5 Ks In Sikhi

[Harkiran Kaur]

Harkiran Kaur Ji

There is a presumption that the writings contained within SDGSJ are by n large, as those pertaining to be Guru Gobind Singh Ji's own handwritten [wide genre] literature or, that of His scribes [my understanding]. This literature was collated and complied by Bhai Mani Singh to form what is now known as, Dasam Granth. To rebut this presumption you are required to satisfy the evidential burden, meaning, show reasonable cause and back it up with credible evidence.

Hope you're getting to grips with that!

Goodnight

Actually the burden of proof is on those who have the 'presumption' since they are the ones who are 'presuming' something without proof.

Instead you are suggesting that the burden of proof should be on the criminal to prove his innocence, when being 'presumed' guilty without any evidence - that is, if presumption is enough in court - but it's not is it??

The 'presumption' is also based on unreliable evidence that would not hold in a court of law today:

- The letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji has already been proven to be a fake by linguists as language was used in it, that dates it as being written far later than it claims
- Chibber's Banasavalinama is from decades after Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world, does not give any sources, and Chibber himself states in it that he only wrote what he 'heard' (not experienced first hand). That means it's already considered hearsay.
- Mehma Parkash was written several decades after Banasavalinama, also does not quote any sources, seems to draw heavily on Chibber's account, and itself states that charitropakhyan was only older stories sourced from other places and was 'translated' (given a new form) by Guru Ji. However, no sources given to back these claims up at all in Mehma Parkash. So it could be anyone just writing anything and claiming what they want at that point.
- I could write a book today claiming that Guru Gobind Singh Ji spoke to purple aliens with pink polka dots who came from Mars. It would not make it true! And it could never be used as evidence to support anything.

Seems to me all they have is 'presumption' which as I said, won't hold in a court of law. The burden of proof is on them to prove their theory, not on everyone else to disprove it.

 

[Original]

Good morning Harkiran Ji,

No, not quite like that ! You see the general rule is that everyone is "presumed" innocent until proven otherwise. This presumption is held on part the decision maker to treat everyone as if nothing had happened. The burden is on the party who "rebuts" [challenges] this presumption to prove to a reasonable standard [criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt and civil cases, on the balance of probabilities] their case by discharging the evidential burden. And since, someone is challenging the authenticity of what is otherwise "presumed" to be Gobind's literature, they'd be the party held responsible to prove on the balance of probabilities that it isn't all as it is made out to be. Indeed, you have adduced evidence to that effect, some of which is circumstantial and consistent with Sikh belief n value, but not in its entirety, sufficient to tip the balance in your favour and hence inconclusive.

As I said before, I'm new to this controversy and can only deliberate on facts provided. So far, I'm of the view that the disputed texts be treated incidental and not actual part of Sikh Faith save those incorporated institutionally.

Much obliged -

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Good morning Harkiran Ji,

No, not quite like that ! You see the general rule is that everyone is "presumed" innocent until proven otherwise. This presumption is held on part the decision maker to treat everyone as if nothing had happened. The burden is on the party who "rebuts" [challenges] this presumption to prove to a reasonable standard [criminal cases, beyond reasonable doubt and civil cases, on the balance of probabilities] their case by discharging the evidential burden. And since, someone is challenging the authenticity of what is otherwise "presumed" to be Gobind's literature, they'd be the party held responsible to prove on the balance of probabilities that it isn't all as it is made out to be. Indeed, you have adduced evidence to that effect, some of which is circumstantial and consistent with Sikh belief n value, but not in its entirety, sufficient to tip the balance in your favour and hence inconclusive.

As I said before, I'm new to this controversy and can only deliberate on facts provided. So far, I'm of the view that the disputed texts be treated incidental and not actual part of Sikh Faith save those incorporated institutionally.

Much obliged -

@Original ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please let's not try to mix apples with Jamuns in order to prove our point how irrelevant it may be.

Presumption of innocence or guilt as used in legalese, which you use quite often at SPN btw, needlessly, because it has no relevance whatsoever to the subjects being discussed here.

Your legalese term 'Presumption' has nothing to do with the book, in this case DG.

According to you, DG was written by our 10th Guru. Your presumption sans proofs forces the whole burden on you. It lies with the one with the presumption because once again we are talking about a book, not a crime that may have been committed by a person who is being tried in a court. I am sure a sharp barrister like you knows the difference between the two.

