Kavi Santokh Singh

[dalsingh101]

Amardeep. 

 

This might help you?

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/id7crkcslzi3e0p/AACB6jhCjpgmNkf5NK5DDLDia/Sikh-Books-English/Historical%20Analysis%20of%20Nanak%20Prakash-Santokh%20Singh-English%20(1).pdf?dl=0

[amardeep]

Wonderful. THank you very much, will look into it. Looks interesting!

[amardeep]

Okay guys so I changed focus of the project to being an analysis of the Garabgani Teeka instead.

Here is a project description.

 

Crushing pride

 

Assessing the Japuji Sahib through Kavi Santokh Singh’s Garab Ganjani Teeka (“the pride crushing commentary”) from 1829

 

 

 

The Sri Japuji Sahib is regarded as the prime and foundational composition of Sikhism. It makes up the first 8 pages of the Guru Granth Sahib and is recited every morning by practicing Sikhs. As such, its importance has been emphasized in Sikh writings since the early 17^th century and dozens of commentaries (teekas) have been written on it ever since. The earliest known commentaries can be dated to 1795-1796 where three different commentaries were written on the Sri Japuji Sahib; one by the Sewa Panthi scholar Baba Ram Kishan titled Japu Paramarath; one by the Udasi scholar Swami Anandghan; and one by the Nirmala scholar Baba Nihal Singh titled Gudharath Dipika which also served as a Sanskrit translation.

 

While the Sewa panthi and Nirmala commentaries appear to have been received relatively undisputed, the commentary of the Udasi scholar Swami Anandghan led to controversies and discussions on whether it was a suitable representation of the Japuji Sahib. Roughly three decades later, this led Raja Uday Singh – the king of the Sikh kingdom Kaithal - to patron a new commentary of the Japuji Sahib by another Nirmala scholar: Kavi Santokh Singh. The commentary written in the late 1820s was titled ‘the pride crushing commentary’ and its focus was to directly challenge the commentary written in 1796 by Swami Anandghan. This commentary has been published several times in Punjabi print, yet it has hardly been studied in the west.

 

Kavi Santokh Singh belonged to the Nirmala scholar tradition and he is regarded as one of their prime scholarly jewels of history. His reputation and influence appears to have been rather significant; he was closely linked to the established clergy and political elites of the time, some examples being that his private tutor was Giani Sant Singh – the head of the traditional Giani order and main Granthi of the Golden temple- as well as him having worked for several of the Sikh kingdoms. This makes his commentary on the Japji Sahib worthy of further study and scrutiny.

 

This research project will seek to present the lesser known Garab Ganjani Teeka to a western audience by:

 

·         Looking into the socio-political context of its construction.

 

·         Looking into the Nirmala scholars’ position in Sikh history.

 

·         Providing selected English translations of the commentary for the first time in history.

 

·         Analyzing Kavi Santokh Singh’s way of interpreting:

 

o   In what way does he view and interpret the Sikh tradition?

 

o   Which verses does Kavi Santokh Singh rate as specifically important by devoting long commentaries on them?

 

o   which Sikh and non-Sikh sources does he draw on in his commentary?

 

o   which terminology is used and how does he relate to Sanskrit origins of words?

 

o   In what way is the Garab Ganjani Teeka a meta-dialogue with the commentary of Swami Anandghan and where do we see cross-textual references between the two commentaries?

 

o   In what way does the Garan Ganjani Teeka differ from contemporary commentaries?

 

The project will draw heavily on the works of Kavi Santokh Singh, Professor Sahib Singh and contemporary Nirmala literature by Balwant Singh Kothaguru.

 

.

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by amardeep

[amardeep]

Kavi Santokh Singh is bad bad bad:

 

"I had the urge to take each and every verse of Anandghan's commentary and refute them, but the fear of writing too bulky a granth stopped me from doing so".

lol. ouch!!!

[BhagatSingh]

10 hours ago, amardeep said:

Japuji

I got nothing to add to this thread 'cept this - It's Jap ji, not Japu ji. The Aunkarh on Jap indicates that it is a noun (as opposed to a verb), thus it is not pronounced.

