Rise of the status of Dasam Granth

[SikhKhoj]

From the other thread:

 

There are people who claim Sarbloh was written by Guru Gobind Singh (albeit in a previous incarnation). There used to be people who seriously believed the Sau Sakhi was written by Guru Gobind Singh about a century back (Kahan Singh Nabha talks about this). There are who ascribe many granths to Guru Gobind such as the Puranmasi Katha, Prem Sumarg, etc

Truth is that we are gullible as a community in general, just associate anything with the Gurus and you will have fools ready to pay millions for it or worship it. Anything with the title Pt 10 was seriously considered as a Dasam Pita Bani just because of the heading - and mind you, I personally know dozens of people who still think that way. This fact was severely misused by our enemies and corrupt people, read the Naveen Panth Parkash to read how the son of Sukha Singh Patna (Granthi) actually imitated Guru Gobind Singhs handwriting and sold the writings for lots of money.

But since most of the compositions seem to have been composed in the Gur Darbar the Dasam Granth seems to have had more general authenticity over the years. But that is one evolution, it is in this aspect that you can not deny the Amrit Sanchar proofs from within Bansawlinama. You say 'thats another topic' but the title says 'Bansawlinama on DG' and since Amrit Sanchar has no DG banis it is very important to notice a trend and actually understand why and how DG became so popular.

If people like Kesar Singh believed in the 1760s that DG was by Guru Gobind Singh they also on the other hand showed Amrit Sanchar had no Dasam Banis. The Mukatnama from around the same time equally gives no DG Bani in the Nitnem. Theres a dozen sources confirming about the Nitnem. (don't quote unauthentic Rehats such as the so called 1695 Nand Lal rehat for Jap Jaap - Pyara Padam himself published them and said they're all later writings and not of Nand Lal or the respected others)

DG gained more importance in the late 18th and early 19th century because that is when things such as DG Banis started appearing in the nitnem, and DG Banis were added to Pahul. Even if we accept the flawed source of Guru Kian Sakhian for 5 Banis (including DG) it means no source prior to 1790 mentions those Banis. Even the Prem Sumarg that is so admired on this forum does not give Dasam Banis for Amrit Sanchar, which leads me to accept that it might have been written somewhere before the 1780s.

DG did not gain prominence because it was Dasam Krit but because it was made part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. And that is how our community got fooled by having our main ceremonies depend on the Dasam Granth - and even today people still do not dare to question DG because our main ceremonies depend on it. So it is a complicated issue and needs full assessment. You can't just say Kesar Singh accepts DG banis as Dasam Guru Krit and leave out the fact that despite existence of DG there was  no DG in Amrit Sanchar which shows a evolution to include more DG (this is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact you can establish by reading and taking notes of all manuscripts and you will notice the evolution yourself).

[ibrute]

I could not understand anything you wrote, what are you saying jaap sahib and Swaiyee were not read by Guru Gobind Singh Jee during first Amrit sanchaar 1699 and these were added later what? Clarify yourself.

[SikhKhoj]

Historically, early 1700 to 1760s literatue does not include Dasam Granth compositions in Nitnem. 

Same way Amrit Sanchar with 5 Banis is not corraborated by any autentic source. Guru Kian Sakhian (1790) says 5 Banis but it is a dubious book since there has been no study of its manuscript. Secondly, literature previous to Guru Kian Sakhian tends to mostly give Guru Granth Sahib Banis alone as Amrit Sanchar Banis.

Thus we see that Sikh rituals were mostly devoid of Dasam Granth influence in the early years after Guru Gobind Singh. It is mostly post 1775 that we start seeing a surge in the influence of Dasam Granth including in the nitnem and amrit sanchaar.

Do not post in this thread if you are unaware of historical Sikh sources and will just rant emotionally due to cognitive dissonance. 

Edited July 22, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

Cheers mate.

When do you think the Prashanuttar attributed to Bhai Nand Lal was written? Internal date says 1695 and it mentions the jaap sahib.

The Bhai Prahlad Singh rahitnama also mentions jaap sahib.  Sakhi Rahit ki also mentions jaap sahib as nitnem. As does Bhai Desa Singh Rahitnama.

Do you consider alll to be later 18th century, following a pattern/trend of inclusion of nitnem banis? Or do you believe some of the above to be early 18th century?