The only fact here is that the writer/s broke the norm set by our Gurus- One Jyot. This is not a presumption from my side but a fact contrary of your presumptive claim, disguised with a wrong term,'presumption'. I am sure you understand the meaning of One Jyot.

Some of us our guilty of not grasping this notion and hence fail to know the difference between the legalese and a common human trait of presuming. The latter is being used here no matter how much legalese is forced fed where it is not required nor needed but rather it is totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed..

Coming back to DG, please elaborate what made you presume that DG was written by our 10th Guru? After all even any presumption requires some foundation which is missing here.

Please offer concrete examples.

Thanks.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Original Ji it's only presumed by a small percentage of Sikhs. Many Siks don't even know what's in DG let alone have enough knowledge to make any presumptions. In this case sorry, but presuming something without any evidence the burden is on those with the presumption as the lack of evidence in their favour is evidence in the favour of it it NOT being from Guru Gobind singh Ji. The very lack of evidecne to show that it is from Guru Ji IS evidence to show that it's NOT from Guru Ji!!

 

[japjisahib04]

Taking a queue from your analogy, then why do you think Sikh Gurus, incorporated the Banis of 32 Bhagats/Bhatts and took immense care, while translating them to Gurmukhi, to credit each and every shabd to its original author in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, our only Guru, whether it was using terms like Mahala 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 9 or Bhagat Bani. Each and every Ang in SGGS is credited to its original author, absolutely no question of any kind of plagiarism.

Not only giving credit to the original author but where ever clarification was required guru sahib added their own sloke after farid jee sloke from stanza No.108 to 113.(page 1383) Why there is no clarification in these alleged charitrophkhayan?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

@Original ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please let's not try to mix apples with Jamuns in order to prove our point how irrelevant it may be.

Presumption of innocence or guilt as used in legalese, which you use quite often at SPN btw, needlessly, because it has no relevance whatsoever to the subjects being discussed here.

Your legalese term 'Presumption' has nothing to do with the book, in this case DG.

According to you, DG was written by our 10th Guru. Your presumption sans proofs forces the whole burden on you. It lies with the one with the presumption because once again we are talking about a book, not a crime that may have been committed by a person who is being tried in a court. I am sure a sharp barrister like you knows the difference between the two.

The only fact here is that the writer/s broke the norm set by our Gurus- One Jyot. This is not a presumption from my side but a fact contrary of your presumptive claim, disguised with a wrong term,'presumption'. I am sure you understand the meaning of One Jyot.

Some of us our guilty of not grasping this notion and hence fail to know the difference between the legalese and a common human trait of presuming. The latter is being used here no matter how much legalese is forced fed where it is not required nor needed but rather it is totally irrelevant to the subject being discussed..

Coming back to DG, please elaborate what made you presume that DG was written by our 10th Guru? After all even any presumption requires some foundation which is missing here.

Please offer concrete examples.

Thanks.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

According to you, DG was written by our 10th Guru. Your presumption sans proofs forces the whole burden on you. It lies with the one with the presumption because once again we are talking about a book, not a crime that may have been committed by a person who is being tried in a court. I am sure a sharp barrister like you knows the difference between the two.

And even then, the onus is on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. A suspect is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty - and that too - beyond all reasonable doubt. Can we say the same for DG? Is it proven to be of the hand of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, beyond all reasonable doubt? Far from it actually!

- Letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji is proven to be fakery based on linguistics which dates it much later.
- Banasavalinama by Chibber - Chibber quotes no sources, was written many decades after Guru Gobind Singh Ji lest this world, admits he writes what he 'heard' (hear say) and even then, gets some historical accounts mixed up with dates etc.
- Mehma Parkash - also quotes absolutely no sources whatsoever, seems to draw heavily on Chibber's accounts, makes claims that court poets brought stories back from many sources around the world which Guru Ji translated into a new form. We don't even know if what is in Charitropakhyan are the stories that were mentioned in Mehma Parkash or not. They could be entirely different material! And even then, where did the authour of Mehma Parkash get their information? There are no sources mentioned, and when Mehma Parkash was written, it was now over 100 years after Guru Ji was gone!
- Neither Banasavalinama or Mehma Parkash make reference to a 'Dasam Granth' a all. Banasavalinama mentions a 'Samundar Sagar Granth' which was thrown in a river. Mehma Parkash mentions a 'Vidya Sagar Granth'. There is no way to know if either of these are what is considered to be DG today!
- The EARLIEST traceable birs of DG can only be traced back to 4 copies which were all found (coincidentally??) at the same time, in 4 different locations, in the late 1800s! No earlier examples can be found!

