Rise of the status of Dasam Granth

[SikhKhoj]

Main tera theka laya? I made a claim and its supported by evidences. Translate it yourself if you're interested in it. The question is not about the purpose or the things you're asking, he is explaining the ceremony and tells what Banis were recited. No source is completely flawless so do not even go there, we have to construct history by taking coherent pieces from several historical sources.

[amardeep]

Come on lets have a discussion on this source and proceed from there.

What is the purpose of this narration for the author? What is his focus on ? Also please translate the lines for sangat - its three lines and should be a piece of cake if you are used to reading old granths.

Edited July 29, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

1. From my 4 sources you can't discard Naseehatnama and Bansawlinama on any account, the dates have been accepted and undisputed. You have given not a single reason to doubt the credible 1719 dating of the manuscript. The interesting thing is the 1719 date despite it being a conversation between Nand Lal and Guru Gobind Singh. This shows that 1719 is the real date of that manuscript, which might have had even earlier recensions, a fact we might never be able to verify due to lack of earlier manuscripts.

The difference between you and me is that you place Nand Lal and Guru Gobind Singh convo based on internal evidence or just because Nand Lal is attached to it, while Naseehatnama is also attached to Nand Lal and I still do not push for an early 1700s date for example. I base on facts, existing manuscripts. Since I find no pre 1719 Naseehatnama manuscript I have not even pushed for an earlier date, because I am not desperate to link it to the Guru period.

2. You quoted 4 sources and Desa Singh Rehat has been rejected due to some solid internal evidence mentioning a historical figure who died in 1783, thus placing the Desa Rehat anywhere after 1780.

The Prehlad Rehatnama is highly unauthentic due to its internal date of 1695 contradicting its content which reflect a post 1699 mentality; Guru Maneo Granth, Guru Khalsa, Prehlad 'Singh', Guru Gobind Singh in Nanded. Besides that the Rehat has been rejected by people like Padam who generally held traditional views, by Kahan Singh Nabha who held Singh Sabha views and McLeod who comes from another stream of writers. This shows alot.

3. Even if we assume I only got 2 sources right and you got 2 undated ones, the main question that comes forth is; where are the sources with 5 or 7 Nitnem Banis? There are NO sources for that from the 18th century AT ALL, whether authentic or unauthentic.

[SikhKhoj]

Come on lets have a discussion on this source and proceed from there.

What is the purpose of this narration for the author? What is his focus on ? Also please translate the lines for sangat - its three lines and should be a piece of cake if you are used to reading old granths.

There is no need to do that in a debate. I pointed out the source and backed up my claims. Do your homework and lets see what you can do to 'debunk' this claim.

Besides that our discussion on Nitnem has not even concluded yet. The present discussion already is very long, each reply being on so many points so lets not complicate it further. Terminate on the Nitnem. You accept Naseehatnama as an early source, lets put the 1719 aside for a bit. Then how do you explain no Jaap in Nitnem? I could be adamant and try to put the Guru Gobind Singh-Nand Lal angle to vouch for its authenticity, but I don't because as said earlier I base on manuscript evidence. The conversation might have taken place but the earliest Ms is 1719.

And how will you explain people corrupting sources to justify DG in Nitnem? See Mukatnama of Sau Sakhi and compare it to Mukatnama of Suraj Parkash. Japji in 18th century becomes Japji Jaap TavPrasad in 1843.

Edited July 29, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

I'll respond to your other posts later. First lets focus on the Bansavalinama text which appears to be amongst your main sources....

How do you read it? You can't just throw it in as a source to back up your claim and then not be willing to discuss it

[SikhKhoj]

We're not done discussing Nitnem and the Rehatnamas yet. I had told you that Amrit Sanchaar is a tricky subject and in my study of 14 published and 7 unpublished Granths I yet have to come to a solid conclusion, while Nitnem does seem to be quite similar in all 18th century literature; Japji (and eventually Jaap), Rehraas and Kirtan Sohila. No Chaupai Tav Prasad Swaiyas or even Anand Sahib for that matter (few sources talk of Anand Sahib but none of the Chaupai etc). Conclude the first discussion if you wish to continue.

[SikhKhoj]

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,

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

 

Regarding Prem Sumarag, there is not a single manuscript of the early 18th century, its all hearsay or this scholar claimed this or that. No proof or locations of such manuscripts are provided. Only existing MS are from the 19th century. I do not believe in hearsay, and nor should you. Atleast if you try to be objective.

