amardeep Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Gurfateh Im working on a paper on Kavi Santokh Singh these months. Can you write anything interesting you know about him and writings or lead me to sources of relevance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh123456777 Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 According to baba hari Singh randhawa kavi ji was the first to marry outside of his caste in sikhi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 That's interesting. Im sure he was'nt the first but interesting that he did marry out of caste. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Whats the evidence that Kavi Santokh Singh was a nirmala? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest seeker Posted February 15, 2016 Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 you write papers too? anhea ch kaana raja ahaha 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I'm sure you've seen this Amardeep, but in case you haven't and anyone else is interested (from Macauliffe's introduction to Vol 1 of The Sikh Religion) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Thank you for that @dalsingh101 i had'n seen that before. Wonderful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragmaala Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 How can a historian write that his imagination was served by bhang and opium ? Did he have a proof of this or based it on anecdotes or his own imagination ? Do historians have the liberty to write with their imagination to insert their own unique flavor ? I am just curious as to how historians operate ? ( I myself am no scholar, and miles away from being one) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 @Ragmaala Yeah I wondered about that part too. It is strange since most of Macauliffes writings are based on the sequence and narrative of the Suraj Prakash Granth. He must be refering to certain parts only which did'n fit in with the Singh Sabha narrative of which Macauliffe was part. Especially the "hindu mythological" content. Overall Sri Mahakavi Santokh Singh did'n invent stories and sakhis. His Suraj Prakash is more of a collection of all the knowledge that was availible and scattered in different writings at the time.He compiled it all into one granth. In this way you can often trace his sources to earlier 18th century writings and see where he got his info from. Late 19th century British sources also describe him as a man who travelled extensively in India to places where the Gurus had travelled to collect local stories about the Gurus (so he must also have written down some sakhis which he was the first one in history to write down). In his Nanak Prakhash for instance (which is about 700 pages long), only about 12 sakhis are unaccounted for. All the remaining sakhis can be traced back to earlier Janam sakhi granths which he then recomposed into braj bhasha chands. So Macauliffe must be refering either to some of the more mythological content which Sri Kavi Ji has inserted or maybe he is refering to the few stories which are unaccounted for and can't be found in any other earlier writings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I've heard internet rumours that Suraj Parkash was based on a now lost Panj sau sakhi which might be the 'lost' work that Macauliffe attributes to Bhai Sahib Singh? I don't trust these things myself. From sikhiwiki: Quote Panj Sau Sakhi, a collection of five hundred anecdotes. attributed to Bhai Ram Kuir (1672-1761), a descendant of Bhai Buddha, renamed Bhai Gurbakhsh Singh as he received the rites of the Khalsa at the hands of Guru Gobind Singh. It is said that during his long association with Guru Gobind Singh, Ram Kuir had heard from the Guru's mouth many anecdotes concerning the lives of the Gurus which Ram Kuir often narrated to other Sikhs after his return to his village of Ramdas in Amritsar district, after leaving Anandpur during the evacuation of the besieged city was ordered in 1705 by the 10th Guru. Bhai Sahib Singh is said to have committed these sakhis to writing. Later, the written accounts were split into five parts, each comprising one hundred stories whence the title "Sau Sakhi" (or A Hundred Stories) gained currency. These five sections were distributed among Bhai Sahib Singh (the scribe), Kabull Mall, Multani Sura, Bhai Ratia and Bhai Surat Singh of Agra. Giani Gian Singh, author of the Panth Prakash, is said to have seen two manuscripts of this work; one was in the possesion of a mahant (priest) of Name da Kot and the second in the possesion of Shiv Ram Khatri of Agra. Bhai Kahn Singh of Nabha also seems to have had access to a manuscript copy. Quote How can a historian write that his imagination was served by bhang and opium ? Did he have a proof of this or based it on anecdotes or his own imagination ? I've never seen that part myself, but a few years ago there was some internet hoo ha about Kavi Santokh Singh saying Guru Gobind Singh ji took afeem or something similar. Anyone ever come across that portion of the text, be sure to share it with us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 As far as I remember, the meta-narrative of the Suraj Prakash Granth (starting from Guru Angad onwards) is framed within the Sau Sakhi narrative of Bhai Gurbaksh Singh sitting with his students telling them the sakhis of the great Gurus. Kavi Santokh Singh has just written it in Braj Basha chands whereas the sau sakhi is in Punjabi. I think Kavi Santokh Singh had acces to a large range of Sikh writings and he took them one by one and inserted their sakhis into his own magnus opus. Considering his connections in the Amritsar Bunge, samprdayas and political aristocracy of Kaithal and Patiala I dont think it would be unlikely that he had good cards on his hands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 On the topic of afeem. Now that we've seen that there is a purported VERY early account of Khalsa soldiers taking it in Sainapati's Gursobha, maybe it wasn't as big a deal back then as it is today or under the colonial phase? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Sri Sooraj Prakash Granth is based on Baba Sahib Singh jee's writings. He heard the sakhis from Baba Gurbaksh Singh jee Ram Kuir, who was a Gurmukh Brahamgyani. Kavi Santokh Singh jee did the chand-bandi in Hindi (Brij Bhasha) Please listen to Gyani Harbhajan Singh jee. http://kam1825.podbean.com/e/details-about-historical-granths/ Bhul chuk maaf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post paapiman Posted February 17, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 16 hours ago, dalsingh101 said: On the topic of afeem. Now that we've seen that there is a purported VERY early account of Khalsa soldiers taking it in Sainapati's Gursobha, maybe it wasn't as big a deal back then as it is today or under the colonial phase? Gyani Gyan Singh jee wrote in his writings that Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master) used to consume Afeem. Reason - He himself used to consume Afeem. He was caught red handed by a Gurmukh consuming it. This is mentioned in Amir Bhandar teeka too. Having said that, it is possible that Singhs used to consume Afeem for medicinal purposes or while in a battlefield. Bhul chuk maaf 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Thanks for the link @paapiman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 42 minutes ago, paapiman said: Gyani Gyan Singh jee wrote in his writings that Sri Satguru jee (Tenth Master) used to consume Afeem. Reason - He himself used to consume Afeem. He was caught red handed by a Gurmukh consuming it. This is mentioned in Amir Bhandar teeka too. Having said that, it is possible that Singhs used to consume Afeem for medicinal purposes or while in a battlefield. Bhul chuk maaf Thanks for that. I might have been getting Giani Gian Singh mixed up with Kavi Santokh Singh here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Giani Gian Singh is also heavily dependant on Kavi Santokh Singh in his writings, - but his writings do contain additional and more detailed info at places. Btw what is the reason we use different titles for different persona? Why dont we say Kavi Gian Singh or Giani Santokh Singh. Bhai Deep Singh and Baba Mani Singh etc? Is there a specific reason they have these specific titles? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Quote Btw what is the reason we use different titles for different persona? Why dont we say Kavi Gian Singh or Giani Santokh Singh. Bhai Deep Singh and Baba Mani Singh etc? Is there a specific reason they have these specific titles? I think our people make these things up as they go along and something sticks. There is a trend for adding longer and longer honorifics to names. I think it is a way that they show their admiration of figures. Like I noticed when reading Macauliffe's work that 'Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji' was simply called 'Granth Sahib' at that time. Same with Guru Nanak who is very often simply called 'Baba Nanak' in Janam Sakhis which has transmuted into 'Guru Nanak Dev Ji' in modern times. It's typical of our lot to do this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) Probably yes. Even in literature of old they often just refer to the Gurus by their first names without adding "Guru" in front. This would be considered great insult today lol Edited February 18, 2016 by amardeep 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 hours ago, amardeep said: Probably yes. Even in literature of old they often just refer to the Gurus by their first names without adding "Guru" in front. This would be considered great insult today lol You do it yourself too: 'Sri Mahakavi Santokh Singh' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 INDEED HE DESERVES THAT TITLE :D :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paapiman Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 23 minutes ago, amardeep said: INDEED HE DESERVES THAT TITLE :D :D Bro, he is also refereed to as "Churaman Kavi". Do you know, what that means? Thanks Bhul chuk maaf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsingh101 Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 38 minutes ago, amardeep said: INDEED HE DESERVES THAT TITLE :D :D Don't get it wrong, I admire and am in outright awe of writers like Giani Gian Singh and Kavi Santokh who kept the flag of independent-minded Sikh literature flying without kissing white colonialist arse. But I guess that British reserve and understatement has seeped under my skin. I find some of these these elongated titles crass for some reason. Sure Kavi, Bhai, Giani - they are cool. But all the other hyperbolic stuff people stick on....not my style. It's like goray going: 'Exalted, literary genius most high, his eminence - Charles Dickens' like it was his normal name. lol!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 On 2/17/2016 at 9:23 PM, amardeep said: Giani Gian Singh is also heavily dependant on Kavi Santokh Singh in his writings, - but his writings do contain additional and more detailed info at places. Btw what is the reason we use different titles for different persona? Why dont we say Kavi Gian Singh or Giani Santokh Singh. Bhai Deep Singh and Baba Mani Singh etc? Is there a specific reason they have these specific titles? No one says Baba Mani Singh. Its Bhai Mani Singh and Baba Deep Singh. A rare few say Bhai Deep Singh too. Great question. Let me know when you find the answer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest seeker Posted February 19, 2016 Report Share Posted February 19, 2016 Okay. My mistake, I mistook your "." as an end of the previous line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.