Does the above sound like it's beyond all reasonable doubt, that DG is written by Guru Gobind Singh Ji?

The only fact here is that the writer/s broke the norm set by our Gurus- One Jyot. This is not a presumption from my side but a fact contrary of your presumptive claim, disguised with a wrong term,'presumption'. I am sure you understand the meaning of One Jyot.

Very true! Most of what is written in DG goes against what is written in SGGSJ.

In SGGSJ for example, Creator is said to be beyond all description, and to try to describe God is futile. Yet in DG, "Mahakaal" is given as one that has a "dark body bedecked beautifully with ornaments, with four beautiful arms, long hair bound in a knot, a tongue red like fire, grinder teeth and fleshy red eyes. He adorns a rosary of skulls in which blood oozes out which seeing even the god Shiva feels abashed. His movement is that of an elephant, intoxicated with wine. He wears anklets and has many gongs which resound and make the clouds feel ashamed. He has a mace, a sword and a bow and arrow. He produces a very loud roar in which the great monarchs are frightened and his conches and drums resound like the thundering sound of the sea..." ------ Remember Mahakaal is the Creator God worshipped in "Benti Chaupai" - apparently God is not beyond all description after all since DG seems to describe every little detail for us!

 

[Original]

Original Ji it's only presumed by a small percentage of Sikhs.

..consider Kully Ji a minority and proceed on those basis.

In this case sorry, but presuming something without any evidence the burden is on those with the presumption

..please take this up with the Jews. Judaism works on the God presumption. The presumption that there is God. Similarly, the small percentage of Sikhs [statistical data according to you] works on the presumption that the whole of SDGSJ was written by Gobind. And, since you're objecting to this presumption, [note, the operative word is presumption] it is you who need to persuade otherwise. The inconsistency found in the contents of SDGSJ with wider Sikh belief, value and practice does not validate or invalidate its authenticity. Indeed, they'd be persuasive and rational when based on credible evidence.

The idea that we've evolved to argue and persuade, sometimes at the expense of truth, may seem to offer a pessimistic view of human reasoning. What is required in the instant case is an appeal to reason and not to one's disposition.

Harkiran, please afford me the liberty to exit this debate until such time Kully Ji decides to come back.

Much obliged

 

[Kully]

.I'm afraid you can't and

Yes I can...

we will never have real mess because our only Guru is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, come what may

but what about aspects of Sikhi that fall outside of SGGS?

Keeping kes?
Taking Khande ki pahul?
Ardas?
Greetings?
the 5k's?

and the biggest one of them all....Was Pothi Sahib given Gurgaddi, by Guru Gobind Singh?

Original Ji my argument is not based on my having any evidence, rather my argument is precisely the lack of evidence to support all of DG being the hand of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.

There is evidence to show that all of DG is the writing of Guru Gobind Singh. The ones you specifically mention, shows the evidence to prove this. It may only be one piece of evidence, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't the Guru work. Not even one. Just wild accusations, like your "the hindus wrote it". Where is the evidence for that?

The 'presumption' is also based on unreliable evidence that would not hold in a court of law today:

- The letter from Bhai Mani Singh Ji has already been proven to be a fake by linguists as language was used in it, that dates it as being written far later than it claims
- Chibber's Banasavalinama is from decades after Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world, does not give any sources, and Chibber himself states in it that he only wrote what he 'heard' (not experienced first hand). That means it's already considered hearsay.
- Mehma Parkash was written several decades after Banasavalinama, also does not quote any sources, seems to draw heavily on Chibber's account, and itself states that charitropakhyan was only older stories sourced from other places and was 'translated' (given a new form) by Guru Ji. However, no sources given to back these claims up at all in Mehma Parkash. So it could be anyone just writing anything and claiming what they want at that point.
- I could write a book today claiming that Guru Gobind Singh Ji spoke to purple aliens with pink polka dots who came from Mars. It would not make it true! And it could never be used as evidence to support anything.

Seems to me all they have is 'presumption' which as I said, won't hold in a court of law. The burden of proof is on them to prove their theory, not on everyone else to disprove it.

Original, this is where the danger is. This criteria if apllied to SGGS would reuslt in the same.

No can prove that Guru Gobind Singh said "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai". It's not written anywhere.

