New So Called Gur Matta Re Dasam Granth Ji

[SunSingh]

Dasam Bani was meant to be in one granth from the beginnning. in the Chritrs, which contain Chaupai Sahib, there is a stanza stating that this granth has been completed. It gives the date and location of completion. This shows that the bani is meant to be kept as a complete granth.

[khalsaland]

Dasam Bani was meant to be in one granth from the beginnning. in the Chritrs, which contain Chaupai Sahib, there is a stanza stating that this granth has been completed. It gives the date and location of completion. This shows that the bani is meant to be kept as a complete granth.

Good point.

Here is the exact quote from Charitropakhyaan

ਸੰਬਤ ਸਤਰ੍ ਹ ਸਹਸ ਭਿਣਜੈ ॥ ਅਰਧ ਸਹਸ ਫੁਨਿ ਤੀਨਿ ਕਿਹਜੈ ॥ ਭਾਦਰ੍ ਵ ਸੁਦੀ ਅਸਟਮੀ ਰਿਵ ਵਾਰਾ ॥ ਤੀਰ

ਸਤੁਦ੍ਰਵ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸੁਧਾਰਾ ॥405॥

The Granth was completed on Sunday, the 18th day of month of Bhadon, in 1753 Bikrami

Sammat (September 14, 1696 A.D.) on the banks of river Satluj.

(Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib in ‘Charitropakhyan’)

There are similar quotes from other banees also which give exact dates and place of composition of that particular banee.

See also...

http://www.santsipahi.org/patshahi10/quest.html#9

Q 9. Did Guru Gobind Singh Ji mention anywhere in his writing that he was actually writing/compiling a 'Granth'?

A 9. Guru Gobind Singh ji Maharaj was not only the master of the iron-sword but also made dexterous use of the loh-kalams 'pens with the iron nibs', now adorned at Paonta Sahib. Neither the sword nor the pen of the great Guru ever dried.

At Paonta Sahib Guru ji took up the gigantic task of writing Granth voluminous tomes. In many occasions in his writings he himself made it clear that he was writing a Granth. While starting the compilation of the Bachitra Natak Guru ji invoked the blessings of Akal Purakh for completion of this Granth:

ਨਮਸਕਾਰ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਖੜਗ ਕੋ ਕਰੋਂ ਸੁ ਹਿਤੁ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇ ॥

ਪੂਰਨ ਕਰੋਂ ਗਿਰੰਥ ਇਹੁ ਤੁਮ ਮੁਹਿ ਕਰਹੁ ਸਹਾਇ ॥1॥ (ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ)

Also in the beginning of Bachittar Natak Granth, Guru Sahib writes:

ਅਥ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਲਿਖਯਾਤੇ॥

Now the Granth entitled Bachittar Natak Granth is composed.

Similarly, the concluding lines of chritro-pakhyan also mention the completion of the Granth.

ਸ੍ਰੀ ਅਸਿਧੁਜ ਜਬ ਭਏ ਦਯਾਲਾ ॥ ਪੂਰਨ ਕਰਾ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਤਤਕਾਲਾ ॥

ਮਨ ਬਾਂਛਤ ਫਲ ਪਾਵੈ ਸੋਈ ॥ ਦੂਖ ਨ ਤਿਸੈ ਬਿਆਪਤ ਕੋਈ ॥ 403॥ (ਸ੍ਰੀ ਦਸਮ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ, ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰੋ ਪਾਖਯਾਨ)

Some other places where Guru Sahib clearly mentions that he was writing compositions which were going to be a part of a Granth

ਕਥਾ ਸਰਬ ਜਉ ਛੋਰ ਤੇ ਲੈ ਸੁਨਾਊਂ ॥ ਹ੍ਰਿਦੈ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਕੇ ਬਾਢਬੇ ਤੇ ਡਰਾਊਂ ॥੩੪॥

And if I describe the complete story from one end to the other, then I fear that the Granth will become very voluminous.34.

