40 Greatest Sikhs Who Believed ‘Dasam Granth’ the Work of Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji

[Ragmaala]

Also in Shastranaam Mala, Guru Gobind Singh Ji maharaj mentions the following:

 mach kach barah tum, tum bavan avtar || narsingh bayuda tuhi...tuhi ram sri krishan tum, tuhi bisan ko roop....

..sri bhagauti ustat

Maharaj is doing Ustat of Bhagauti. I already know Maharaj did ustat of Akal earlier. Then he is going to do ustat of Mahakal.

So basically these all are the same things just saying it in a different manner.

So Bhaguti which is the Aadi Shakti or which is the Nirankar can manifest in many countless things ( mentioned exclusively in Akal Ustat), manifests into many different kinds of weapons talwar ,kharag, gun, teer, ( not necessarily masculine or feminine weapons, maybe the nouns are masc/fem, but nothing more than that), manifests as Chaubis Avtar, manifests as Bavan Avtar in Satyug, manifests as Narsingh Avtar, manifests as Ram Vishnu & Krishna.

So Nirankar & Bhagauti is the same, they just manifest in certain forms in varying degrees.

Thus , i feel the theological structure in both Guru Granth Sahib & Dasam Granth is same and unifying. And the internal differences we find or differences we find between Dasam Granth or Adi Granth are nothing but differences in our own mind. Only turyia avastha mind can truly understand the both granths to its fullest.

Anyways, the above is just my own interpretation & thinking based on my limited intellect and understanding. It probably lacks good arguments or counter-arguments, but thats what my mind feels best rested upon for now. As maharaj does more kirpa we will know.

[amardeep]

14 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Yeshua is a name of God

Ganesh is a name of God

OM/Onkar is not a deity.

If you ever come across two writings one start with OM Yeshua, the other starts with OM Ganesh, then know that they belong to different religions.

Suppose I write a textbook,
I start Chapter 1 with OM Physics, then it means I am physicist.
In Chapter 2, I say Om Physics and then talk about Chemistry. It means I am putting Chemistry as something that follows from the Physics from Chapter 1.

Suppose I write a textbook,
I start it with OM Physics, but the entire book is about Chemistry and nothing to do with Physics. Then you should either consider me a fool or a liar or consider my manglacharan as a typo.

If anyone is starting their writings with Om Ganesh, and not venerating Ganesh in the writing and in their daily practice, then I would say they are being very foolish and deceptive.

Imagine if Richard Dawkins wrote a book "God is great" and started saying "God is fiction for adults" within the book.


Also see my response to Samurai -

 

But that is not the case with the Dasam Granth. The Manglacharans in most banis are clear that Oankaar and Bhaugati are the primes. Then in the following shaloks, pauris and chands you see ustat of Mahakal, Devi etc. But the overall spirit of the Sri Granth is that these are the same, - just different expressions of the One. Hence, I would'n read these later shaloks etc. as expressions of faith to the exclusion of other 'Hindu' faiths..

[amardeep]

But we are making things a bit too simple here. Many 18th and 19th century translations of Muslim and Vedant Granths for instance starts with Ik Oankaar Satgur Prasaad even though the content is entirely non-Sikh.

Bhai Garru's translation of Rumis Mathnavi for instance begins. "Ik Oankaar Satgur Prasaad, Ath Mathnavi Likhiyate. Suno bans........" So the manglacharan is Sikh while the content is "non-Sikh".. This is very normal and the Sri Dasam Granth follows similiar patterns in the different translations.

[BhagatSingh]

12 hours ago, Ragmaala said:

So basically these all are the same things just saying it in a different manner.

This "different manner" leads to differences in religion.

Islam is just saying what Christianity is saying but in a different manner, Christianity is saying what the Pagans were saying but in a different manner. Pagans were saying the same as their ancestors but in a different manner.

Everyone is talking about it in a different manner, and that's why we have all these religions.

All these Greek gods, all these Japanese gods, Norse gods, this god, that god, my god, your god, they are all talking about the same thing in a different manner. Thor, Zeus, Wodin, Yanus, all of it. All of human history has been doing this.
 

When you say something in a different manner, that becomes a different religious structure.

When you have a society where different religions intermingle, people tie those Gods together to whoever they worship.

Here below, a Shakat, is saying that Gods of other religions are forms of Bhagawati.

12 hours ago, Ragmaala said:

mach kach barah tum, tum bavan avtar || narsingh bayuda tuhi...tuhi ram sri krishan tum, tuhi bisan ko roop....

..sri bhagauti ustat

That all these Gods that everyone talks about are all forms of Bhagawati - This is a Shakat belief.

And you know that because he will tie all Gods back to Bhagawati. A Shakat will do Bhagawati's ustat. When he talks about Krishan Avtar in Chaubis Avtar, he will first clarify allegiance to Devi.