No-one has seen Narbad Bhatts text, we only have Gyani Gyan Singh's word for this text and that was 200 years after the event.

The rehatnama that calls Pothi Sahib as "Guru" has a written date of 1696, 12 years before the event. How can this be?

The first writing that mentions Pothi Sahib as "Guru" is Gurbilas Patshahi 10, which was written several decades later in 1751, almost 40 years after the event.

So, by Harkiran's own criteria by analysing the factual data we have, we can't even prove that SGGS was given gurgaddi by Guru Sahib.

This could never be upheld in a court of law.

We have to be very careful about applying criteria in one aspect that could damage the very foundations of Gurmat. That is what is happening with the constant denigration of DG. It's a challenge to the doctrine of Gurmat as practised since the 1700s.

Many Siks don't even know what's in DG let alone have enough knowledge to make any presumptions.

Many Sikhs don't know what SGGS is about even though they bow to it throughout their lives.

The very lack of evidecne to show that it is from Guru Ji IS evidence to show that it's NOT from Guru Ji!!

There is more evidence to show that it is from Guru's hands than not.

In SGGSJ for example, Creator is said to be beyond all description,

apparently God is not beyond all description after all since DG seems to describe every little detail for us!

Beyond all description doesn't mean there are no descriptions of Waheguru. It means that no description will ever be complete. many times in SGGS there are descriptions of Wahegure, but none are them are complete as Waheguru cannot be described in total.

ਤੇਰੇ ਬੰਕੇ ਲੋਇਣ ਦੰਤ ਰੀਸਾਲਾ ॥
Your eyes are so beautiful, and Your teeth are delightful.

ਸੋਹਣੇ ਨਕ ਜਿਨ ਲੰਮੜੇ ਵਾਲਾ ॥
Your nose is so graceful, and Your hair is so long.

ਕੰਚਨ ਕਾਇਆ ਸੁਇਨੇ ਕੀ ਢਾਲਾ ॥
Your body is so precious, cast in gold.


ਸੋਵੰਨ ਢਾਲਾ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਮਾਲਾ ਜਪਹੁ ਤੁਸੀ ਸਹੇਲੀਹੋ ॥
His body is cast in gold, and He wears Krishna's mala; meditate on Him, O sisters.

ਜਮ ਦੁਆਰਿ ਨ ਹੋਹੁ ਖੜੀਆ ਸਿਖ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਮਹੇਲੀਹੋ ॥
You shall not have to stand at Death's door, O sisters, if you listen to these teachings.

ਹੰਸ ਹੰਸਾ ਬਗ ਬਗਾ ਲਹੈ ਮਨ ਕੀ ਜਾਲਾ ॥
From a crane, you shall be transformed into a swan, and the filth of your mind shall be removed.

ਬੰਕੇ ਲੋਇਣ ਦੰਤ ਰੀਸਾਲਾ ॥੭॥
Your eyes are so beautiful, and Your teeth are delightful. ||7||

Raag Vadhans Guru Nanak Dev Ang 567

As you can see Guru Sahib has used some descriptions of Waheguru to describe his beauty. But we know that from SGGS , Waheguru doesn't actually look like this. The case is the same with DG.

apparently God is not beyond all description after all since DG seems to describe every little detail for us!

It's very apparent that you don't like DG, but at least refrain from making sniping/sarcastic remarks about it, if you can't find anything positive to say. It's not a way to behave on any learning forum.

which seeing even the god Shiva feels abashed.

Well at least we can say that the "God" of DG is not Shiv.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Kully Ji you are asking everyone to go on basis of Absense of proof against must mean proof for. Sorry doesn't work that way, and besides the supposed proof you bring to the table and the basis you want us to take it as proof is dangerous. I could write a book tomorrow making bold claims about our Guru. I won't cite any sources just like both Banasavalinama and Mehma Prakash. In 100 years should everyone take that book I wrote as an authority on the subject and as 'proof'? Using your reasons why you consider Mehma Prakash to be evidence proving it to be from Guru Gobind Singh Ji then you can't discount the book I am about to write! You did say use what evidence you have right? I'll add another to the mix! In another 100 years my book will be evidence for whatever bold claims I want to make!

Sorry but you can not do that. Evidence must have reliable sources for its information and must be clear on the content it's actually speaking about. In case of Mehma Prakash it's not even mentioning a dasam granth but makes vague claims to writing and even then admits it was gathered by others from other sources meaning it's admitting that whatever writing it's talking about (we can't be sure) is not authored by Guru Gobind Singh Ji, but just translated. And where did this information originate from (since it's now over 100 years since Guru Ji left this world)? Who knows because no sources are cited!!