ਤਾਤੇ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਰੁਦ੍ਰ ਕਹਾਨੀ ॥ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਬਢਨ ਕੀ ਚਿੰਤ ਪਛਾਨੀ ॥

Keeping in mind the fear of making the Granth voluminous, I have not narrated the complete story of Rudra.

ਸਾਧ ਅਸਾਧ ਜਾਨੋ ਨਹੀ ਬਾਦ ਸੁਬਾਦ ਬਿਬਾਦਿ ॥ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਕਲ ਪੂਰਣ ਕੀਯੋ ਭਗਵਤ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥੮੬੨॥

Who (between Ram and Ravana) is a saint and who is not a saint is a controversial subject; This whole Granth has been completed by the Grace of God.862

Also in many occasions in the concluding lines of different compositions Guru Sahib clearly writes that the composition is a part of a Granth. A few examples:

ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੇ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਬਰਨਨੰ ਨਾਮ ਪੰਚਮੋ ਧਿਆਇ ਸਮਾਪਤ ਮਸਤੁ ਸੁਭ ਮਸਤੁ ॥੫॥ਅਫਜੂ॥੨੧੫॥

End of the Fifth Chapter of Bachittar Natak Granth entitled 'The Description of the Spiritual Kings (Preceptors).5.

ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੇ ਭੰਗਾਣੀ ਜੁੱਧ ਬਰਨਨੰ ਨਾਮ ਅਸਟਮੋ ਧਿਆਇ ਸਮਾਪਤ ਮਸਤੁ ਸੁਭ ਮਸਤੁ ॥੮॥ ਅਫਜੂ ॥੩੨੦॥

End of the Eighth Chapter of Bachittar Natak Granth entitled 'Description of the Battle of Bhangani.'8.320.

ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੇ ਨਦੌਨ ਜੁੱਧ ਬਰਨਨੰ ਨਾਮ ਨੌਮੋ ਧਿਆਇ ਸਮਾਪਤ ਮਸਤੁ ਸੁਭ ਮਸਤੁ ॥੯॥੩੪੪॥

End of Ninth Chapter of Bachittar Natak Granth entitled 'Description of the battle of Nadaun.9.344.

ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੇ ਰਾਮਾਵਤਾਰੇ ਕਥਾ ਸੁਬਾਹ ਮਰੀਚ ਬਧਹ ਜਗਯ ਸੰਪੂਰਨ ਕਰਨੰ ਸਮਾਪਤਮ ॥

End of the description of the story of the Killing of MARICH and SUBAHU and also the Completion of Yajna in Rama Avtar in Bachittar Natak Granth

ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕੇ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੇ ਕਿਸ਼ਨਾਵਤਾਰੇ ਤ੍ਰਿਣਾਵਰਤ ਬਧਹ ॥

End of the description of the Killing of Tranavrata in Krishna Avatara in Bachittar Natak Granth.

ਇਤਿ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਬਚਿਤ੍ਰ ਨਾਟਕ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੇ ਕ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਨਾਵਤਾਰੇ ॥

End of the description in Krishnavatara in Bachittar Natak Granth.

Hence from his own writings and from the internal evidences it is very clear that while at Paonta Sahib, Guru Sahib set out a mission to compile a whole Granth and not just few individual compositions. His aim was to write a Granth as he mentions numerous times in his writings. He was writing his compositions which were going to be a part of a Granth.

Hence the notion coming from an orthopedic surgeon turned Sikh scholar that no Granth with Guru Sahib’s writings was present during the time of Guru Sahib, and that it was a handiwork of British is nothing but mischievous, misleading and blasphemous.

[ghorandhar]

The qoutations I feel refer to individual compositions and not an entire granth.

for example the following qoutation was given:

ਤਾਤੇ ਕਹੀ ਨ ਰੁਦ੍ਰ ਕਹਾਨੀ ॥ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਬਢਨ ਕੀ ਚਿੰਤ ਪਛਾਨੀ ॥

Keeping in mind the fear of making the Granth voluminous, I have not narrated the complete story of Rudra.

