukatnama) was edited in the 19^th century by Santokh Singh to accommodate more DG Banis in the nitnem (as comparable to the earlier version included in Sau Sakhi) thereby again confirming my claim that a trend existed to include more Dasam Bani over the years.

I do see your point that Dasam Granth seem to have been put more into the center as time progreses BUT this does'nt mean it was absent initially.

 

All right lets get to the Prem Sumarag:

 

 

[amardeep]

I asked regarding DG in Prem Sumarag as I believe the Prem Sumarag is not as soaked in DG references or DG Banis as you claim. Barring the single reference to Bachittar Natak and 2-3 references to Japji Jaap (Ch 1 & Ch 3), most of the ceremonies are dependant of Anand Sahib (initiation ceremony, marriage, death, ...) and not any Dasam Bani

This shows that it might have been written in a transition phase from the Bansawlinama (solely SGGS in ceremonies) to Panth Parkash (solely DG) types. This would mean a date between the 1760s and 1810s which does make complete sense and fits in my theory.

Prem Sumarag is heavily coloured by the Dasam Granth. As mentioned earlier it makes explicit reference to the Bachitar Natak being written by the Guru as well as quoting from the Akal Ustat at different places. Finally it quotes from the Jaap Sahib as part of the nitnem.

In many of the life cycle rituals it describes shastar puja which is a concept that emerges straight out of the Dasam Granth banis... The many references to the sword as Sri Bhaugati and weaponry being aspects of the Divine - this is a narrative deriving from the Dasam Granth. The swords are given a central place in the chapters of birth, marriage, initiation and death and jaap sahib is recited in the nitnem, during pregnancy.

I am not sure when the Prem Sumarag Granth was written but I definately believe it to be the first quarter of the 18th century.

 Many early manuscripts have been mentioned - Randhir Singh mentiosn a manuscript of 1701, Gurinder Singh Mann has a manuscript that claims a date of 1707,

Besides that just like we did not count Chaupa Singh Rehatnama based on the 1700 date but the 1765 oldest manuscript date, we can only count Prem Sumarag as an 1815 source as that is the date oldest manuscript of the Prem Sumarag that is found (besides hearsay there is no proof that older manuscripts exist). It would be wrong to assume that the earliest PrS was identical to the one we possess now. In fact there are already differences between Dr Leydens PrS translation (1809) and the McLeod translation hinting that the two texts are not same, with the one we possess now being longer (as a result of additions and interpolations).

There are differences in all manuscripts - even the Naseehatnama manuscripts differ even though this rahitnama is not more than a few pages long.

 

[SikhKhoj]

If you are honest with yourself you have to admit that you posted one hell of a weak reply; no proper counter arguments, no proofs just beating around the bush. Have lost interest as you're not even trying to fight back with sources in favor of DG but I'll reply in some days.

[SikhKhoj]

 

what sources (eye-witness) do you have to say that Guru Ji gave gurgaddi to Guru Granth Sahib?

 

I have an eyewitness source that gurgadi was given to GGS. ?, create another topic and then I'll give you details, after making tall claims to help in getting granths translated etc.

[Crystal]

 

I have an eyewitness source that gurgadi was given to GGS. You don't know any? Shame on you. First admit you are a fool for not knowing such obvious things, create another topic and then I'll give you details. Screenshot it if you think I'll run away like you do after making tall claims to help in getting granths translated etc.

historians and researchers state their sources..

CouldCould we make a topic about all rehitnameh regarding weapons, warfare, fighting/Jung etc?

[SikhKhoj]

 Apni research kar te sources labh, dujia di khoj te nirpar na ho

[Guest]

Thanks Singh123456777 for keeping an eye out on un-civil, rude, personal attacks. I luckily swing by and saw- so much crap in this thread. Please use report the post feature so it notifies us right away. 1st warning formally is given to both of members, there are three warnings in total before quality control. Just friendly reminder, please refrain from making forum as personal battle ground between one another, take it over the pm or do naam jaap/martial art to release your frustration. Enough of this non sense, quality is paramount feature in this forum. I don't give shit if this forum turns into freaking cemetery quality stale art i would rather prefer that over various rubbish personal attacks ruining the forum ...!!

[amardeep]

If you are honest with yourself you have to admit that you posted one hell of a weak reply; no proper counter arguments, no proofs just beating around the bush. Have lost interest as you're not even trying to fight back with sources in favor of DG but I'll reply in some days.

Sorry to disappoint you if the standards were too low. And I dont need to "fight back" as this is not a muddy competition or some high school drama!!

Your argumentation is fine to some extent but you fall into the typical trap of taking things too far.