I agree that Prem Sumarag has some DG references but not as much as you claim. Mcleod has a strong opinion that the first chapter might have been appended later to the Prem Sumarag, a view I share because several manuscripts with only 1 Chapter of Prem Sumarag exist. Besides that the Nitnem is repeated once in Chapter 1 and then in Chapter 6, the Nitnem in Chapter 6 does not specify which bani to do in morning but it says 'read from the Granth Pothi (SGGS)'. Therefore the main Prem Sumarag text does not mention the DG as much, the Bachitar Natak evening Nitnem is only there in Chapter 1 and not Chapter 6.

Besides that Prem Sumarag is a Granth dating to the Misl period or after because it mentions Kalals when it mentions other Sikh 'groups'. Kalals were practically unknown and too few in numbers to be mentioned amongst the other groups. Even in the British census they formed about 0.004% of Sikhs in 1881, which is too insignificant. The Kalals only became known after Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, before that there is not a single prominent Kalal Sikh and they have always been numerically insignificant till Misl period. This is my own observation not based on any other scholar.

 

[amardeep]

Okay on the topic of nitnem then: What does bansavalinama say here?

[amardeep]

If i remember correctly you actually already stated that the Bansavalinama does'nt mention anything about the nitnem. So this would mean that for all of the 18th century, you only have one strong source for your claim about nitnem - the Naseehatnama of 1719??

Dont you think its quite arrogant to make such big conclusions regarding Dasam Bani based on a document thats only 2-3 pages long of which we dont know WHO wrote it as well as when it was initially composed. That sure are some big conclusions you are drawing based on so little.

Edited July 29, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

1) Have you proven that Sau Sakhi is not from the 18th century? The 1734 date might not be right,  but to say it is not from the 18th century altogether is wrong. The Sau Sakhi was heavily used by Kavi Santokh Singh during the first half of the 19th century, the Mukatnama was completely copied and just corrupted to add Dasam Granth in Nitnem. Therefore dating the Sau Sakhi to 18th century is not illogical. The Sau Sakhi with Mukatnama must have already been written, circulated and considered worthy to be copied in a epic like the Suraj Parkash, which Kavi Santokh Singh started writing around the 1820s perhaps.
Besides that, internal evidence says around 1734 so 1734 might be true, with many latter additions of course. Some Sakhis have been added by latter scribes, the current printed manuscript is by Mathura Das and he added some sakhis of his own as is evident from the text (Sakhi 17), Narain Das (Sakhi 100) but on other places it places itself in Guru Darbar:

sahib singh pad sarn tuh, likhai likhari granth
...
rahai hajur dasve guru, karai ukat ju vaak
gur ratan mal pothi likho, jion gur kino vaak

In any case, I am always wary of such internal evidence not only with your but also my sources. But I can not accept that Sau Sakhi is an 19th century writing, nor have you provided a single proof for it being possibly written after 1800.

2) Provide arguments that Gurbilas Patshahi 10 is not from 1751? Keep them short and concise. Early dating of Gurbilas should be good for you as it has lots of DG influences in terms of language.

3) Rehatnama Chaupa Singh's oldest copy is from 1765 why do you forget that? It says only 5 times Japji in morning. You keep ignoring that source.

4) It is rather stupid to ignore 4 sources: 1719 (Naseehatnama) and 1765 (Rehatnama Chaupa) manuscript saying Japji for morning. With one more dated to the 1700-1800 (Sau Sakhi) and Gurbilas Patshahi 10 that has been accepted to be a 1751 writing.

5) Show me a single source saying 5 Banis nitnem for morning from 1700 - 1800 ?

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

We are going about in circles here. Some of your questions i've already answered. So here goes:

1) Have you proven that Sau Sakhi is not from the 18th century? The 1734 date might not be right,  but to say it is not from the 18th century altogether is wrong. The Sau Sakhi was heavily used by Kavi Santokh Singh during the first half of the 19th century, the Mukatnama was completely copied and just corrupted to add Dasam Granth in Nitnem. Therefore dating the Sau Sakhi to 18th century is not illogical. The Sau Sakhi with Mukatnama must have already been written, circulated and considered worthy to be copied in a epic like the Suraj Parkash, which Kavi Santokh Singh started writing around the 1820s perhaps.
Besides that, internal evidence says around 1734 so 1734 might be true, with many latter additions of course. Some Sakhis have been added by latter scribes, the current printed manuscript is by Mathura Das and he added some sakhis of his own as is evident from the text (Sakhi 17), Narain Das (Sakhi 100) but on other places it places itself in Guru Darbar:

sahib singh pad sarn tuh, likhai likhari granth
...
rahai hajur dasve guru, karai ukat ju vaak
gur ratan mal pothi likho, jion gur kino vaak

In any case, I am always wary of such internal evidence not only with your but also my sources. But I can not accept that Sau Sakhi is an 19th century writing, nor have you provided a single proof for it being possibly written after 1800.