The granth becoming big is referrring to the composition (this is why Rudra and the complete narration not being made), the first line makes it clear that its regarding the composition in question (and not the granth as a whole which would become really big).

The doubt of the compositions is not a question for me, however the question is normally about the intention of gurgaddi and parkash being conferred onto the the dasam granth. I just wanted to give my views on the quotations, ive given my views on parkash therefore there is no point repeating them.

The problem during mehtab Singh and Sukha Singhs time was whether the granth should be left in one granth or not. Its been a issue (Kahn Singh Nabha also makes referance to this), but im sure by standardising the dasam granth (which we have now) the panth has accepted that it can be in one granth.

[ghorandhar]

Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

[S1ngh]

Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

The compositions have been written at different times over a span of a long time.Guru ji has given the date of their completion.If you take composition of Charitropakhayan and compare it with writing of Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh ji the dates of compleiton exactly match.

Point here is slander of Dasam bani by third rate people with lachar( obscene) writings be it Bhag Ambala ,kala afghana or Gurtej Ex iAS or Jasbir Mann.How can they ignore the impeccable proofs of internal evidence and use derogatory language for this granth.It is blasphemy and they should be dealt with severely.

Now coming to parkash,Dasam granth was in parkash in patna sahib most probably since Guru ji's time as they have beer there dating back to 1698.Why so itchy of its parkash when we agrre that SGGS is our Guru eternal.

[xHarinder_singh]

Building of Harmandir Sahib is one of the events of sikh history. Now in 1604, Sri Aad Granth(104 years before getting gurgaddi) was parkashed in Sri Harmandir Sahib(House of God) and Guru Arjav Dev Jee gave it so much respect. The Aad Granth contained banis of first 5 Guru Sahibaan and it was given so much respect, then why cant Sri Dasam Granth which contains the bani Dashmesh Pita be given great respect and can be parkashed ??

The gurgaddi is with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaj Jee, no body is doubting that but that does not mean that Sri Dasam Granth cant be parkashed

[V]

Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

The compositions have been written at different times over a span of a long time.Guru ji has given the date of their completion.If you take composition of Charitropakhayan and compare it with writing of Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh ji the dates of compleiton exactly match.

Veer, Sorry I'm not sure how comparing rehitnama Chaupa Singh (out of All rehitnamas! The one who says there is not Khandey Batte di Pahul for women! They can "only" have Kirpan da Amrit, and includes many other obscure practises.) to prove it's reliability. I suggest you read Bhai Chaupa Singh's writings before "using it as a reference"

Point here is slander of Dasam bani by third rate people with lachar( obscene) writings be it Bhag Ambala ,kala afghana or Gurtej Ex iAS or Jasbir Mann.How can they ignore the impeccable proofs of internal evidence and use derogatory language for this granth.It is blasphemy and they should be dealt with severely.

No the point in this thread is whether or not the Dasam Granth should be parkash or not. Just like the Panth has issued a statement saying that the banis should be accepted (something we all should follow, until a new faisla is made); we have to accept that the Panth has decided that it should NOT be parkash. That's what the thread is about, not those questioning the banis of Dasam Granth. Let me remind you that the likes of Dr Jodh Singh, Dr Punnu and G.S Lamba; scholars you guys extensively use in your debate while proving bani in Dasam Granth is authentic.

This thread isn't questioning the authencity of it, but whether it should be parkash or not.

Fact remains, Maharaj decided not to do it. Our ithhas tells us no other Gurbani was parkash (whether by Bhai Gurdas Ji, or other writings accepted by Maharaj)

Now coming to parkash,Dasam granth was in parkash in patna sahib most probably since Guru ji's time as they have beer there dating back to 1698.Why so itchy of its parkash when we agrre that SGGS is our Guru eternal.