Also - I just skimmed through the Gurbilas Patshahi 10 of Kuir Singh (1751) and though it only mentions the Japji sahib as part of morning nitnem it does seem to be influnced by the Dasam Granth in other ways. This can be seen in some of the terminology (Sri Asidhuj, Wahiguru ji ki fateh as well as the overall narrative that follows the Bachitar Natak. Also, there are verbatim quotes taken directly from Gursobha. If we say Gursobha was written in the 1740s, it means that someone thought the Bachitar Natak Granth worthy to emulate and follow -  not only in narrative but also terminology... The present understanding is that it was followed and emulated due to being written by the Guru. 

So the influence of the Dasam Granth must have started already in the mid 19th century and not late 19th century.

[SikhKhoj]

- Prashan Uttar: Internal date is a weak proof.

- Prehlad Singh: The author blatantly lies when he gives a fake internal date and says it was written in Abchal because the date and Guru Gobind Singhs visit to Abchal don't match (Guru Ji visited that place only years later). Therefore it is a fake Rehat and not a interpolated Rehat. I place it in the second part of the 18th century or later.

- Sakhi Rehat Ki: Padam places it in 1735 but gives no reasoning why. I place it later, might give reasons why later. 

- Desa Singh Rehat: The author mentions that 'at this place once Jassa Singh Kalal used to live'. Jassa Singh died in 1783 thus the Rehat automatically is a post 1780 writing.

 

Ofcourse, the Dasam Granth material was used by many people to emulate because there was a confusion: some thought it was Guru Krit (like Kesar Singh) while others knew it was court poet material. So you will see some texts resembling DG prior to 1775 and even Kesar Singh labeling Dasam Granth tuks as 'Saakh M10' but you will hardly find DG in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar, whereas some 1800s source mention only Dasam Granth Banis for Nitnem or Amrit Sanchar!

So we already have Koer Singh (1751) giving Japji, Rehraas and Sohila as Nitnem. Bansawlinama (1769) giving Japji Anand as Amrit Sanchar. Good, continue digging theres a few more early sources.

In my other thread I have mentioned another source for nitnem. Read that too. 

[amardeep]

Parchian Patshahi Dasmi which Pyara Singh Padam dates to the 1740s quote verbatim from the Ram Avatar and 33 swaye and mentions the hikaitan.

So when do you date the Prashan uttar - and based on what. Also please expand on your reasoning for placing the Sakhi Rahit Ki later in the 18th century.

Prem Sumarag Granth mentions Dasam Bani in many instances through out the book. But thats much more difficult to date so lets leave that one aside for now.

Ofcourse, the Dasam Granth material was used by many people to emulate because there was a confusion: some thought it was Guru Krit (like Kesar Singh) while others knew it was court poet material. So you will see some texts resembling DG prior to 1775 and even Kesar Singh labeling Dasam Granth tuks as 'Saakh M10' but you will hardly find DG in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar, whereas some 1800s source mention only Dasam Granth Banis for Nitnem or Amrit Sanchar!

 

Lets leave Bansavalinama aside, and talk about pre 1755 writings to see if the Dasam Granth was already influcing the minds of the early Sikh ithiasak writers before the middle of 18th century. So we can see the authors of Gurbilas Patshahi 10 (1751) Gursobha (1740s) and Parchian Patshahi 10 (1740s) either refer to Dasam Granth compositions or were linguistically influenced by it (in terms of terminology or narrative).

 

Edited July 22, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

Try to understand what I write? From my previous post:

Ofcourse, the Dasam Granth material was used by many people to emulate because there was a confusion: some thought it was Guru Krit (like Kesar Singh) while others knew it was court poet material. So you will see some texts resembling DG prior to 1775 and even Kesar Singh labeling Dasam Granth tuks as 'Saakh M10' but you will hardly find DG in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar, whereas some 1800s source mention only Dasam Granth Banis for Nitnem or Amrit Sanchar!

By the 1740s 1750s the DG compositions were accepted by a section of the community but not yet made part of Nitnem nor Amrit Sanchaar as is evident. Slowly DG become so important that you will find 1800s sources which only give DG for Nitnem or only DG for Amrit Sanchar.

Prem Sumarag mentions DG but why not for Amrit Sanchar? It does for nitnem but that is a trend that needs to be investigated.

Parchian Pt 10 may mention the Dasam Granth compositions and so may Koer Singh or Kesar Singh but that is not even the discussion at hand? The discussion is about it being more important as it became a part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar over time.