 

[Kully]

Kully Ji you are asking everyone to go on basis of Absense of proof against must mean proof for.

In the case of established practice, the onus is not on anyone to prove, but on those wish to disprove. DG has been part of Sikh religious practice since 1700. If 300 years later you say it wasn't then the onus is on you to prove that is wasn't.

and besides the supposed proof you bring to the table and the basis you want us to take it as proof is dangerous.

It is dangerous, I agree, because if you apply it to SGGS and "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai" then you are automatically setting the grounds for rejection of SGGS as our Guru. That is dangerous.

I won't cite any sources just like both Banasavalinama and Mehma Prakash.

Absence of sources in itself is no source of proof. Both text contain meagre information, but essentially enough to inform us, that:

a) Guru Gobind Singh wrote a granth
b) that granth contained certain named writings.

Bhai Desa Singh's rehatnama goes to the extent of naming many writings in DG.

Evidence must have reliable sources for its information and must be clear on the content it's actually speaking about.

Yes, I agree, but there is no evidence which is reliable for Guru Sahib giving SGGS gurgaddi. So by the criteria that you are using against DG, are totally and equally applicable to SGGS. In't that dangerous?

That's not to mention Nitnem banis, the procedure to take pahul, the 5 k's etc.

Do you still not see how dangerous it is to ask for the kind of concrete proof you are looking for?

In case of Mehma Prakash it's not even mentioning a dasam granth but makes vague claims to writing and even then admits it was gathered by others from other sources

Mehma Parkash gives us enough information to make an informed decision. I'm surprised that you keep bringing this text up, as you originally great hopes on it, as some kind of proof for you.

And where did this information originate from (since it's now over 100 years since Guru Ji left this world)? Who knows because no sources are cited!!

Sabh sikhan ko hukam hai guru maneyo granth was written almost 200 years after the event. Why should we beleive that SGGS was given gurgaddi when the information and sources are not verifiable?

Most of what is written in DG goes against what is written in SGGSJ.

Have you read "most" of DG? Have you read "most" of SGGS? Only someone who has could make that kind of statement.

There are no sources mentioned, and when Mehma Parkash was written, it was now over 100 years after Guru Ji was gone!

Mehma Parkash was completed around 70 years after Guru Sahib's joti jot.

The EARLIEST traceable birs of DG can only be traced back to 4 copies which were all found (coincidentally??) at the same time, in 4 different locations, in the late 1800s! No earlier examples can be found!

Not true. Charles Watkins in his travels through India records seeing DG in 1780 at Patna Sahib, and another traveller (his name escapes me) wrote in 1812 after seeing the Sikhs attending a gurmatta, that the Sikhs took the pledge in front of the granth of Nanak, and the granth of Gobind.

 

[Admin]

Yes, I agree, but there is no evidence which is reliable for Guru Sahib giving SGGS gurgaddi. So by the criteria that you are using against DG, are totally and equally applicable to SGGS. In't that dangerous?

@Kully ji, do you doubt the authenticity of SGGS being given Gurgaddi?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

In the case of established practice, the onus is not on anyone to prove, but on those wish to disprove. DG has been part of Sikh religious practice since 1700. If 300 years later you say it wasn't then the onus is on you to prove that is wasn't.




It is dangerous, I agree, because if you apply it to SGGS and "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai" then you are automatically setting the grounds for rejection of SGGS as our Guru. That is dangerous.




Absence of sources in itself is no source of proof. Both text contain meagre information, but essentially enough to inform us, that:

a) Guru Gobind Singh wrote a granth
b) that granth contained certain named writings.

Bhai Desa Singh's rehatnama goes to the extent of naming many writings in DG.




Yes, I agree, but there is no evidence which is reliable for Guru Sahib giving SGGS gurgaddi. So by the criteria that you are using against DG, are totally and equally applicable to SGGS. In't that dangerous?

That's not to mention Nitnem banis, the procedure to take pahul, the 5 k's etc.

Do you still not see how dangerous it is to ask for the kind of concrete proof you are looking for?




Mehma Parkash gives us enough information to make an informed decision. I'm surprised that you keep bringing this text up, as you originally great hopes on it, as some kind of proof for you.




