Oldest Surviving Rehat Manuscript (1718/1719 Ad)

[dalsingh101]

I have only replied to your question about invocation of kali/durga by tenth master which is given below

I asked you a simple question in terms of the purported contents of the Chaupa Singh rehit in relation to the Kali tale. It was you who was suggesting that the document was an authentic one. I posed the question in light of that. To simplify, it wasn't asking for proof of Guru ji's beliefs rather a statement concerning the authenticity and accuracy of the contents of the Chaupa rehit.

You need to correct the contents of tankahnama as the ones posted by you ( Mcleod's source) are

completely at odd with Padam's book. There is a major difference between the contents.

How can you discuss a document which has inaccurate content.

There is no need to correct it as it purports to be the complete contents of manuscript MS770. When i posted it originally, I tried to follow the footnotes in Mcleod's book to actually reconstruct the MS770 manuscript contents. When you look at McLeod's translation in his book, it is actually longer than this and he explains that he developed this following a modern structure given by Ganda Singh and used multiple sources (see page 279 of the book). I said before that Padam's version itself seems to be one (possibly) based on either more than one version of the rehat or maybe a single more complete version with a later date? I'm looking at the Padam version and comparing them. They are two different documents with much over lap and also difference. Please try to follow more carefully.

If you go to the endnotes connected to this rehat's translation in McLeod's book (page 417 - 420), you will find more details of differences between MS770 and other versions of this rehat.

In any case, as you've are the one suggesting that the surviving Chaupa Singh rehat contains an original unadulterated rehat from dasmesh pita's time, do you not think you could provide a version of this? Creating this would be a much better use of your time and the endeavour would also be of great value to the wider sangat, especially those for whom English is not a first language, (who probably make a large percentage of the forum visitors).

I hope this clarifies matters for you.

[GPS]

I asked you a simple question in terms of the purported contents of the Chaupa Singh rehit in relation to the Kali tale. It was you who was suggesting that the document was an authentic one. I posed the question in light of that. To simplify, it wasn't asking for proof of Guru ji's beliefs rather a statement concerning the authenticity and accuracy of the contents of the Chaupa rehit.

Why should we believe in anyone else when guru sahib's writing is there.Other sources are secondary. The emphasis of my posts was on year of writing

of Bhai Chaupa singh's rehtanama being 1700 AD based on internal evidence. That was the thrust of my arguement and not authenticity of its contents except that

i commented on term Brahmin.

Any way now you have mentioned Chaupa singh's rehatnama about Guru sahib invoking kali. Can you point out where did he write this?

By the way given below is your post which asked about Guru sahib invoking kali.It does not mention anything about Chaupa singh's rehatnama. It is a general question in the end.

Quote

written by dalsingh101

Personally I wouldn't compare SGGS ji with puratan rehats myself. The former, as far as Sikhs are concerned, has no question mark on any authorship or authenticity. Plus we know they were the unadulterated manifestation of the Guru's direct intention. The same cannot be said for these rehats as you yourself point out above.

It seems like these are at best interpretations of what the authors believed to be Guru Gobind Singh ji's intentions in terms of a code of conduct, which probably do contain much of which was sanctioned by him and also (in most likelihood) their own interpretations of matters.

If this is true then it would support a hypothesis that the original rehat was a more compact affair and that it subsequently grew as people added their own interpretations to it?

Do you believe dasmesh pita invoked Kali/Durga on the eve of creating the Khalsa??

Are you telling that we have different versions of tankahnama?There is a very big difference between what you are writing here and what is contained in Padam's book. It is not a minor difference.

So how many different tankahnamas we have now. I thought there was only one.

[sikha]

What is interesting is the evolution of nitnem in looking at the rehitnamas.

Bhai Gurdass which is the earliest say to read the Japji Sahib, Rehraas and Sohila.

Then comes the above mentioned (said to be early) nasihatnama* which also meantions the three as part of the nitnem.

All the subsequent rehitnamas include the banis we have today of jaap sahib, anand sahib, etc.

* The Prashan Uttar is said to be from 1695 which, if true, is the earlist rehitnama. This rehitnama mentions Japji sahib and jaap sahib, rehraas and sohila.