Earlier I wrote:

"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."

Also you've said many times in regards to the Naseehatnama, Prem Sumarag and Chaupa Singh rahitnama that you wish to base the discussions on the earliest manuscript. So here is the question: What is the earlist manuscript of the Gur Ratan Mal? And does it contain the Mukatnama?

There is no consensus on this granth, and since your main discussion was about the weak sources vs. the stronger ones, you must admit that Sau sakhi is to be categorised amongst all the other weak sources of that century.

Regarding Bhai Santokh Singh : He incorporated anything he could get his blessed hands on - even the Mahima Prakash of 1775 so the fact that he used it does'nt push for an early date. Okay so the Sau sakhi is out.

2) Provide arguments that Gurbilas Patshahi 10 is not from 1751? Keep them short and concise. Early dating of Gurbilas should be good for you as it has lots of DG influences in terms of language.

What im saying is there is no consensus on when this granth was written - therefore we place it with the weak sources. Fauja SIngh belives it to be a 19th century writing. Madamjit Kaur writes:

"The date of this work was calculated by Bhai Vir Singh as 1819 Bikrami (A.D. 1762). He clearly takes into account both the word Basu which represents eight and the word ekadsi which means eleven. But Shamsher Singh Ashok and Fauja Singh, it appears, accept 1808 Bikrami (A.D. 1751) as the date of start of the work and 1811 Bikrami (AD. 1754) as the date of conclusion of the work. Hence, it is not correct that the word ekadsi has not been taken into account or kept unexplained. In fact, Bhai Vir Singh’s work clearly took this into account in arriving at its date as 1819 Bikrami (AD. 1762). "

As you can see scholars disagree on 1751, 1762 or early 1800s. Regardles of who is right, there is no scholarly consensus.And it appears most of them base it on the internal date given towards the end which you say you are sceptical about in most cases.

3) Rehatnama Chaupa Singh's oldest copy is from 1765 why do you forget that? It says only 5 times Japji in morning. You keep ignoring that source.

Now again the problem is that we are in the misl period where you say the jaap sahib and dasam bani was entering nitnem etc.  And how did it go from 1 japji sahib to 5?

 

Challo. You are left with two sources now for your theory having a gap of some 50 years in between. Please answer the following:

• Bhai Kesar SIngh Chibbar gets almost every single detail wrong in his account on Amrit Sanchar. For instance he places his ancestors in key central roles on the Vaisakhi day which is wrong. If all his details are wrong - or actually  lies- then why do suppose his detail about the banis are right? He clearly did'n know what happened on that day!!.
• The Naseehatnama has no known author nor a date of compilation. The earliest manuscript is 1718 but we dont know who wrote it and can't even confirm that the manuscript date is correct since it's just an internal date which you have rejected many times over. You have over and over again stated that Pyara SIngh Padam and others reject it as being the rachna of Bhai Nand Lal. So what we have is: 1) an undated text 2) No known author 3) Who ever wrote it attached it to the name of Bhai Nand Lal to give it legitimacy. That would basically make the author a liar... And with the author being a phony - you still base your theory on it?

Is this for real? Dont you have any strong source to back your whole theory up with? Now dont turn this around saying I have no strong sources either. Me not having strong sources does'nt prove your theory right. And you are the one coming up with a new theory so the burden of proof is on you. If your theory lacks credible evidence, try and work on a new theory.

Your whole theory at the moment is based on a phony and a man who it appears did'n have a clue as to what happened on that day!!

 

 

 

 

[SikhKhoj]

1. Prove Sau Sakhi is NOT from the 18th century. Mukatnama was re-used in 1820-1840 therefore it existed prior to that. The latest date is end 18th century. So you can't discard Mukatnama as a 18th century source.

2. Why do you run after lying about Prashan Uttar and Rehatnama Prehlad? You made up such a laughable theory which made no sense. The so called internal date of Prashan Uttar is end 1752 Bikrami, so how could Prehlad write a Rehatnama which was totally different in same year to Prashan Uttar?