Padam places all compositions attributed to Nand Lal (in his Rehatnamey) to later & not being written by him (see introduction). This includes Prashan Uttar & Sakhi Rehat Ki.

First find me all sources you can find (I have 14 but won't share any, might just guide you to some) about Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar from 1700 to 1780.

Edited July 22, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

By the 1740s 1750s the DG compositions were accepted by a section of the community but not yet made part of Nitnem nor Amrit Sanchaar as is evident. Slowly DG become so important that you will find 1800s sources which only give DG for Nitnem or only DG for Amrit Sanchar.

Okay so only 30 years after the Guru, the only historical writings from that period we have were:

1) familiar with the Dasam Granth and its writings.

2) Influenced by the Dasam Granth.

Prem Sumarag mentions DG but why not for Amrit Sanchar? It does for nitnem but that is a trend that needs to be investigated.

Which banis does it mention for Amrit Sanchar?

Parchian Pt 10 may mention the Dasam Granth compositions and so may Koer Singh or Kesar Singh but that is not even the discussion at hand? The discussion is about it being more important as it became a part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar over time.

Sorry I thought we were talking about the evolving influence and rise in status of the Dasam Granth over the many decades of the 18th century. I am trying to go back in time to see the earliest we can get to when the influence first kicks in.

Padam places all compositions attributed to Nand Lal (in his Rehatnamey) to later & not being written by him (see introduction). This includes Prashan Uttar & Sakhi Rehat Ki.

Authorship aside, the dating is still important. When do you date it to according to your research?

 

First find me all sources you can find (I have 14 but won't share any, might just guide you to some) about Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar from 1700 to 1780.

Why wont you share any? What is the point in continuing this if we are just gonna go about in circles? If you've spend years already researching this,  then share it with sangat.

 

 

 

[SikhKhoj]

1. I have not denied that some authors had become aware of Dasam Granth writings by the mid 18th century & even labelled it to Guru Gobind Singh. What I am trying to tell is that DG became more important in Sikhi (and perhaps day to day life - 'nitnem') once it started being included in the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar. Ponder on one point: you will find 18th century sources with no DG in Nitnem/Amrit but on the other hand you will find sources in 19th century heavily promoting only DG and mostly DG in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. There is a clear pattern in that regard.

2. I don't have the Prem Sumarg at hand but I think it gives Anand Sahib for Amrit.

3. Well there is no doubt that DG started having some acceptance by the mid 18th century as is evident from influenced literature but the thing that made DG more popular than Sarbloh Granth for example was the fact that it was related to court poets and thus confused the masses and secondly that it slowly became a part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar (& people were afraid to question these)

4. I cannot date Prashan Uttar and Sakhi Rehat Ki as I have not had access to either the manuscripts nor have I found strong interal evidence. Prashan Uttars internal date (1695) is nullified by the fact that it says Guru Granth Sahib (1708) instead of Granth Ji for example. 

5. Some sources are common but others I cannot share because they're not accesible to the general sangat and will only be doubted. Therefore I will only refer you to published sources. What early sources do you know? Its funny that you mentioned Sakhi Rehat, Prashan Uttar but not other authentic early Rehats that have no Dasam Bani in Nitnem?

Edited July 22, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[amardeep]

1. I have not denied that some authors had become aware of Dasam Granth writings by the mid 18th century & even labelled it to Guru Gobind Singh. What I am trying to tell is that DG became more important in Sikhi (and perhaps day to day life - 'nitnem') once it started being included in the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchaar.

Well this depends on how late the various rahitname really are. Especially the Prashanuttar, Sakhi Rahit ki and Prem Sumarag.

Im still trying to see what Chaupa Singh says. I just went through the Tankhahnama, it says only japji sahib. So two sources from first half of 18th century so far says only japji sahib in nitnem, while 4-5 other undated texts from 18th century says jaap sahib included..

Ponder on one point: you will find 18th century sources with no DG in Nitnem/Amrit but on the other hand you will find sources in 19th century heavily promoting only DG and mostly DG in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. There is a clear pattern in that regard.

As long as you dont mention what these sources are I cant really use that for anything.

3. Well there is no doubt that DG started having some acceptance by the mid 18th century as is evident from influenced literature but the thing that made DG more popular than Sarbloh Granth for example was the fact that it was related to court poets and thus confused the masses and secondly that it slowly became a part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar (& people were afraid to question these)

It appears that all writers of the larger granths in the 18th century were influenced by it (meaning they had studied it) - I dont have the Sau Sakhi so can't comment on that one though, - thats also a large granth of the 18th century. But a great majority of Sikh writers seem to have accepted the Dasam Granth - Were they all wrong?