[GPS]

Rehatnama Bhai Nand lal ji mentions

kar ishnan pare jap, jaap

after bath read jap ji and jaap sahib

Rehatnama Bhai nand lal ji

Guru kian sakhian mentions about eye witness scene of amrit sanchar of 1699 AD. it mentions five banis read at that time namely

Jap ji, Jaap sahib, swaiye, Chaupai sahib and anand sahib.

The same banis are read these days.It is when panj piaras advise about nitnem banis.

[VanHelsingh]

A few issues arise in my mind when reading the rehatnama as posted on the first page. Again I'm a layman and not as versed or as knowledgeable in reading scriptures as my brothers in this thread. I am merely highlighting the basic ("big picture") issues that stand-out, and therefore could be overlooked by learned members of the sangat who are looking at the issue at a micro level alongwith all relevant intracacies and background knowledge.

Do we agree that if we are to view the rehatnama on the first page as authentic (i.e. sourced directly from Guru Ji), it must be adhered to without question? As such there are some instructions which, if Sikhs were to follow in the modern age, would land us in prison or would generally not be possible to fulfil? Therefore are we saying that Guru Ji lacked the forethought to provide rules which could be successfully followed for as long as Sikhs were on this earth? The same wise, incredibly intelligent Guru Ji whose glory resonates to this day? I would not even entertain such a notion.

Yet by picking and choosing which rules to follow then surely that negates the whole purpose of the rehatnama? For example, the rehatnama talks about 'smiting Turks', as well as the more "mellow" rules regarding the preparation of Karah Prasad, etc. I know some will say that the 'smiting Turks' line was included because of the historical connotations of the time (Sikhs were combatting the Mughals when the rehatnama was composed I think), but then - and I'm playing devil's advocate - why include these lines at all if they were only meant to be applicable for the time period in which the rehatnama was written?

Why choose to follow the lines about Karah Prasad and male-female relations to this day, if other sections of the rehatnama are not relevant in the age we live in? A person looking for trouble (which I would plead with the sangat I am NOT) would say these apparent contradictions point to a shortcoming in Guru Ji's wisdom, OR the possibility of the rehatnama being bogus or even tampered with by other people?

Does anyone appreciate what I'm trying to say? As I mentioned yesterday I'm just asking questions that I'm sure any normal (i.e. non-vidhvaan) person would ask because at the end of the day, these rehatnamas were designed to be followed by every Sikh from any background, and not just those with comprehensive annals of knowledge at their disposal who know to interpret Sikhi scriptures. These questions need to be looked at because if one day Sikhism comes under intense scrutiny we must be ready with answers to these questions.

Forgive me if I've spoken out of turn or misunderstood any issues.

[dalsingh101]

What is interesting is the evolution of nitnem in looking at the rehitnamas.

Bhai Gurdass which is the earliest say to read the Japji Sahib, Rehraas and Sohila.

Then comes the above mentioned (said to be early) nasihatnama* which also meantions the three as part of the nitnem.

All the subsequent rehitnamas include the banis we have today of jaap sahib, anand sahib, etc.

* The Prashan Uttar is said to be from 1695 which, if true, is the earlist rehitnama. This rehitnama mentions Japji sahib and jaap sahib, rehraas and sohila.

I find that fascinating myself.

It appears as if there was a pre and post Khalsa nitnem. The inclusion of dasam bani at that time is more than understandable due its more earthly, warrior content. When we read the opening verses of Chaupai sahib for instance, they make obvious contextual sense in terms of the then contemporary situation of a community on the verge of going to war with a powerful government but also outside of this in terms of a warrior people who were expected to fight for the Sikh cause in general.

An interesting question concerns Anand Sahib. I had originally presumed that maybe this bani was added to the prescribed prayers during the life time of Guru Amar Das ji or shortly afterwards perhaps, but this doesn't seem to have been the case else it would have been mentioned by Bhai Gurdas? So this was added to the prescription the same time dasam bani was it seems?

If that rehat is anything to go by, a few years after dasmesh pita's earthly passing, there were still those who propagated the preKhalsa nitnem.

The position with Jaap Sahib is also interesting and McLeod does mentions that all the rehats mention this bani as part of the morning liturgy, barring tanakhah-nama.