Your main argument is that the "secure" sources date wise are clear on japji nitnem and the "weak" sources date wise include the jaap sahib. So you reject many of the rehitname as post misl rehitname and selectively stick to four sources you claim to be strong sources: Naseethatnama, Sau Sakhi, Gurbilas Patshahi 10 Krit Kuir Singh and Bansavalinama.

The problem as I have outlined however is that this seems to be quite a selective reading and positioning of sources - probably in order to fit in with your overall theory.

- The Naseethanama manuscript CLAIMS to be a 1718-1719 copy. Have you got any proof of this being true or do you take it at face value? If so - why dont you take the internal claims of the other rehitname at face value?
 

- The Sau Sakhi itself is a weak source - both in regards to its authorship and when it was compiled and completed. There is no consensus at all and it might easily be from the misl period since it talks about Nadir Shah events etc. If its an early source that was later corrupted we lack the sufficient early manuscripts to do a comparative analysis of which parts are early, which are late AS WELL as which early parts are internally corrupted.

- The Gurbilas Patshahi 10 is not solid either as various scholars question its dating and place it in later decades.

- The Bansavalinama appears to be less controversial in regards to its dating (with that 10 year span you mentioned) - BUT this would mean that you only have 1 solid source! And since it is quite a late source then (from the Misl period where you claim that the Dasam Granth had already become mainstreamed in the rahitname nitnem etc) your system of thought needs to be revised.

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

You're not willing to learn and adapt that is the issue. You quote Sarbloh Granth while every single proper historian rejects the theory that Guru Ji wrote it, right from the old times with Pandit Tara Narotam blasting it.

Is it worth wasting my time on you? You change colors like a chameleon, first you say 'believe Prashan Uttar is early 1695 because it has no Khalsa and then you contradict your own statement when pointed out that Rehatnama Prehlad mentions Khalsa so it is okay in that case'.

Edited July 29, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

You're not willing to learn and adapt that is the issue. You quote Sarbloh Granth while every single proper historian rejects the theory that Guru Ji wrote it, right from the old times with Pandit Tara Narotam blasting it.

Did you expect this to be a free round for you to teach all of us ignorant people about the truth?

Thats not debate - thats just one way communication then.

Is it worth wasting my time on you? You change colors like a chameleon, first you say 'believe Prashan Uttar is early 1695 because it has no Khalsa and then you contradict your own statement when pointed out that Rehatnama Prehlad mentions Khalsa so it is okay in that case'.

Easy with the ego there. If you expect us to be grateful that you bless and bestow your precious time on us then think Again.

I dont change colours. If you read what I write i've clearly stated that the absense of Khalsa is an indicative of its early origins. This does'nt mean that ALL writings from that period leaves out mentionings of the Khalsa. But it Means that it must be placed as an early rehitnama where the Khalsa was yet to reach its full potentials.1-2 years later the Prahilad Rai Rahitnama praises the Khalsa and from then onwards the Khalsa is mentioned in all Rahitnama writings - most likely with its status being more and more exalted.

 

As I said - you got one (late) source which is some 60-70 years from the time of the Guru.

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

You haven't even got one source ;)

But let me blast your lies for a final time. And yes be grateful that I am even talking to you properly with references, you don't even deserve that because you are incapable of comprehending things in a rational manner. 'Prashan Uttar doesn't mention Khalsa so it is early, 1695' vs 'Prehlad Rehat mentions Khalsa, so its shows an evolution, 1695 is again accepted'.

[amardeep]

I don't need a source since I'm not the one coming up with any new theories or systems. Are you seriosly building up your whole theory based on a single source from the misl period - a period where you also place all the other rehitname that ends up going against your theory ? 

Read what I wrote. There are some 1-2 years between the two rehitname. 

 

[SikhKhoj]

Just because a DG Saroop, Rehitnama and Sarbloh Granth mention the period of 1690s does not mean it was effectively written then, and just to prove your theory of productive period you overemphasise any Granth attributed to that time period.

Scholars who have studied the Rehatnamas agree that most if not all Rehats can be put after Guru Gobind Singhs period. Your only source of the Rehatnamas is the book by Padam, so please read the preface wherein he says on page 43 that the Rehatnamas attributed to the likes of Nand Lal were not by him but written later & attributed to learned Sikhs to make them appear more 'authentic'. 

I stay coherent in my approach; I never claimed Mukatnama and Naseehatnama were written during Gurus period as the internal evidence CLAIMS for both cases; I place the Naseehatnama in 1719 and Mukatnama somewhere in the 18^th century.

You instead approach a non academical way and keep pushing for the internal dates. Show me one instance where I have done such? Naseehatnama claims to be a conversation between Guru Gobind Singh and Nand Lal, if I wanted to be foolish like you I could say ‘oh look it was a recorded dialogue between Guru and his Sikh therefore it is authentic’, but NO I refer to an existing manuscript which has a reliable date as it is not desperate to gain authenticity (1719 is not the Guru period). Show me historians or researchers who have questioned the 1719 date? If not then you have to accept that date because you keep beating around the bush.