 

4. I cannot date Prashan Uttar and Sakhi Rehat Ki as I have not had access to either the manuscripts nor have I found strong interal evidence. Prashan Uttars internal date is nullified by the fact that it says Guru Granth Sahib instead of Granth Ji for example. 

Which print are you looking at? I just checked Pyara Singh Padam's rehitname, - it only says  Granth ji. I can't find any Guru Granth Sahib ji.

 

5. Some sources are common but others I cannot share because they're not accesible to the general sangat and will only be doubted. Therefore I will only refer you to published sources. What early sources do you know? Its funny that you mentioned Sakhi Rehat, Prashan Uttar but not other authentic early Rehats that have no Dasam Bani in Nitnem?

Okay well for the sake of keeping this discussion most fruitful, only refer to published sources then. Using granths and sources you wont mention is not fruitful since we have no way of looking further into them in this thread.

As I wrote above im still looking through my books as we speak, so thats why i have'nt mentioned all. As I come across more, i'll write in. But instead of playing games, why dont you write the sources of 18th century that mentions only japji sahib in nitnem.

Edited July 22, 2015 by amardeep

[SikhKhoj]

1. Both Grewal and GS Mann are of the opinion that the preface + rehat part of the Chaupa Singh Rehat might be early whereas the biography and tankhah part seem latter additions. It is highly probable, therefore I would suggest you to skim through the first 2 parts of the Rehat alone to form an opinion of early 18th century sources. And let me make it easier for you; it does say 5 times Japji Sahib in morning, no Jaap or other Banis. That makes three sources.

2. Good you found about Tankhahnama. That is actually the wrong name, the real name is Naseehatnama and its manuscript has been dated to 1719 so it is an early (short) rehatnama with no Dasam Granth for Nitnem. 

3. There is no sure way that Desa Singh Rehat and Prehilad Singh Rehat were even written in the 18th century so please stop counting them in 18th century sources. Jassa Singh died in 1783 and therefore Desa Singh Rehatnama could've been a 1795 writing but also a 1810 writing.

4. Just because everyone believes something is right does not make it right (argumentum ad populum or argumentum from authority). And it would be wrong to assume that author of most large Granths accepted DG as Guru Krit because we have not talked about all of them. I won't go deeper into this at the moment, lets conclude about Nitnem and Amrit banis first.

5. Bindra used other versions than Padam (for Prashan Uttar). Padam is a known crook when it comes to editing manuscripts to 'change' history. He edited Guru Kian Sakhian heavily too. His 'Tankhahnama' and that of Bindra do not tally either. 

6. Look at the Mukatnama (Sau Sakhi). It is placed in 1734 by Padam (while other parts of Sau Sakhi were written much later, some parts may have been written early on). It also says Japji, Rehraas and Sohila. Four sources. Keep looking, you will find plenty more of them.

Edited July 22, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[paapiman]

From the other thread:

 

There are people who claim Sarbloh was written by Guru Gobind Singh (albeit in a previous incarnation). There used to be people who seriously believed the Sau Sakhi was written by Guru Gobind Singh about a century back (Kahan Singh Nabha talks about this). There are who ascribe many granths to Guru Gobind such as the Puranmasi Katha, Prem Sumarg, etc

Truth is that we are gullible as a community in general, just associate anything with the Gurus and you will have fools ready to pay millions for it or worship it. Anything with the title Pt 10 was seriously considered as a Dasam Pita Bani just because of the heading - and mind you, I personally know dozens of people who still think that way. This fact was severely misused by our enemies and corrupt people, read the Naveen Panth Parkash to read how the son of Sukha Singh Patna (Granthi) actually imitated Guru Gobind Singhs handwriting and sold the writings for lots of money.

But since most of the compositions seem to have been composed in the Gur Darbar the Dasam Granth seems to have had more general authenticity over the years. But that is one evolution, it is in this aspect that you can not deny the Amrit Sanchar proofs from within Bansawlinama. You say 'thats another topic' but the title says 'Bansawlinama on DG' and since Amrit Sanchar has no DG banis it is very important to notice a trend and actually understand why and how DG became so popular.