The Gurmukhi text from Padam's work is as follows:

ਬਿਨ ਜਪੁ ਪੜ੍ਹੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ ਜੁ ਖਾਵੈ

ਬਿਨ ਰਹਿਰਾਸ ਸੰਧਆ ਜੋ ਖੋਵਹ‌ਿ

ਕੀਰਤਨ ਪੜ੍ਹੇ ਬਿਨ ਰੈਣ ਜੁ ਸੋਵਹ‌ਿ

[dalsingh101]

Why choose to follow the lines about Karah Prasad and male-female relations to this day, if other sections of the rehatnama are not relevant in the age we live in? A person looking for trouble (which I would plead with the sangat I am NOT) would say these apparent contradictions point to a shortcoming in Guru Ji's wisdom, OR the possibility of the rehatnama being bogus or even tampered with by other people?

I think your question may at least partially be answered by the fact that in the modern rehat maryada the injunction prohibiting carnal relations with a Muslim women has been more widely contextualised as an injunction against extra martial sex.

The point you are alluding to is regarding what has been termed an 'evolving rehat'. Now this is a potentially very senstive topic but I understand the points you make regarding the immutability of our Guru instructions visa vi the application of some injunctions we find in extant puratan rahits.

The crux of the matter is that grey area between immutable rules and that which the corporate panth are able to make decisions on in a more flexible manner.

Rehats are interesting because although we have a standardised one today with the Akal Takhat backed rehat maryada, we also have other variants, claiming more ancient antecedents associated with various jathebandies. The problems only arise when people start to use them to divide people whereas the original obvious purpose was (amongst other things) to foster unity, commonality and resolve ambiguity/confusion on ideal Sikh behaviour.

All of this (to my limited understanding) again boils down to the matter of the exact original means of communicating rehat type instructions to the newly emerged Khalsa. I am increasingly thinking this was not originally done using writing and maybe some other mode of communication was used, most likely oral. Maybe soon after this some literate people created written rehats that evolved over time?

But if what GPS says about the origins of the Chaupa rehat is true then there may well have been an authorised rehat created in Guru ji's lifetime by people, but an unchanged one of these does not seemed to have survived for us to look at today.

We are now in very sensitive territory so we should tred very carefully.

My guess is as good as yours but despite all this the outlines of the Sikh way of life are clear as ever and as interesting as it is to study, we shouldn't get lost in the detail and forget the whole purpose of this life is to live a moral and disciplined life and strive for a non dual relationship with the ik onkaar. It is bani, meditation and prayer that are at the centre of all this I believe. But I am taking from out of my depth here, I'm under no no illusions about that.

[VanHelsingh]

@ dalsingh - That makes sense! :D

It makes you think how much responsibility (power?) those who sit at The Akal Takhat have to bear, whereby they can issue edicts to the followers of Sikhism according to their interpretations of certain rehats. It is a huge responsibility as they shape how Sikhism evolves during the passage of history. One would hope their interpretations are what Guru Ji intended.

[dalsingh101]

It makes you think how much responsibility (power?) those who sit at The Akal Takhat wield, whereby they can issue edicts to the followers of Sikhism according to their interpretations of certain rehats. It is a huge responsibility as they shape how Sikhism evolves during the passage of history. One would hope their interpretations are what Guru Ji intended.

The danger lies in an over politicised compromising influence on the Akal Takhat. What I think seems to happen when large swathes of the panth start to feel this is that many people move away from the politicised side of Sikhi which can become corrupted to the beautiful eternal message of Sikhi as enshrined in bani. So we are safe.

If the Akal Takhat continues to be seen as an extension of the whims of those in power in the SGPC, and those in power continue to be seen as antiSikhi, then if there is any life left in the panth, there will someday be trouble or a showdown.

Another polite point from one brother to another. You should NEVER use the phrase Sikhism to describe Sikhi. That brackets this belief in with all the other 'isms' goray have categorised. This thing is beyond those boxes, Call it Sikhi instead.

[VanHelsingh]

Another polite point from one brother to another. You should NEVER use the phrase Sikhism to describe Sikhi. That brackets this belief in with all the other 'isms' goray have categorised. This thing is beyond those boxes, Call it Sikhi instead.

Duly noted.

Funny you should mention the term 'isms' as I was watching a video yesterday (on the 'net), about a guy who was denouncing the plethora of 'isms' in the world today. He declared them to be the root of all evil. I lolled anyway.