Sabh sikhan ko hukam hai guru maneyo granth was written almost 200 years after the event. Why should we beleive that SGGS was given gurgaddi when the information and sources are not verifiable?



Have you read "most" of DG? Have you read "most" of SGGS? Only someone who has could make that kind of statement.




Mehma Parkash was completed around 70 years after Guru Sahib's joti jot.




Not true. Charles Watkins in his travels through India records seeing DG in 1780 at Patna Sahib, and another traveller (his name escapes me) wrote in 1812 after seeing the Sikhs attending a gurmatta, that the Sikhs took the pledge in front of the granth of Nanak, and the granth of Gobind.

First of all DG was not even compiled till long after Guru Gobdind Singh was gone. Supposedly by Baha'i Mani Singh Ji. If you think it was fully compiled in 1700 then you are going against your own evidence.

Also That account of a Granth seen in 1780 does not mention any dasam granth. You are assuming that the Granth spoken of is the dasam Granth when it could be anything. It could have been a copy of the Vedas for all he'd know!

And wow I love how you try to skew things in your favour! You can't compare it to SGGSJ as the lineage was never broken!!! The history of it and birs can be traced back! So please don't bring our only Guru into this! Birs of supposed dasam Granth were not brought into it until much later. Any prior accounts of Granths or writings do not mention 'dasam Granth'. Not Mehma Prakash, not banasavinama, not the forged letter supposedly from bhaibmani singh, and not the account you just brought up. Just saying there is a second Granth there doesn't mean it's automatically dasam granth.

And yes it IS dangerous to make assumptions based on very sp{censored} and limited evidence which does not even mention something by name! You can't apply the same with SGGSJ as there are birs with a very known history right from our Gurus time where those birs still exist! And I had the privilege of photographing one!

But to assume that sp{censored} references to some writing by Guru Gobind Sugh Ji must mean what we have now as dasam granth is dangerous. To use books which have no sources cited is very dangerous ......as I said I can write a new book of my own, saying Guru Ji didn't write Dasam Granth. Then using your reasoning my book must also be taken as evidence in this case against DG. Even if I don't cite any research or sources! And you can't say that my book is any less of an authority than Mehma Prakash etc because you'd have to apply the same litmus test on those other sources you are using on mine! Just because someone writes something vaguely referencing something doesn't mean it's referencing what you are assuming, and also it doesn't mean they are correct.

In case of SGGSJ the lineage and history however is unbroken!!! Also I showed you proof where it was recorded that Guru Gobind Singh gave gurgaddi to SGGSJ alone. It was recorded on bards scroll AS it was being dictated. So there is no doubt there!

The event on 20 October 1708 at Nanded (in present-day Maharashtra), when Guru Gobind Singh installed Adi Granth as the Guru of Sikhism, was recorded in a Bhatt Vahi (a bard's scroll) by an eyewitness, Narbud Singh,[2][3][4] and is now celebrated as Guru Gaddi (Guru Gaddi Divas), and statement is part of the central chant, Sabh Sikhan ko Hukam Hai, Guru Maneyo Granth. - Sikhiwikki

An eyewitness recording something as it happens is way different than a book written decades and decades afterward and citing no sources. In the case of SGGSJ being given guruship it was EYEWITNESS account and recorded straight away!! So your argument against SGGSJ being our only Guru does not hold. We don't have any eyewitness accounts for dasam granth at time it was compiled. Instead we have vague references to 'writing' never mentioned by name as dasam Granth, written 70 years after Guru Gobind singh Ji (in case of banasavalinama) and another couple decades later for Mehma Prakash, with no sources cited at all, and you are assuming they are talking about dasam Granth or that the author even knew what they were writing about!

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

In the case of established practice, the onus is not on anyone to prove, but on those wish to disprove. DG has been part of Sikh religious practice since 1700. If 300 years later you say it wasn't then the onus is on you to prove that is wasn't.

The fact is that one can not prove a negative, the straw you have been holding on to as your 'trump card'.

Please share a viable fact for your claims.

Thanks.

 

[Kully]

@Kully ji, do you doubt the authenticity of SGGS being given Gurgaddi?

What makes you ask that Admin Singh Ji?

If you think it was fully compiled in 1700 then you are going against your own evidence.

The texts were completed in 1696.

Also That account of a Granth seen in 1780 does not mention any dasam granth. You are assuming that the Granth spoken of is the dasam Granth when it could be anything. It could have been a copy of the Vedas for all he'd know!