If people like Kesar Singh believed in the 1760s that DG was by Guru Gobind Singh they also on the other hand showed Amrit Sanchar had no Dasam Banis. The Mukatnama from around the same time equally gives no DG Bani in the Nitnem. Theres a dozen sources confirming about the Nitnem. (don't quote unauthentic Rehats such as the so called 1695 Nand Lal rehat for Jap Jaap - Pyara Padam himself published them and said they're all later writings and not of Nand Lal or the respected others)

DG gained more importance in the late 18th and early 19th century because that is when things such as DG Banis started appearing in the nitnem, and DG Banis were added to Pahul. Even if we accept the flawed source of Guru Kian Sakhian for 5 Banis (including DG) it means no source prior to 1790 mentions those Banis. Even the Prem Sumarg that is so admired on this forum does not give Dasam Banis for Amrit Sanchar, which leads me to accept that it might have been written somewhere before the 1780s.

DG did not gain prominence because it was Dasam Krit but because it was made part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. And that is how our community got fooled by having our main ceremonies depend on the Dasam Granth - and even today people still do not dare to question DG because our main ceremonies depend on it. So it is a complicated issue and needs full assessment. You can't just say Kesar Singh accepts DG banis as Dasam Guru Krit and leave out the fact that despite existence of DG there was  no DG in Amrit Sanchar which shows a evolution to include more DG (this is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact you can establish by reading and taking notes of all manuscripts and you will notice the evolution yourself).

Daas will request cyber sangat not to have any doubts on Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee. It would be very hard for a person to move up spiritually, if one doubts Satguru jee in anyway. Doubting Satguru jee is a big sin. 

Please consult with scholars, regarding the above concerns.

Sikhkhoj did ask some good questions in the past. Daas talked to a scholar about them. The scholar was easily able to answer, most of those questions --- clearly shows the importance of scholars in the panth.

Bhul chuk maaf

[ibrute]

Sangat Jee please aapni sharda bachao, just don't get involved with these useless and time wasting topics, we have nothing to gain here but everything to lose here. Every amritdhari sikh is instructed during amrit sanchaar keep you faith on amrit, never doubt on it and everything that is told during the ceremony is told by Guru Gobind Singh Jee by himself. The topic is directly a slur on it. I doubt OP is amritdhari yet?. Don't create doubt, bring good topics which can be appreciated by the forum or else don't .

Are we sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh Jee Maharaj or some uninformed authors. Ask? 

Edited July 23, 2015 by ibrute

[Guest]

Bachitar Natak to Dasam Granth

Giani Thakur Singh Ji said it should mean we can now change from Dasam Guru Granth to Guru Granth

[SikhKhoj]

Amardeep, you were quick to post your conclusion which was in Dasam Granth favour:

It appears that all writers of the larger granths in the 18th century were influenced by it (meaning they had studied it) - I dont have the Sau Sakhi so can't comment on that one though, - thats also a large granth of the 18th century. But a great majority of Sikh writers seem to have accepted the Dasam Granth - Were they all wrong?

I have already replied to the above statement before but let me post my conclusions. I won't add more sources for Japji Rehraas and Sohila as nitnem because 4 sources are more than enough. My sources (with the exception of Sau Sakhi) are clearly dated (1719, 1751, 1764). This in stark contrast to your sources which are dubious, false rehats such as Prehlad Rehat and Prashan Uttar and most important of all undated. Desa one is late 18th to 19th century.

Conclusion 1: Even if some writers of larger Granths were aware of Dasam Granth banis, they also were clear in the fact that Dasam Granth held no importance both in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. Koer Singh gives no Dasam Bani in Nitnem in 1751 and Kesar Singh gives no Dasam Bani in Amrit Sanchar in 1769. And rightly so.

Conclusion 2: The earliest source we have is the Naseehatnama, clearly dated with no dispute about its dating. It was written in 1719 and gives Japji Rehraas Sohila. Since this Nitnem is found in over 10 historical writings, most of whom have no dubious sources, it is correct to assume Japji Rehraas and Sohila is Nitnem.

Internal evidence (first 13 pannas of Guru Granth Sahib) also prove that only these three Banis are Nitnem.

Note 3: I am a practical person, I don't care about the Dasam Granth. If it was important in the mid 18th century to some then so be it, but it was not used in Nitnem or Amrit Sanchar.
Remove Dasam Granth from Nitnem and amrit sanchar and the anti lobby will be happy, who cares if someone keeps on believing in Dasam Granth, we have people who believe in dozens of Granths attributed to Dasam Pita, just don't mix them up with our daily Nitnem and Amrit.

