Oldest Surviving Rehat Manuscript (1718/1719 Ad)

[GPS]

The line in rehatnama is

ratri soye terh hoye nangaeh

Mcleod translates this as

Who sleeps naked from the waist down ,

It should be

One who sleeps at night without Kachhehra. Terh is waist and literal means is anything tied down around waist.

Now coming to rehatnama, oldest rehtnama dates to 1700 AD and is of Bhai chaupa singh ji. This is the rehatnama

that was translated by Mcleod from manuscript available in sikh reference libraray before 1984 and its copy was given to

Guru Nanak dev university.I have not read his book and am not able to comment as i don't know what he claims in that.

The translation you have given in your first post does not follow pattern of Piara singh padam's rehatnama in Punjabi.

There is a big difference between two. May be you should read Padam's book.

[dalsingh101]

Now coming to rehatnama, oldest rehtnama dates to 1700 AD and is of Bhai chaupa singh ji. This is the rehatnama

that was translated by Mcleod from manuscript available in sikh reference libraray before 1984 and its copy was given to

Guru Nanak dev university.I have not read his book and am not able to comment as i don't know what he claims in that.

I've read what he has to say about that rehitnama and he dates it to the 1760s. So it's older. He also believes that the original rehat (smitri) that was given was a relatively brief one.

The translation you have given in your first post does not follow pattern of Piara singh padam's rehatnama in Punjabi.

There is a big difference between two. May be you should read Padam's book.

If you'd read my last post you'd have seen I am doing that.

[VanHelsingh]

Some of the rehatnama seems authentic (in accordance with other Sikhi scriptures I've read), other aspects of it leave me with doubts.

Before anyone jumps in feet first, I should say that the sections I'm doubtful of AREN'T the practices I partake in my personal life, before I'm accused of sleeping naked from the waist down or cavorting with another man's wife (sorry not meant to be humourous but I wouldn't be surprised if some over-zealous soul on here began throwing around accusations).

But as dalsingh mentioned on the first page, there's nothing wrong with studying it and discovering more about its origins. If this rehatnama is the real deal may God forgive me and may he heal my ignorance, and allow me the opportunity to learn.

[GPS]

I've read what he has to say about that rehitnama and he dates it to the 1760s. So it's older. He also believes that the original rehat (smitri) that was given was a relatively brief one.

Most probably he is wrong there. Rehtanama internal evidence says that it was written in 1700 AD.

It was updated by Chaupa singh's son Gurbakhash singh afterward.

[sikha]

What internal evidence are you refering to? sounds interesting

[GPS]

What internal evidence are you refering to? sounds interesting

That says that document was written in 1757 samvat.

[dalsingh101]

Most probably he is wrong there. Rehtanama internal evidence says that it was written in 1700 AD.

It was updated by Chaupa singh's son Gurbakhash singh afterward.

I wouldn't be surprised, in its current form, it most likely is made up of an older rehat with later interpolations. What are we to make of all the pro-caste statements in it for instance?

Lately I'm wondering if dasmesh pita communicated his code of conduct for the Khalsa in written form or was the information given in some other manner i.e. verbal.

It's strange that whilst quite a few verifiable hukamnamas directly from him have survived (as well as those of earlier mohallas), no unquestionable 'official' rehat survives?

And what the nature of this rehat? Was it brief? Was it pretty similar to the one posted on this thread or the slightly longer one in Padam's work (page 56 onwards)?

I noticed no mention is made of any of the groups the Khalsa was prohibited to socially mix with in this rehat as well? It looks like ms770 is a rushed copy of a larger rehat with parts missing.

[GPS]

Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh ji was written in 1700 AD. This was completed before the siege of Anandpur sahib.

Its manuscript was available in Sikh reference library and was taken away by Indian army during attack in 1984.

Dr SS Kapoor writes in "The Making Of rehatnamas" that available version has dates of completion 1702 and 1706.

[dalsingh101]

Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh ji was written in 1700 AD. This was completed before the siege of Anandpur sahib.

Its manuscript was available in Sikh reference library and was taken away by Indian army during attack in 1984.

Dr SS Kapoor writes in "The Making Of rehatnamas" that available version has dates of completion 1702 and 1706.

You can read an extract of McLeod's opinion on the Chaupa Singh rehat here.

Notice this bit:

Piara Singh Padam explains the writing of the Chaupa Singh Rahit-nama as follows: After Bhai Chaupa Singh, assisted by faithful Sikhs, had prepared the first rahit-nama Bhai Sital Singh Bahurupia wrote a fair copy and had it approved by the Guru on 7 Jeth S. 1757 [1700 CE]. Chaupa Singh himself mentions this.

The Rahit-nama that now appears under the name of Chaupa Singh cannot possibly be this version, if in fact any such document was ever written. At the same time we should allow for the possibility that the extant version may have roots which go back to the time of Guru Gobind Singh. The extant version was produced between 1740 and 1765, with a date in the 1740s, a strong probability .

Chaupa Singh, the putative author, was a Chhibbar Brahman, In its extant form the Chaupa Singh Rahit-nama is a composite product comprising two substantial blocks of classical rahitnama material, interspersed with narrative sections, which relate the foundation of the Khalsa, anecdotes concerning the enemies of the Guru, and the turmoil which is to come.

Also:

There are five reasons why this rahit-nama has been regarded as hopelessly confused and corrupted.

1. The extant text is a conflation of at least three different sources. It cannot be the work of a single author.

2. There are doctrinal reasons against accepting the work of a Brahman, particularly as in one of the rahit-nama sections it is stated:

Any Gursikh who is a Brahman should receive twice the service [and consideration that other Sikhs receive. He who renders such service] shall earn a double reward (G'hS 24, 60, 151; see also 120, 167, 622, pp. 72, 80-1, 127, 160, 168, 197-8). Any Sikh of today would find this instruction intolerable.

3. The rahit-nama relates, as if it were authentic, the notorious story of how Guru Gobind Singh was persuaded to seek the blessings of Mata Devi (the goddess Durga) by celebrating the traditional fire ritual . The Puranic cosmology introduced near the end presumably falls under the same condemnation (ChS 615-40, 125-30, 196-200).

4. The unctuous references to Chhibbar Brahmans, which occur in two of the narrative portions are plainly intended to serve a family purpose.8 This would not be appreciated by many of the rahit-nama's readers.

5. The language of the rahit-nama has been tentatively held to be later than the usage current during the time of Guru Gobind Singh (PSP 41a).

[GPS]

That may be padam's view on date of this rehatnama.He does not seem to be correct there.

Rehatnama of Bhai chaupa singh was analyzed for various informations contained in it against other sikh documents

of that era. the date of completion as 1700 AD was found to be the right one. Chaupa singh had attained martyrdom in 1723 AD. Had it been written later his martyrdom would have found place in that.

Some scholar had written a nice article on this rehatnama regrding its date of completion. He proved 1700 AD to be the right one. I will find that article and post it here. I do not see any reason in doubting its completion when the date is written inside the document itself.

It should be kept in mind that such documents upon completion were made copies of and copy makers were in the habit of writing their own names in it and adding something new.

We all know about track record of Mcleod on sikh history and his remarks should not be believed into. His mischievous commentary on other sikh writings and travels of Guru Nanak dev ji are well known.

To pick a few lines from it and citing them to be pro brahmin is not the right practice. Though Chaupa singh was himself a brahmin but his rehatnama also passes critical remarks against brahmins.It says that they should not be given any preferential treatment and Gursikhs should not have any link with them. Having written this he cann;t be accused to be pro brahmin. It depends upon in what context he has used this word.