And you know that is a different belief system because when you study other beliefs, you realize this is not a Vaishnu belief, this is not a Shaiv belief, this is not a Muslim belief, this is not a Christian belief...  this is only a Shakat belief.
 

There is a tendency in our people, to lump everything together. To lump different ideas, philosophies, religious structures under one thing.

But when you study these different texts (the puran), you will find that these are in fact separate traditions, living in one country.

12 hours ago, Ragmaala said:

Only turyia avastha mind can truly understand the both granths to its fullest.

I know Turiya avastha and from the perspective of Turiya avastha, Guru Granth Sahib, Dasam Granth, Quran, Bible, Tao Te Ching, Torah, etc are all essentially talking about the same thing.

That is because everything dissolves in turiya avastha. There are no distinctions there. There are no objects there. There is no thing, you can point at.

So you cannot put up turiya avastha as a defense and say the millions of religious forms that exist are all the same and there are no distinctions. Because they do exist as distinct entities, in a the everyday Waking Avastha.

 

Why don't you go to a mosque and read namaz and follow Prophet Mohammad? He is talking about Akal Purakh too.
You don't because you follow a religious structure that is different from that of Muslims.

Why don't you do daily paaths of Tao Te Ching? Because that's not your religion.

You don't follow Mohammad, and you don't follow Lao Tzu. This difference is reality for you.

It's a reality for everyone.

 

Have you ever wondered why Yanus has one head pointing in the past, and one pointing in the future?

Have you ever wondered why no one can attain the throne of Indra?

Have you ever wondered why Anant Shesha has countless heads?

All of these answers become clear in Turiya avastha.

But that does not mean these are all the same religions, these are different theological forms. 

There is reason why Bhagat Nam Dev ji tells you not to worship Bhairav, Shiv, Maha Maya, Bhawani, and to worship Ram alone (pg874). He is referring to different theological forms, and yet Bhagat Nam Dev ji knew the Turiya Avastha. But he also knew the importance of maintaining worship of distinct theological forms.

So let's not use arguments from Turiya avastha to deny theological differences, where they exist.

You might still not consider it a different theological structure but this is a reality for the followers of these religions. So hopefully now when I say Bhagawati is a different theological structure to Narayan, you can see that essentially it is talking about divine but in different manner, and that different manner leads to a distinct theological structure. And that difference mattered for the followers of these theological structures.

[amardeep]

Rattan Singh Jaggi in his Dasam Granth PHD from the 1960s (he did'n believe in Dasam Granth as Guru krit at the time) did a comparative analysis of the three chandi compositions (and also the Chaubis Avatar if I remember correctly). He put the Sanskrit and Dasam Granth Braj Basha granths side by side to see how loyal and accurate the translations were. His conclusion was that the author had editorially omitted all forms of theological sections seen in the original and instead focused heavily on translating the parts that deal with yudh. In this way, many large sections that deal with theology are not to be found in the Braj translation.

What I make of this is that the purpose of the different banis of Sri Dasam Granth is in no way an attempt to confess any faith but rather to stirr the nerves of the readers and boil their blood as a preperation for Dharam Yudh.

Edited February 1, 2016 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

7 hours ago, amardeep said:

Rattan Singh Jaggi in his Dasam Granth PHD from the 1960s (he did'n believe in Dasam Granth as Guru krit at the time) did a comparative analysis of the three chandi compositions (and also the Chaubis Avatar if I remember correctly). He put the Sanskrit and Dasam Granth Braj Basha granths side by side to see how loyal and accurate the translations were. His conclusion was that the author had editorially omitted all forms of theological sections seen in the original and instead focused heavily on translating the parts that deal with yudh. In this way, many large sections that deal with theology are not to be found in the Braj translation.

What I make of this is that the purpose of the different banis of Sri Dasam Granth is in no way an attempt to confess any faith but rather to stirr the nerves of the readers and boil their blood as a preperation for Dharam Yudh.

Did you ever find that expensive book you bought about the Dasam Granth (in English) useful in the end?

[amardeep]

Which one?

[Guest seeker]

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha turned skeptical towards the Dasam Granth at the end of his life. Read his Gurmat Martand

[dalsingh101]

38 minutes ago, Guest seeker said:

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha turned skeptical towards the Dasam Granth at the end of his life. Read his Gurmat Martand

Can you direct us to specific sections? 

[dalsingh101]

22 hours ago, amardeep said:

Which one?

This one. 

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Debating-Dasam-Granth-Religions-Translation/dp/019975506X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454448017&sr=1-4&keywords=dasam+granth

[amardeep]

oh. I read that ages ago. It was good. It goes through the different banis and shows how there is an underlying unity of each composition regardless of how different they appear externally (Chaubis Avatar, the Chandi compositions and Charitro Pakhyan).

[amardeep]

51 minutes ago, Guest seeker said:

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha turned skeptical towards the Dasam Granth at the end of his life. Read his Gurmat Martand

Isn't he sceptical in all his writings on the Sri Dasam? In his Hum Hindu Nahi he states many of the banis attributed to the Guru is not Guru krit. And thats from the late 1890s...