3. 5 Japji or 1 Japji does not matter, end of the day it says Japji. Since you're from Denmark I'd ask you to stop being a flueknepper. Therefore 1765 source says Japji Sahib as Nitnem.

4. The text you quote about Gurbilas Koer Singh does nowhere quote a 1800s source, It only argues the Gurbilas might be of 1751, 1754 and 1762. Don't know where you get the 1800s from?

5. You don't need an author name to have an "authentic" text. The manuscript date is undisputed by all scholars, if not then prove any scholar who has doubted the Naseehatnama? Ofcourse the Naseehatnama was most probably not written by Nand Lal but it still is an early source because the MS date is undisputed and has been checked by nearly all historians.

6. So we're still left with 3 solid sources (Naseehatnama, Gurbilas and Chaupa Rehat) and one weaker source which can be placed anywhere in the 18th century (Mukatnama)

7. My biggest question you've not answered yet; where is even ONE source giving Chaupai and Tavprasad as Nitnem from 1700-1800?

8. Lets even say ALL my sources are weak, it still proves my theory right that 18th century has mostly Japji as Nitnem with perhaps some Japji Jaap as compared to the 19th century. You still haven't been able to debunk my theory?

I said over years more Nitnem was added to DG (18th c vs 19th c). If you want to prove me wrong you have to post 18th century sources with 2-3 DG Banis and not just be content with Japji Jaap in the fake rehats you posted.

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

You are going about in circles again. I've never said that Sau Sakhi is from 1800s, - i've said it's a weak source since we know nothing about when it was written. Therefore it needs to go with all the other weak sources of 18th century.

Fauja Singh places it in the 1800s. I dont agree with him but my point was to make that this text does'nt have a consensus as you claim. So its weak.

"undisputed by all scholars" - big claim to make!! Are you for real when you say all scholars????? Very few have actually looked into it and no one as far as I know of (but please enligthen me) has tried to challenge the 1718 date. They just repeat it cause its written there on one of the pages.. That means internal evidence.. which you used to be sceptical about?? hmm

Regarding the Chaupai Sahib and Tvaprasad - i've never made any claims about these two so lets not open a debate about this. This discussion here is to see whether your theory has any foundation under it. And it appears to be a very weak one.

I'll repeat:

 

Challo. You are left with two sources now for your theory having a gap of some 50 years in between. Please answer the following:

• Bhai Kesar SIngh Chibbar gets almost every single detail wrong in his account on Amrit Sanchar. For instance he places his ancestors in key central roles on the Vaisakhi day which is wrong. If all his details are wrong - or actually  lies- then why do suppose his detail about the banis are right? He clearly did'n know what happened on that day!!.
• The Naseehatnama has no known author nor a date of compilation. The earliest manuscript is 1718 but we dont know who wrote it and can't even confirm that the manuscript date is correct since it's just an internal date which you have rejected many times over. You have over and over again stated that Pyara SIngh Padam and others reject it as being the rachna of Bhai Nand Lal. So what we have is: 1) an undated text 2) No known author 3) Who ever wrote it attached it to the name of Bhai Nand Lal to give it legitimacy. That would basically make the author a liar... And with the author being a phony - you still base your theory on it?

Is this for real? Dont you have any strong source to back your whole theory up with? Now dont turn this around saying I have no strong sources either. Me not having strong sources does'nt prove your theory right. And you are the one coming up with a new theory so the burden of proof is on you. If your theory lacks credible evidence, try and work on a new theory.

Your whole theory at the moment is based on a phony and a man who it appears did'n have a clue as to what happened on that day!!

 

 

[SikhKhoj]

What was my theory?

Quote me. And then say what is weak about it.

I say less DG or no DG in 18th century - which is 100% true as half of the sources mention Japji alone and half mention Japji Jaap while 19th century sources are full of DG including Tavprasad etc. Therefore my initial theory is 100% correct to prove how DG became an inseperable part by adding more and more DG Banis to the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar as compared to 18th century

[SikhKhoj]

My theory says 19th century has more DG in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar and 18th century has either sources with no DG AT ALL or merely Japji Jaap. Disprove me? Even if you count my 4 and your 4 sources as 18th century we still have half of the sources that only have SGGS Nitnem.

[amardeep]

Yes but you talked about an evolution - ie it begins with japji sahib and then as the decades progresses dasam bani is included slowly.