Japu is not a word. Perhaps a nickname for those with the name Jap.

[amardeep]

9 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

I got nothing to add to this thread 'cept this - It's Jap ji, not Japu ji. The Aunkarh on Jap indicates that it is a noun (as opposed to a verb), thus it is not pronounced.

Japu is not a word. Perhaps a nickname for those with the name Jap.

Sorry. Habit of mine. Not sure where I got it from.

[Jatro]

14 hours ago, amardeep said:

Kavi Santokh Singh is bad bad bad:

 

"I had the urge to take each and every verse of Anandghan's commentary and refute them, but the fear of writing too bulky a granth stopped me from doing so".

lol. ouch!!!

Bhaji from what little I've seen of both teeka-s it seems that the main difference between are that Anandghan's teeka is much less detailed than Kavi Santokh Singh's. Also Anandghan wrongly states that the avatar-s are equal to Akal Purakh and Guru Nanak in all respects, so that saying the name of Brahmaji is equal to saying Waheguru. I personally have nothing against this but this is difficult to relate to the larger message of Gurbani. Kavi Santokh Singh's teeka also has a Vedantic feel to it which Anandghan's teeka doesn't have as it is much more literal and straightforward.

[amardeep]

2 minutes ago, Jatro said:

Bhaji from what little I've seen of both teeka-s it seems that the main difference between are that Anandghan's teeka is much less detailed than Kavi Santokh Singh's. Also Anandghan wrongly states that the avatar-s are equal to Akal Purakh and Guru Nanak in all respects, so that saying the name of Brahmaji is equal to saying Waheguru. I personally have nothing against this but this is difficult to relate to the larger message of Gurbani. Kavi Santokh Singh's teeka also has a Vedantic feel to it which Anandghan's teeka doesn't have as it is much more literal and straightforward.

Singh it is good to have you here on the page sharing your knowledge with us.

The Vedant take is very common in nirmala literature. What is your view on this - is vedant a foreign element imposed onto Sikhi or has vedant been integral to Sikhi since the early beginning ? (as the nirmalas claim).

[Sajjan_Thug]

Have Nihangs written any teekas on Gurbani?

[Singh123456777]

Some nihangs have.

[Jatro]

45 minutes ago, amardeep said:

Singh it is good to have you here on the page sharing your knowledge with us.

The Vedant take is very common in nirmala literature. What is your view on this - is vedant a foreign element imposed onto Sikhi or has vedant been integral to Sikhi since the early beginning ? (as the nirmalas claim).

I think there are many similarities between Gurmat and Vedanta, but there are differences too. For instance in Sankara-s Advait Vedanta primacy is given to Gyan and Bhakti has little, if any, role to play. Ramanujan's school does integrate Bhakti in a big way and is most similar to Guru Nanak's core message. But Gurmat can be interpreted in a "secular" non-Vedantic manner also which will have more in common with moral philosophy and philosophy of the self which is prevalent today. This is a part of the greatness of Gurbani, it makes sense at countless levels.

[amardeep]

Kavi Santokh Singh mentions Sankara, Patanjali, Ramanujan etc. in different places of the Japji Sahib teeka, i'll take a closer look to see how he uses their theories in his commentary of the japji sahib.

It is interesting that the sewa panthis also saw Sikhi through Vedantic lenses. Tsingh who was a nirmala and used to write on this forum many years ago was of the opinion that vedanta is an integral part of Gurmat.

[paapiman]

Vedant is taught at DDT too.

 

20 minutes ago, Jatro said:

 But Gurmat can be interpreted in a "secular" non-Vedantic manner also which will have more in common with moral philosophy and philosophy of the self which is prevalent today. This is a part of the greatness of Gurbani, 

Excellent point above.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

8 hours ago, Jatro said:

Also Anandghan wrongly states that the avatar-s are equal to Akal Purakh and Guru Nanak in all respects, so that saying the name of Brahmaji is equal to saying Waheguru.

This is not the case.

Kavi Kalya ji also says this, which is recorded in Guru Granth Sahib.

 

7 hours ago, Jatro said:

But Gurmat can be interpreted in a "secular" non-Vedantic manner also which will have more in common with moral philosophy and philosophy of the self which is prevalent today.