[SikhKhoj]

Sangat Jee please aapni sharda bachao, just don't get involved with these useless and time wasting topics, we have nothing to gain here but everything to lose here. Every amritdhari sikh is instructed during amrit sanchaar keep you faith on amrit, never doubt on it and everything that is told during the ceremony is told by Guru Gobind Singh Jee by himself. The topic is directly a slur on it. I doubt OP is amritdhari yet?. Don't create doubt, bring good topics which can be appreciated by the forum or else don't .

Are we sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh Jee Maharaj or some uninformed authors. Ask? 

Debunk my claims. Do not go the emotional way if you have nothing to say or can't disprove me. Don't like the topic then don't post, simple.

[ibrute]

GO Away.

[Crystal]

Note 3: I am a practical person, I don't care about the Dasam Granth. 

Remove Dasam Granth from Nitnem and amrit sanchar and the anti lobby will be happy, who cares if someone keeps on believing in Dasam Granth, we have people who believe in dozens of Granths attributed to Dasam Pita, just don't mix them up with our daily Nitnem and Amrit.

 

Crystal

[CdnSikhGirl]

GO Away.

Sangat Jee please aapni sharda bachao, just don't get involved with these useless and time wasting topics, we have nothing to gain here but everything to lose here. Every amritdhari sikh is instructed during amrit sanchaar keep you faith on amrit, never doubt on it and everything that is told during the ceremony is told by Guru Gobind Singh Jee by himself. The topic is directly a slur on it. I doubt OP is amritdhari yet?. Don't create doubt, bring good topics which can be appreciated by the forum or else don't .

Are we sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh Jee Maharaj or some uninformed authors. Ask? 

What are you so afraid of that you are actually suggesting we should abandon historical study to find out the truth?  Are you so worried about the wool being pulled off your eyes and that you will feel embarassed for believing in something that may not have been exactly what you thought it was? 

I think it's a far larger injustice to propagate information without knowing the truth...

Edited July 23, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[SikhKhoj]

admin cut

Resorting to insults and emotional blackmail because you know you are wrong and have no proof to say otherwise.

You guys should be ashamed for changing Guru Maryada and enforcing your own views, despite contrary historical proofs.

[amardeep]

I have 4 dated books about Nitnem without DG (and many more than I don't need to disclose, 4 dated proofs are enough to start with) compared to Amardeeps 4-5 unauthentic, undated books (Prashan Uttar, Rehatnama Prehlad, etc).

My sources (with the exception of Sau Sakhi) are clearly dated (1719, 1751, 1764). This in stark contrast to your sources which are dubious, false rehats such as Prehlad Rehat and Prashan Uttar and most important of all undated. Desa one is late 18th to 19th Century.

 

Dont turn this into a competion of "your sources" and "my sources". All sources belong to the panth. This is not about who can bring most books to the table to win the debate. Its about looking into historical sources to reveal what they say about these topics.

Conclusion 1: Even if some writers of larger Granths were aware of Dasam Granth banis, they also were clear in the fact that Dasam Granth held no importance both in Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. Koer Singh gives no Dasam Bani in Nitnem in 1751 and Kesar Singh gives no Dasam Bani in Amrit Sanchar in 1769. And rightly so

You are mixing two Things here: Nitnem banis and the banis recited in Amrit Sanchar.

What does Koer Singh say about the Amrit Sanchar banis and what does Kesar Singh say about nitnem banis?

Since you been researching this for years, please bring your knowledge to the table . Did you find jaap sahib in any early text?

The four sources that you say talk about Japji Sahib only are clearly dated, while the others are more difficult to date. That's why it is even more important that we date these documents instead of just brushing them aside.

 

 Prashan Uttar: Internal date is a weak proof.

It is not weak proof at all. It is in fact very interesting since it claims a 1695 date, while showing no influence of Dasam Granth terminology, narrative or World view. There is no mentioning of the Khalsa (as other rahitname do) nor is there any terminology that seem to derive from Dasam Granth. So it appears that this Granth is from a time when the Dasam Granth had not been mainstream as of yet in the minds of literate Sikhs.

The fact that there are two different manuscripts does'nt mean you can just pick which one suits you best. If one says Guru Granth Sahib we have to look into why this is so, and why others does'nt say so.