It doesn't mention it by name, but the details of the scenario given the later eye-witness writing in 1812 mean it could be no other.

As for the vedas, never in sikh history has this occured, so it would be more unlikely that this 2nd granth was any other than DG.

You can't compare it to SGGSJ as the lineage was never broken!!! The history of it and birs can be traced back!

I can compare it to SGGS. Where is the original Damdami bir dictated by Guru Gobind Singh, and scribed by Bhai Mani Singh?

Just saying there is a second Granth there doesn't mean it's automatically dasam granth.

On the basis of probability there would not be a stronger contender.

You can't apply the same with SGGSJ as there are birs with a very known history right from our Gurus time where those birs still exist!

Ok, where are those birs?

But to assume that sp{censored} references to some writing by Guru Gobind Sugh Ji must mean what we have now as dasam granth is dangerous.

It is dangerous, I'm in total agreement with you. There are only sp{censored} references to Guru Sahib giving SGGS gurgaddi. That's why it is so dangerous because anybody who rejects DG on this basis will be rejecting SGGS on the same basis.

Also I showed you proof where it was recorded that Guru Gobind Singh gave gurgaddi to SGGSJ alone.

No you didn't. You copied and pasted something from sikhiwikhi.

It was recorded on bards scroll AS it was being dictated. So there is no doubt there!

Ok, so where are these records now? Clear my doubts.

The event on 20 October 1708 at Nanded (in present-day Maharashtra), when Guru Gobind Singh installed Adi Granth as the Guru of Sikhism, was recorded in a Bhatt Vahi (a bard's scroll) by an eyewitness, Narbud Singh,[2][3][4] and is now celebrated as Guru Gaddi (Guru Gaddi Divas), and statement is part of the central chant, Sabh Sikhan ko Hukam Hai, Guru Maneyo Granth. - Sikhiwikki

Another copy and paste form sikhiwiki? Where is this bhatt's record now?

If this bhatt's record was available then, why did the Panth only start using this "Sabh sikhan" in 1890s after Gyani Gyan Singh wrote it? Don't you think it would have been in use much earlier? i.e. in 1708?

The fact is that one can not prove a negative, the straw you have been holding on to as your 'trump card'.

Tejwant Singh, fancy words aside, maybe you would like to offer some evidence in SGGS being given gurgaddi?
 

Instead we have vague references to 'writing' never mentioned by name as dasam Granth, written 70 years after Guru Gobind singh Ji (in case of banasavalinama) and another couple decades later for Mehma Prakash, with no sources cited at all, and you are assuming they are talking about dasam Granth or that the author even knew what they were writing about!

The name Dasam Granth is only a recent thing, since around 1890s. Before that it was known as "Dasve Padshah ka granth".

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

What makes you ask that Admin Singh Ji?




The texts were completed in 1696.

Prove it.

It doesn't mention it by name, but the details of the scenario given the later eye-witness writing in 1812 mean it could be no other.

On the basis of probability there would not be a stronger contender.

The name Dasam Granth is only a recent thing, since around 1890s. Before that it was known as "Dasve Padshah ka granth".

Oh what about Sarbloh granth? What about the names given in Chibber's account and Mehma Prakash? Chibber only mentions a Sumandar Sagar Granth and writing that were lost in a river. Mehma Prakash speaks of a Vidya Sagar Granth. Are all of these the same one Granth? Why would a Granth so important which you say existed prior to Guru Gobind Singh Ji leaving this earth, have so many different names and such an uncertain history? (Vague references in unprovable sources by authors who were around long after Guru Gobind Singh Ji was gone and one of which admitted he only wrote what he 'heard' from others and the other was decades later again and so could not have had any first hand experience or be a reliable witness. If this Granth is authentic and important then why the sordid history, vague references and multiple names?

The fact is just because YOU think those references are speaking about the book we have now before us, doesn't make it true.

As for SGGSJ I had the privilege of photographing a hand written bir in Kashmir in Anantnag, Mattan Sahib called the golden bir (sunehri bir) which is proven to be from 17th century and was held there for that time until today where it still resides. That alone is older than the oldest birs available of the so called dasam Granth.

The original was completed in 1604 and was installed at darbar Sahib. The final version the Damdama Sahib Bir was installed at Nanded in 1705 by Guru Gobind Singh and was recorded there and it's history is most definitely not in question.

As for Guru Granth Sahib Ji being Guru, it's also mentioned in Bhai Nand Laal Ji's rhetnama which was compiled before Guru Gobind Singh Ji left this world in 1695.

"This Rehatnama is written in *December 1695C according to the 39th line but the interesting thing is it mentions Ad Granth as Guru Granth Sahib Ji in line ਸੀਸ ਟੇਕ ਗੁਰ ਗਰੰਥ ਜੀ ਬਚਨ ਸੁਣੇ ਸੋ ਹਜ਼ੂਰ ॥ (੧੬)And after bowing your head to Guru Granth Jee, listen to the celestial teachings." Quoted from Sikh Sangat.

So SGGSJ status as Guru for all time was evident even before that day in 1708.

There exists no such evidence in support of dasam Granth even as a Granth let alone having equal or even important status in Sikhi. Only assumptions that vague references to 'writings' which were referred to by many different names, assumptions that these are in fact what is surfaced now as dasam Granth.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Singh, fancy words aside, maybe you would like to offer some evidence in SGGS being given gurgaddi?

Kully ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am a bit surprised that you have no comments of your insistence onto others to prove a negative. One wonders why!

The subject of this thread is DG not SGGS. We can discuss about the latter in another thread after the completion of this one in any manner.

So please stick to the topic in hand which is DG and give proofs of your claims.

Thanks

 

[Kully]

Prove it.

The last internal date of the texts of DG is dated 1696.

Oh what about Sarbloh granth?

This granth was so secretive that apart from Nihangs i don't think any Sikhs know it existed. Apart from that I know very little about this granth.

What about the names given in Chibber's account and Mehma Prakash?

They were names of various texts from DG such as "Bachitar Natak" or "Avtar leela" etc. Guru Granth as well had more than name.

Why would a Granth so important which you say existed prior to Guru Gobind Singh Ji leaving this earth, have so many different names and such an uncertain history

There is no uncertainty. The only uncertainty is by those who wish to sideline this granth from the Sikhs because they don't understand it.

one of which admitted he only wrote what he 'heard' from others

By this he doesn't mean he heard it in a market, or from some people. This is what is called seena-baseena tradition.

As for SGGSJ I had the privilege of photographing a hand written bir in Kashmir in Anantnag, Mattan Sahib called the golden bir (sunehri bir)

And yet you failed to notice it has more than 1430 angs.

That alone is older than the oldest birs available of the so called dasam Granth.

This Sunheri bir could not have been form the 17th century because Guru Gobind Singh did not add Guru Tegh Bahadur's shabads until 1706. So it wold automatically be from the 18th century, unless it is a copy of the Kartarpur Bir, which means it is a copy of Aad Pothi, not SGGS.

Plus being "sunehri" marks it out as being from a later period when Granths were copied with creativity and splendour.

The final version the Damdama Sahib Bir was installed at Nanded in 1705 by Guru Gobind Singh

1705?

Wow. How could this happen when Guru Sahib compiled the Granth in 1706, and reached Nander in 1707?

As for Guru Granth Sahib Ji being Guru, it's also mentioned in Bhai Nand Laal Ji's rhetnama

I'm not interested in Bhai Nand Lal's words. I'm interested in in Guru Gobind Singh's writing "sabh Sikhan ki hukam hai...."

One wonders why!

Stop your wondering and contribute to the topic Sir.

The subject in this thread is DG not SGGS

Actually Tejwant Ji, the topic is the "5k's".

The topic theme is where is the evidence for the 5 k's ? There is not one piece of evidence/writing upto 1790 that lists the 5 k's.

That is one of the reasons I made this topic, because it's very easy to dismiss DG for lack of concrete evidence, or sp{censored} existing proof. But it's not just with DG that we find ourselves in this situation.

With Nitnem, vidhi on taking pahul, the 5k's, saying fateh to each other etc. These are not covered in the granths/literature that we have today. To me, if you dismiss anyone of these for lack of evidence you have dismissed them all.

Look at how we are struggling to find any tangible evidence that Guru Gobind Singh wrote "sabh sikhan ko hukam hai".

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Kully ji,
Guru Fateh.

Please give us a list of your questions/ grievances regarding the subjects you have mentioned so we can start pitching in one by one.

However, one thing must be added to the above is your personal two pence worth which is vital for furthering the interaction.

Thanks.

 

[Admin]

What makes you ask that Admin Singh Ji?

On this forum, you are the only person, who time and again, does not even blink an eye while creating doubts about the authenticity of Gurgaddi given to to SGGS.