This is not the case.

Vishisht Advait will always remain part of Guru Granth Sahib. It is inseparable. It's always in your face throughout the scripture.

 

The interpretations that are prevalent today are lacking information. They are ignoring bits of Guru Granth Sahib. They do not understand what belief system Gurus had.

[paapiman]

On 4/3/2016 at 10:03 AM, Jatro said:

Bhaji from what little I've seen of both teeka-s it seems that the main difference between are that Anandghan's teeka is much less detailed than Kavi Santokh Singh's. Also Anandghan wrongly states that the avatar-s are equal to Akal Purakh and Guru Nanak in all respects, so that saying the name of Brahmaji is equal to saying Waheguru.

You are right Paaji. How can one compare a river to an ocean?

Satguru Sri Guru Nanak Rai Dev Bedi jee Maharaaj is the incarnation of the Almighty Waheguru and is the greatest.

For more details, please have a look below:

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Guest sikh kosh]

wannabe scholar amardeep. get some knowledge before spreading fake info

[BhagatSingh]

It's great to think that your parents are the best in the whole wide world.

But you should neither put down anyone else's parents nor should you deny that they are parents.

[Guest sikhkosh]

On 03/04/2016 at 4:08 PM, amardeep said:

Singh it is good to have you here on the page sharing your knowledge with us.

The Vedant take is very common in nirmala literature. What is your view on this - is vedant a foreign element imposed onto Sikhi or has vedant been integral to Sikhi since the early beginning ? (as the nirmalas claim).

some early sources debunk the hindu sanatan and nirmala myths. sikhs in 1700s had no regard for vedas etc. mind you this was prior to the vedanti-hindu-fication of sikhi by the 1800s.

dabistan i mazahib shows sikhs had no regard for sanskrit even prior to dasam pita. the instruction of guru gobind singh maharaj to learn sanskrit have to be taken in another context, rather than them being sanskrit upashaks (lovers).

many persian and english sources of 18th century confirm sikhs believed in one god and did not pay any respects to brahma, vishnu etc (tiefenthaller, crauford et al).

fact is also that early sources always have simple names for god, i.e. chaupa singh rahat as opposed to more pronounced devi worship in latter 1700 / 1800s sources.

[Guest sikhkosh]

and yes there are also sources that say sikhs reject vedas from the 1700s ^

[BhagatSingh]

It doesn't matter what Sikhs say. It matters what is written in Guru Granth Sahib.

Sikhs are ignorant of what is actually written in Guru Granth Sahib, and have been since Guru Arjun Dev ji passed away.

[Guest khoji]

how do you know you're not ignorant of whats written in guru granth sahib?

[BhagatSingh]

Develop self-awareness, and thus awareness of your ignorance.

Be aware.

Realize that stuff you may take to be knowledge may also be ignorance.

Be ignorant.

Most people are not being ignorant, even though they are. They are pretending to know things they don't really know. Thus they are not being honest.

Be honest.

Then some people become honest about their comfort with ignorance and the facade of knowledge they have put up so intimately in their mind. Don't get comfortable in ignorance and the false webbing of the mind.

Be uncomfortable.

Some people become uncomfortable again and again, trying to push the limits of their knowledge. They either get drained. Or resign back to comfort. The only solution to that is meditation on God. Developing a trust in God.

Be trusting of God.

Trust in God comes from awareness.

Be aware.

[dalsingh101]

Quote

They are pretending to know things they don't really know. Thus they are not being honest.

You ever find yourself doing this Bhagat? 

[BhagatSingh]

10 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

You ever find yourself doing this Bhagat? 

Yes, I pretend to know God but I don't actually know.

I just enjoy it.

Like a blind kid being shown all these pictures, and he likes what he sees and uncontrollably giggles and laughs, but he doesn't know what he is looking at because he can't see it.

[paapiman]

On 2/16/2016 at 9:10 AM, 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

Gyani Gyan Singh jee exposed in Amir Bhandar Teeka. Please have a look below:

 

 

@Sajjan_Thug - Apologies for the delay brother.

 

Bhul chuk maaf