 

 Prehlad Singh: The author blatantly lies when he gives a fake internal date and says it was written in Abchal because the date and Guru Gobind Singhs visit to Abchal don't match (Guru Ji visited that place only years later). Therefore it is a fake Rehat and not a interpolated Rehat. I place it in the second part of the 18th century or later.

The Word Abchal Nagar is mentioned in  the Guru Granth Sahib and describes a peacefull steady place/city. Nanded became Abchal Nagar after the Guru had read this hukamnama there.

It is possible that the Sikhs refered to Anandpur as Abchal Nagar - a peaceful steady city. This is not unusual at all in Sikh history - that they rename Places in light of religious or secular terminology. I've heard people call Places as Begampura (mentioned in Guru Granth Sahib) as well as calling Places as Sach Khand, Khalsa Raj etc.

The date 1695 is interesting as it falls in line with loads of other literature that was completed around this very productive period (as i've mentioned earlier). 1695-1696 is seen Again and Again in manuscripts - most likely reflecting that this was a very productive, blossoming period.

 

- Sakhi Rehat Ki: Padam places it in 1735 but gives no reasoning why. I place it later, might give reasons why later.

Why only might? Listen im not interested in games - bring your research to the table or stop using hollow arguments. Padam says 1735 - thats still quite early then - some 20 years after Guru Gobind Singhs Jyoti jyot.

 

 Desa Singh Rehat: The author mentions that 'at this place once Jassa Singh Kalal used to live'. Jassa Singh died in 1783 thus the Rehat automatically is a post 1780 writing.

Fair enough, lets brush this rahitnama aside.

 

What has your research said about the Parchia Patshahi 10 from the 1740s?

 

Prem Sumarag mentions DG but why not for Amrit Sanchar? It does for nitnem but that is a trend that needs to be investigated.

The author of Prem Sumarag Granth appears to be clear that Dasam Granth is Guru krit. He quotes it throughout - even in the nitnem. If it ony mentions Anand Sahib for Amrit - that brings out a Whole other issue that's not even related to Dasam Granth talk: Why are there conflicting accounts on which banis to read even from the Guru Granth Sahib?

 

1. Both Grewal and GS Mann are of the opinion that the preface + rehat part of the Chaupa Singh Rehat might be early whereas the biography and tankhah part seem latter additions. It is highly probable, therefore I would suggest you to skim through the first 2 parts of the Rehat alone to form an opinion of early 18th century sources. And let me make it easier for you; it does say 5 times Japji Sahib in morning, no Jaap or other Banis. That makes three sources.

I will read through the Chaupa Singh this weekend.  It's funny how when I refered to GS Mann once you started calling me his chela and having my head up his arse, and now you do it yourself. You only take opinions from scholars when they agree with your own thinking?

But Again it seems we have the Whole issue coming up that there is no agreement at all in what banis to read in the morning nor at the Amrit sanchar. So this begs a Whole bigger question than mere "what is the status of Dasam Granth". If they are so contradictory it Means one can basically use them to argue for whatever one wants by selecting sources and casting away those that dont fit into the argument one is trying to make.

 

4. Just because everyone believes something is right does not make it right (argumentum ad populum or argumentum from authority). And it would be wrong to assume that author of most large Granths accepted DG as Guru Krit because we have not talked about all of them. I won't go deeper into this at the moment, lets conclude about Nitnem and Amrit banis first.

True but it just seems quite unlikely that almost the entire Group of literate Sikh authors of the 18th Century were deluded on this. The first one to question Dasam Granth was a British writer in the colonial period - why was'nt there any discussion on this before that ? (The Damdama incident where the Singhs discuss whether to seperate the Granth seems to be penned Down by Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha and no one before that ever mentioned that incident.)

 

5. Bindra used other versions than Padam (for Prashan Uttar). Padam is a known crook when it comes to editing manuscripts to 'change' history. He edited Guru Kian Sakhian heavily too. His 'Tankhahnama' and that of Bindra do not tally either.

I did'n know he was known for that .Please tell more.

 

 

6. Look at the Mukatnama (Sau Sakhi). It is placed in 1734 by Padam (while other parts of Sau Sakhi were written much later, some parts may have been written early on). It also says Japji, Rehraas and Sohila. Four sources. Keep looking, you will find plenty more of them.

So how do you know which parts are later additions ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another step forward in this discussion would be to make arrangements in sources. Which writer was influenced by which books?