I have personal links with historians so I do know that Padam was up to mischief. Where is the manuscript of Guru Kian Sakhian? I have personally read the MS770 (includes Naseehatnama) and I have found some text that has been altered in Padams book. I did not take pictures but you can go and access to manuscript, especially the verses on page 59 have been altered or words changed. But that is another discussion, you have no access to manuscripts and your only source are written sources therefore you do not know about this.

You are contradicting yourself. In other debates you've clearly stated that many of the things we associate with Guru Gobind Singh were already there during the reigns of the earlier Gurus. So why is it a problem all of a sudden to have mid 1690s text talk about the Khalsa as Guru and the Granth as Guru?

I am not contradicting myself. I am saying that no new innovations were introduced by the latter Gurus, as some historians wrongly claim. Ofcourse I am not dumb to claim Khande di Pahul predates 1699 or Guru Gobind Singh? But I say; it was preceded by the Charan Pahul. Therefore Khande di Pahul in essence was not a diversion of the earlier Gurus tradition, it was just updated with time. So stop taking my statements on other threads out of context. There is no evidence that Granth was referred to as Guru Granth pre 1708. In fact historians agree that earlier writings say ‘Granth Jee’.

You again oversaw my main point that was about how you contradict yourself royally; no Khalsa in Prashan Uttar means 1695 but Rehatnama Prehlad can mention Khalsa and still be placed in 1695. No bigger contradiction is possible.

Which it slowly did in the following year when the Prahlad Rahitnama was created in 1696.

Now resorting to lies to fit in your narrative that 1695 Prashan Uttar does not mention Khalsa and next year it does to show an evolution in the Rehatnama Prehlad you say Prehlad was written in 1696.

Let me expose you:

PREHLAD REHAT : samvat satrah sai bhaye, barkh bavanja nihaar (1752 Bk - 1695 AD)

PRASHAN UTTAR: samvat satra sahas so bavan, maghar sudi naumi sukh davan (1752 Bk - 1695 AD)

Prashan Uttar claims to be written in Magh 1752 which corresponds with December 1695. The Bikrami year 1752 ended just 3 months after (Poh, Magh, Phaggan), so don't think your illogical theory you is plausible. A document (Prashan Uttar) mentions no Khalsa and suddenly another one, Prehlad Rehat mentions Guru Khalsa, Guru Granth and what not. Radical change if we even consider your illogical theory.

Your theories are so far fetched, Prehlad Rehat claims its written in Abchal Nagar which is a place the Guru did not visit till 12-13 years after, then you come up with a formidable theory: "the Word Abchal Nagar is mentioned in  the Guru Granth Sahib and describes a peacefull steady place/city.". How does the one thing negate the other? The Rehatnama is talking about a physical place called Abchal Nagar, it says Prehlad SINGH (which was not common amongst Sikhs pre 1699), Rehat for Khalsa (Rehat Bataiye Khalse), Guru Khalsa, lena dena Khalse Ka, Sab Sikhan Ko Hukam Hai Guru Maneo Granth clearly show that the Rehat was written post 1708.

It is true that there is no strong internal evidence against the Prashan Uttar besides the fact that it says Guru Granth in Bindras book. But simply an absence of Khalsa does not make it a 1695 writing.

[SikhKhoj]

 

The Thankhahnama 'found' by Jeevan Deol from the 1719 manuscript it interesting.. Firstly because it is a copy of an earlier writing which means that it is much earlier than 1718. When it was originally compiled we do not know since - unlike the Prahlad Rai rahitnama and Prashanuttar - there is no internal dating.

You are good at questioning internal dates-  have you done any research to see if the 1718 is even genuine? It could be a false date as well.. Have you looked into this or do you not do critical analysis to writings/pothis that fit into your system of thought? The internal 1718 date is as much of a claim as the 1695s claims of the early rahitname.

1. Wrong, both Prehlad and Prashanuttar claim 1752 Bk as writing date. Prashan Uttar was written near the end of Samvat 1752 so it rejects your false theory

2. Naseehatnama is indeed interesting because it does not claim an internal date and it is the manuscript that is dated 1719 despite being a conversation between Guru Gobind Singh and Nand Lal. There is a big difference between an internal and manuscript date. Naseehatnama might even have been written earlier but I do not even go that way with possible explanations with far fetched theories like you do, I say this manuscript of 1719 exists and thats it. I quote from it as no historian has questioned its authenticity. If an historian has, then let me know? Compare that to Prehlad Rehat which has been blasted by everyone including Kahan Singh Nabha, Mcleod and Padam.