Edited February 2, 2016 by amardeep

[dalsingh101]

11 minutes ago, amardeep said:

oh. I read that ages ago. It was good. It goes through the different banis and shows how there is an underlying unity of each composition regardless of how different they appear externally (Chaubis Avatar, the Chandi compositions and Charitro Pakhyan).

I remember when you first got it, you were crying about it being a waste of money. lol

 

Did it cover why Rattan Jaggi changed his mind by any chance? 

[amardeep]

hmm I can't remember what else it covered. I was quite young and western Sikh writings were new to me at the time. Maybe I should read it again.

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha wrote a 100+ page book on Braj Bhasha prosody and how to write poetry using chands and meters. In it he uses the Dasam Granth quite a lot as examples of how to write poetry in the different meters. He quotes extensively from the Chaubis Avatar etc. So he might not have considered it Guru krit but he did respect it in terms of poetic value.

[dalsingh101]

3 minutes ago, amardeep said:

hmm I can't remember what else it covered. I was quite young and western Sikh writings were new to me at the time. Maybe I should read it again.

Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha wrote a 100+ page book on Braj Bhasha prosody and how to write poetry using chands and meters. In it he uses the Dasam Granth quite a lot as examples of how to write poetry in the different meters. He quotes extensively from the Chaubis Avatar etc. So he might not have considered it Guru krit but he did respect it in terms of poetic value.

Here are your original thoughts from 5 years ago......  lol

 

 

 

[amardeep]

Haha I love reading my old posts here. Window back in time.

[chatanga1]

On 01/02/2016 at 10:13 AM, amardeep said:

Rattan Singh Jaggi in his Dasam Granth PHD from the 1960s (he did'n believe in Dasam Granth as Guru krit at the time) did a comparative analysis of the three chandi compositions (and also the Chaubis Avatar if I remember correctly). He put the Sanskrit and Dasam Granth Braj Basha granths side by side to see how loyal and accurate the translations were. His conclusion was that the author had editorially omitted all forms of theological sections seen in the original and instead focused heavily on translating the parts that deal with yudh. In this way, many large sections that deal with theology are not to be found in the Braj translation.

 

 

It's very reassuring to hear that Jaggi made that comparison.. This is something that should be discussed more. Exactly what of the puranic translation is used. I have always thought it was more the stories of battle rather than a comprehensive account.

[chatanga1]

15 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

 

 

I do want to get this book sometime. Cheapest I have seen it is around £40 . Too expensive for me, but seems like a very good read. Oxford publications are well expensive.

There was another book written on this subject by Loehlin around 1970. Anyone read that?

[Guest seeker]

To DallySingh

In his introduction Bhai Nabha says that serious scholars get labeled as nastiks, which has always been an issue amongst us. Go to page 'haha' (panjabi alphabet) of his Gurmat Martand part I and see Nabha condemning Charitropakhyan for demeaning women.

[Guest seeker]

Not to say Bhai Nabha was completely Anti Dasam Granth, but that did not exist prior to the 21st century, most people were only doubting Charitars earlier

[Guest seeker]

23 hours ago, amardeep said:

Isn't he sceptical in all his writings on the Sri Dasam? In his Hum Hindu Nahi he states many of the banis attributed to the Guru is not Guru krit. And thats from the late 1890s...

There are many banis outsides the Dasam Granth that are attributed to Guru Gobind Singh. Sau Sakhi, Prem Sumarg all were popularly believed to be written by Guru back in the day. It is in Gurmat Martand that Nabha openly tears into Charitropakhyan

[Singh123456777]

Kahan Singh is also against raag mala so I take his writings with a grain of salt. If I'm not mistaken wasn't he in the panch Khalsa diwan with babu teja bhasuria the outcast?

[dalsingh101]

13 hours ago, Guest seeker said:

To DallySingh

In his introduction Bhai Nabha says that serious scholars get labeled as nastiks, which has always been an issue amongst us. Go to page 'haha' (panjabi alphabet) of his Gurmat Martand part I and see Nabha condemning Charitropakhyan for demeaning women.

If you've got the work, is there any chance of you scanning the page and posting it?

 

Actually here is the book. Haha seems to start on scribd page numbering 138. Can someone direct us to the relevant passages please? 

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/122831758/Gurmat-Martand

[chatanga1]

Have just read a quote on the net that "Bhagwant Singh Hari, son of Kahn Singh Nabha wrote a book which proved that all of Dasam Bani is the work of 10th Guru.

[dalsingh101]

Quote

Go to page 'haha' (panjabi alphabet) of his Gurmat Martand part I and see Nabha condemning Charitropakhyan for demeaning women.

I tried to find this but couldn't find it. Any one else have better luck? 

Guest seeker, could you point it out?