For instance, if Chaupa Singh Rahitnama says X, and Bhai Kesar Singh Chibbar also says X.. Do they Count as two sources then if we know that Bhai Kessar Singh Chibbar had read the rahitnama of Bhai Chaupa Singh... This would mean one is cancelled out and they combined only Count as 1 source.

For instance we know that Kavi Santokh Singh had read the Mahima Prakash and much of his information on Bhai Nand Lal comes from here. So this Means Kavi Santokh Singh does'n Count as an independant source, since he is dependant on Mahima Prakash.

With this in light, how many independant sources are there for each claim ? (Guru Granth nitnem and Guru/Dasam nitnem). How many sources can we cancel out?

[SikhKhoj]

1. This is not a competition for your or my sources but we both have a different point of view and support it with historical sources. Therefore it is in that sense that I talk about your sources and mine.

You base your opinion based on the fact 1740s - 1760s literary material being heavily influenced by the Dasam Granth while I do not disagree but say that there is a clear pattern of evolution to first "introduce" (not in a conspiracy theory way) Dasam Granth and over the decades as it became an integral part of Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar the DG became an inseperable and unquestionable Granth. My theory thereby explaining how a Granth got so widely accepted unlike the Sarbloh for example who is not part of our ceremonies.

2. I am 'mixing' Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar but my initial post in the topic covers both Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar. I have to admit that in my research there is much more unanimous evidence for the Nitnem being Japji, regarding the Khande Di Pahul there is a similar trend of mostly SGGS Banis in 18th century vs the 19th century sources altough no two sources say the same.

Koer does not specify Amrit Banis (he says mantars) and nor does Kesar specify the Nitnem as far as I remember. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

5. Padam has dated Sakhi Rehat Ki to 1735, what is his reasoning? Any scholar can not just paste a date to a document without reasoning. Provide me his reasoning and I'll see if it looks valid or not.

6. I am hesitant about Prem Sumarg because first of all it is very difficult to date. The fact that it does include Jap Jaap but still gives Anand for Amrit leads me to believe (in an un-historian) way that it might be written somewhere during the late Misl kaal, it is not an early 18th century source...

7. The debate is not what Bani to read or what not to read from the SGGS, it is a discussion on the point how the Nitnem and Amrit Sanchar evolved in our literature to give place for more emphasis on Dasam Granth Banis. Assessing the correct Amrit Sanchar Bani will be difficult while the Nitnem is very clear if you are willing to think logically.

8.  You often quoted GS Mann for a baseless theory that irked me. GS Mann has some interesting points as does every historian. I read his opinion on the CHS Rehat and found it quite possible, I myself was stunned between the internal inconsistences and change of language between the Rehat and biography part. Bhai Kahan Singh also argues similarly about the Tankhah part of the Rehat. 
I do not only accept opinions when they agree with my thinking, I have often changed my position on topics so don't worry about that.

9. Do not piss me off by saying that there is no agreement on morning Banis, you can say it about Amrit Sanchar but I gave you clearly dated sources about Nitnel from differing decades in the early years after Guru Gobind Singh Ji. The only discussion that may be in your mind is whether to add Jaap to the Nitnem or not, not a single dated or undated source mentions Swaiye or Chaupai so yeah.

10. I will answer about the historical debate regarding DG soon. You are right, the incident mentioned by Nabha seems to have been hearsay and not a historical fact.

11. Sau Sakhi latter additions are not always spotted but some easy ways are latter dates mentioned, sometimes the name of the person adding the Sakhi was noted and so on. Some incidents have been mentioned that happened much after 1734. Lets not get off topic.

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

[SikhKhoj]

Just to give you a small but clear example of what I mean; Twarikh I Sikhan & Prachin Panth Parkash are both 19th century sources. Both give only Dasam Banis for amrit sanchaar. Compare that to Bansawlinama (18th century) giving only SGGS Banis for sanchaar. 

That is the 'trend' I keep referring to.

[ibrute]

What are you so afraid of that you are actually suggesting we should abandon historical study to find out the truth?  Are you so worried about the wool being pulled off your eyes and that you will feel embarassed for believing in something that may not have been exactly what you thought it was? 
I think it's a far larger injustice to propagate information without knowing the truth...

I don't care for you or others like you, I m concerned for forum in large. Why would you bother what I comment or not.

[ibrute]

Resorting to insults and emotional blackmail because you know you are wrong and have no proof to say otherwise.
You guys should be ashamed for changing Guru Maryada and enforcing your own views, despite contrary historical proofs.

Whoz Guru, are you baptised ? huh