There is no evidence to prove this. We KNOW that Guru Arjan Dev Ji did Parkash of the Aad Granth (now Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji), but there are absolutly no proof, no rehitnamas, not ithhasic writings (as far as I'm aware) of Guru Sahib doing parkash of both. If anything we have proof that Maharaj distinguished the two Granth by NOT adding his bani into it.

If the Bani was the same; and to be treated the same, why a separate Granth - why did he distinguish his bani from bani in Aad Granth?

There are questions that still haven't been answered. The question isn't whether Jaap Sahib or Akal Ustat or other bani are bani or not, because we've gone past that, the question is whether the Granth (which was still being argued whether to be one volume or several, up until Mehtab Singh Sukha Singh.)

Also do you think the entire Panth was ignorant of the Granth og 1698, that they still argued whether it should be one volume or not?

A lot of our rehitnamas show that dating wasn't the best. Take the example of Bhai Prahlad Rehitnama which mention Guru Granth Sahib getting Guru Gaddi 1695, whereas Sikh traditions tell us that those were Guru Gobind Singh Ji's last bachans.

[khalsaland]

Ive just re read it the composition and it could be referring to the granth as a whole, ive always understood this was referring to the composition until veer jee gave his interpretaton. :D

The compositions have been written at different times over a span of a long time.Guru ji has given the date of their completion.If you take composition of Charitropakhayan and compare it with writing of Rehatnama of Bhai Chaupa singh ji the dates of compleiton exactly match.

Veer, Sorry I'm not sure how comparing rehitnama Chaupa Singh (out of All rehitnamas! The one who says there is not Khandey Batte di Pahul for women! They can "only" have Kirpan da Amrit, and includes many other obscure practises.) to prove it's reliability. I suggest you read Bhai Chaupa Singh's writings before "using it as a reference"

Point here is slander of Dasam bani by third rate people with lachar( obscene) writings be it Bhag Ambala ,kala afghana or Gurtej Ex iAS or Jasbir Mann.How can they ignore the impeccable proofs of internal evidence and use derogatory language for this granth.It is blasphemy and they should be dealt with severely.

No the point in this thread is whether or not the Dasam Granth should be parkash or not. Just like the Panth has issued a statement saying that the banis should be accepted (something we all should follow, until a new faisla is made); we have to accept that the Panth has decided that it should NOT be parkash. That's what the thread is about, not those questioning the banis of Dasam Granth. Let me remind you that the likes of Dr Jodh Singh, Dr Punnu and G.S Lamba; scholars you guys extensively use in your debate while proving bani in Dasam Granth is authentic.

This thread isn't questioning the authencity of it, but whether it should be parkash or not.

Fact remains, Maharaj decided not to do it. Our ithhas tells us no other Gurbani was parkash (whether by Bhai Gurdas Ji, or other writings accepted by Maharaj)

Now coming to parkash,Dasam granth was in parkash in patna sahib most probably since Guru ji's time as they have beer there dating back to 1698.Why so itchy of its parkash when we agrre that SGGS is our Guru eternal.

There is no evidence to prove this. We KNOW that Guru Arjan Dev Ji did Parkash of the Aad Granth (now Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji), but there are absolutly no proof, no rehitnamas, not ithhasic writings (as far as I'm aware) of Guru Sahib doing parkash of both. If anything we have proof that Maharaj distinguished the two Granth by NOT adding his bani into it.

If the Bani was the same; and to be treated the same, why a separate Granth - why did he distinguish his bani from bani in Aad Granth?

There are questions that still haven't been answered. The question isn't whether Jaap Sahib or Akal Ustat or other bani are bani or not, because we've gone past that, the question is whether the Granth (which was still being argued whether to be one volume or several, up until Mehtab Singh Sukha Singh.)

Also do you think the entire Panth was ignorant of the Granth og 1698, that they still argued whether it should be one volume or not?

A lot of our rehitnamas show that dating wasn't the best. Take the example of Bhai Prahlad Rehitnama which mention Guru Granth Sahib getting Guru Gaddi 1695, whereas Sikh traditions tell us that those were Guru Gobind Singh Ji's last bachans.