So lets say that in the first part of the 18th century, only japji sahib is nitnem and then in second half of 18th century we start seeing jaap sahib being included.  This would be evolution

 

HOWEVER, this is not the case. Many of your sources appear to be written during the same decades as the jaap sahib sources (if we go by your dating of these rehitname) which means there is NO EVOLUTION.. The two nitnems appear parallel to each other - side by side.  Your only early source is the 2 page Naseehatnama of which it appears it was written by an unknown phony - yet you take his word as evidence for this whole evolution revision theory.

Do some more work on the theory, see if you can find strong undispited sources and lets continue the debate then..

[paapiman]

Request to cyber sangat - Let's keep this topic too, primarily based on historical sources. 

Sikhkhoj - If you want, you can add the term "historical" to the topic title.

Thanks

Bhul chuk maaf

[SikhKhoj]

Paapi veere, why so sensible ajkal?

[SikhKhoj]

Yes but you talked about an evolution - ie it begins with japji sahib and then as the decades progresses dasam bani is included slowly.

So lets say that in the first part of the 18th century, only japji sahib is nitnem and then in second half of 18th century we start seeing jaap sahib being included.  This would be evolution

 

HOWEVER, this is not the case. Many of your sources appear to be written during the same decades as the jaap sahib sources (if we go by your dating of these rehitname) which means there is NO EVOLUTION.. The two nitnems appear parallel to each other - side by side.  Your only early source is the 2 page Naseehatnama of which it appears it was written by an unknown phony - yet you take his word as evidence for this whole evolution revision theory.

Do some more work on the theory, see if you can find strong undispited sources and lets continue the debate then..

I have my sources. Naseehatnama, Gurbilas, Rehatnama Chaupa & Sau Sakhi, out of which 2 are indisputed (Naseehat and Chaupa). You have got no undisputed source, so it is your job to find an indisputable source with Japji Jaap

I challenge any other Dasam Granthi on this forum to prove Chaupai and Tav Prasad in Nitnem in ANY 18th century source?

[SikhKhoj]

Naseehatnama has oldest MS from 1719 and it says Japji.

Gurbilas is from 1751-1764 and says Japji

Rehatnama Chaupa Singh has oldest MS from 1765 and it says 5 Japji in morning.

Sau Sakhi is from the 18th century and it says Japji.

Completely fake Rehats like Prehlad you quoted say Japji Jaap. Why do you run with your tail between your legs now? I want to see you defending Prehlad Rehat and your CRAP theory that Prehlad Rehat was written in same year as Prashanuttar and it shows a positive evolution lol

[amardeep]

Okay cool and if we place the below 18th century writings on your list we get a mix match of documents - a majority of the documents coming from the second half of the 18th century.. The ONLY source you got from the first half of the 18th century is an unddated, anonymous 2 page writing made by a scam phony.. !!.There is NO EVOLUTION... just a big mess of post 1750 sources with 50% of the sources contradicting the other 50 % 

Sakhi Rahit ki

Prem Sumarag

Prahlad Rai rahitnama

Desa Singh Rahitnama

Prashanuttar

Daya Singh rahitnama (mentions Jaap, Chaupai and Sawaiye at different places for the Amrit ritual)

 

There is NO evolution as people can see hence your theory is wrong!! What you got is various parallel nitnems running side by side - basically same as what we got today with different Sikhs doing different nitnem banis and different lenghts of individual banis. 

I take it the debate is over since your theory was wrong!!

Thanks for the debate..

Edited July 30, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

You were cut coming up with theories about Prashan Uttar and Rehatnama Prehlad Singh being 1695 writings till I blasted you completely.

Unknown author or not, Naseehatnama is the earliest undisputable source and says Japji Sahib Nitnem.

Therefore you have lost. Thanks and get lost now.

[SikhKhoj]

Not a single 18th century Prem Sumarag manuscript exists.
Not a single 18th century Daya Singh Rehatnama manuscript exists.

And it is Prehlad Singh Rehat and not Rai as you lie because internal evidence says Singh, thus already pushing a post Khalsa date and rejecting this source as completely unauthentic.

[amardeep]

You were the bastard coming up with theories about Prashan Uttar and Rehatnama Prehlad Singh being 1695 writings till I blasted you completely.

Unknown author or not, Naseehatnama is the earliest undisputable source and says Japji Sahib Nitnem.

Therefore you have lost. Thanks and get lost now.

LOL this says it all. For you it was just a competition all along. A chance for you to see your own posts in writing.. Wah wah

[SikhKhoj]

Better than being desperate and posting false information on Facebook pages (Nand Lal one) - the same information regarding Misls I debunked on this forum. Who is desperate to see his own writings lol.