Going back to the question of the Bhai Prahlad Rai rahitnama, here are some interesting facts about it which makes me believe it to be amongst the earliest rahitname - as it is devoid of much of the later 'trends' seen in much of the mid 18th century Sikh writings... ... Since we both agree that the Desa Singh Rahitnama was written in the late misl period - where you said the japji jaap started becoming mainstream - it would be fruitful to compare at to this rahitnama along the way - as the Bhai Desa Singh rahitnama exhibit clear influences of the times it was written in (hindu influences, anti-Muslim atmosphere, great focus on warfare etc): The rahitnama

- lacks a strong emphasis on weapons and warfare as is seen in later rahitname that were compiled in great contexts of war

-  lacks Dasam Granth influence in terms of terminology etc. as the Dasam Granth had yet to be mainstreamed amongst the Sikh writers (happened a few decades later progressively and steadily)

- it is more 'pure' and Khalsa-centric: it lacks weird references to Brahmins, worship of "Hindu" Gods, caste system as is seen in later rahitname and their corruptions (again compare with the 'hindu' influences of the Bhai Desa Singh rahitnama)

-  Less hostile towards Turks than later rahitname and their corruptions (again- Desa Singh but also other writings of the 18th century ie gurbilas patshahi 10, bansavalinama etc).

Those are all hypothetical things, Rehats project the minds of the writers not Sikhi. An anti Muslim sentiment does not place it in early or late 18th century; Khalsa was suffering way more from Muslim opression in 1700-1750 as compared to 1750-1800. Again, lack of Dasam Granth influence does not mean it was written early on, the Bijay Mukat does not mention Dasam Granth even once in its entire text and yet is a 19th century writing. On the other hand, the evidence AGAINST Prehlads early dating:
1. It says Guru sat in Abchal Nagar. Guru did not visit Abchal Nagar anywhere before 1700s.
2. Uses name Prehlad Singh
3. Guru Granth is mentioned 'Guru Maneo Granth'
4. Guru Panth, Guru Khalsa is mentioned. This is a latter trend.
5. Rehat for the Khalsa is mentioned 'rehat bayaiye khalse'

 

 

[SikhKhoj]

 

There are a very few Dasam Granth influences in the Naseehatnama:

- Respect of Loh - great punishment for he who touches it with his foot.

- Focus on being armed at all times

- the Mcleod translation mentions Kaal as a name of God though I can't find the word in Pyara Singh Padam's book.

- The idea of a Khalsa Raj stretching from east to west Uday Ast is from the Sarbloh Granth

You are right that the influence of Dasam Granth is still very little on this rahitnama which indicates its early dating. However it does'nt negate the two other (and possibly even earlier) rahitname that has the jaap sahib included.

Respect of loh or the sword is not limited to the Dasam Granth, it is part of other traditions too (Rajputs). Do you think warriors of Guru Hargobind disrespected Loh or Swords? It is an object of respect, the name kirpa-aan itself is a reflection of the immense spiritual and worldly meaning behind it.

Where does Dasam Granth mention the word Khalsa? Where does Dasam Granth give Rehat for the Khalsa? Where does Dasam Granth mention the Kakaars? Stop propagating the myth 'DG for Khalsa' because DG doesn't even mention Khalsa.

The idea of Khalsa Raj is not from the Dasam Granth. Don't bring Sarbloh Granth in here.

Therefore we can conclude the Naseehatnama has not a single influence from the Dasam Granth, nor in Nitnem nor in terminology.

Edited July 29, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[chatanga1]

 

• For the very first time, 74 years after The Guru’s merger into the Divine Light, a written allegation appears that The Guru wrote a book.

Allegation? That would infer that Guru Sahib did something wrong or illegal wouldn't it? Whoever you are "Guest" you betray your coarse intentions through your malicious words.

[chatanga1]

Where does Dasam Granth mention the word Khalsa? Where does Dasam Granth give Rehat for the Khalsa? Where does Dasam Granth mention the Kakaars? Stop propagating the myth 'DG for Khalsa' because DG doesn't even mention Khalsa.

The idea of Khalsa Raj is not from the Dasam Granth. Don't bring Sarbloh Granth in here.

Why would Dasam Granth be for the Khalsa only any more than Guru Granth Sahib would be for the Sikhs?

[amardeep]

All right so here is the Bansavalinama which appears to be the only steady source you have. Apart from the tons of mistakes through out the book when it comes to details, - let us know your thoughts on it since your  whole theory seem to rely on this source alone. Translate the japu ate anandu rasni lines for us - and also the one line before and one line after and lets proceed a discussion from there onwards.

Also answer this:What is the purpose of this narration for the author? What is his focus on ?

Edited July 29, 2015 by amardeep