You dilly-dally on issues. First you claim that authenticity is a non-issue and then start questioning the rehatnamas which are the source of our current Sikh Rehat Maryada. Then you question the beerh of 1698.

Its not only Chaupa Singh Rehatnama which proves that Sri Dasam Granth as a ‘Granth’ and its banees have been integral to Khalsa rehat and maryada.

Some other prominent Gursikhs (some contemporary of Guru Sahib) whose writings prove this are Bhai Desa Singh, Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Daya Singh, Kavi Senapat, Bhai Koer Singh, Bhai Kesar Singh

Just contemplate how much history and historical accounts you will have to make questionable before questioning that Sri Dasam Granth has always been an integral part of Khalsa rehat.

Parkash of Sri Dasam Granth is a non-issue.

No one is forcing anyone to do parkash…So bringing this thing again and again just proves the weakness of the ones who are hell bent at opposing Sri Dasam Granth as a Granth in the garb of its parkash-issue.

[V]

Khalsaland, you have again diverted the topic. By writings half of your post on Rehitnamas. I agree that rehitnamas were the basis of the Sikh Rehit Maryada. I fully support this maryada (which ironically rejects many of the statements in the rehitnamas you have mentioned.) Do you fully accept the Sikh Rehit Maryada as it as? Why the hypocrasy. Since you are bent on accepting all Rehitnamas, I assume you accept everything Chaupa Singh has written. I suggest you start reading the rehitnamas before commenting on them. Do you accept that bibis cannot have Khandey da Amrit, but should have Kirpan da Amrit?

Parkash of Dasam Granth is EXACTLY what the issue is about, considering Guru Gobind Sahib Maharaj made a decision to distinguish his writings from the first ten Gurus (of the same jyot.) It is YOU who are making an issue out of an issue already solved by the Panth - or does this faisla not suit your own belief? Maharaj Made the faisla. Panth clarified the faisla. The Sikh Rehit Maryada is clear about the issue. You are out their to misinterpret it to suit your needs.

Again, I'm waiting for evidence that Guru Gobind Singh Sahib did Parkash of Dasam Granth.

[khalsaland]

Khalsaland, you have again diverted the topic. By writings half of your post on Rehitnamas. I agree that rehitnamas were the basis of the Sikh Rehit Maryada. I fully support this maryada (which ironically rejects many of the statements in the rehitnamas you have mentioned.) Do you fully accept the Sikh Rehit Maryada as it as? Why the hypocrasy. Since you are bent on accepting all Rehitnamas, I assume you accept everything Chaupa Singh has written. I suggest you start reading the rehitnamas before commenting on them. Do you accept that bibis cannot have Khandey da Amrit, but should have Kirpan da Amrit?

Parkash of Dasam Granth is EXACTLY what the issue is about, considering Guru Gobind Sahib Maharaj made a decision to distinguish his writings from the first ten Gurus (of the same jyot.) It is YOU who are making an issue out of an issue already solved by the Panth - or does this faisla not suit your own belief? Maharaj Made the faisla. Panth clarified the faisla. The Sikh Rehit Maryada is clear about the issue. You are out their to misinterpret it to suit your needs.

Again, I'm waiting for evidence that Guru Gobind Singh Sahib did Parkash of Dasam Granth.

Hang on...Who diverted the topic? You questioned Rehatnama in order to prove your point and I gave you other sources and asked if you would like to question those too.

Keep your 'valuable' comments on others beliefs to yourself...Guru Maharaj made a decision to give Gurgaddi to Sri Guru Granth Sahib..and I havent come accross anyone who is challenging this.

As far as parkash of Sri Dasam Granth is concerned it is a non-issue...No one is forcing you to do parkash so cool down...

If you think those who do parkash of Sri Dasam Granth do out of disrespect to Sri Guru Granth Sahib, then you are so wrong!

The fact is, a 'Dasven Patshah Ka Granth' was very much present during the time of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib...