Talk:Dasam Granth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Purpose of the Dasan Granth" section[edit]

This part of the article is lacking in citations and puts forth some pretty bold statements that definitely requires some backing up (specifically, I'm referring to "The Guru discovered that from reading the Ad Granth the Sikhs became feeble-hearted. Therefore (said the Guru), I myself will prepare such a Granth that the Sikhs from reading it will learn the art of ruling, the use of weapons, and other skills so that they will become fit for warfare; so from that very day he began the compositions of a huge volume, and when it was completed on Sunday, on the eighth day of the new moon in the month of Bhadon 1753 Bikrami (1696) he named it "The Granth of the Tenth Sovereign.").

For all I know, this information may have been derived from legitimate sources. But, the source should be made explicitly clear so people can verify it for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.135.31 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

IP: 70.66.40.224 Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

Extraordinary Claim[edit]

This article in its [current version] makes extraordinary claims that the text called "Dasam Granth" or "Daven Padshah Da Granth" is entirely written by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh. This is POV propaganda of a certain group of people. There is no consensus on this issue among the historians. A deeper digging of the issue shows that renowned historians have expressed the view that only a small part of this text could have been written by Sikh Guru Gobind Singh. Furthermore, this text has no coherent content and is circulating in various different forms currently. Its wikipedia policy that "extra-ordinary" claims need extra-ordinary evidences to support them on wikipedia. That aside, this claim does not even has any verifiability. The Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee had issued "hukamnama" specifically stating that this text is not to be considered "holy" or "sacred" or placed at par with Guru Granth Sahib, therefore, its wrong to call it holy or sacred. The importance of the text is just for the sake of history and research at the present. Please do not make wikipedia a victim of your blind and baseless beliefs and do not try to generalize your POV as the belief of the entire Sikh population. If you disagree, feel free to discuss your points here. Regards, --RoadAhead Discuss 18:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay[edit]

It has become a trend to jump into controversies by saying things based on hearsay. The subject of Dasam Granth has become a victim of this too.

Bad assumption on your part. Could you know prove what was said by whom based on "hearsay"?. Please do some digging on the subject. --RoadAhead Discuss 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai Mani Singh Letter[edit]

One with the name of Daljit Singh was the first person to write against Bhai Mani Singh letter in 1991. Apart from Daljit Singh (who was not even a Sikh historian but a physician by profession) all Sikh historians support the letter. (Ref: http://www.santsipahi.org/patshahi10/bhai-mani-singh-letter-analysis-dr-harbhajan-singh.html)

This is not true. The first person to argue against the authenticity of the 'Bhai Mani Singh Letter' was Prof Rattan Singh Jaggi whose PhD thesis at Punjabi University Patiala was focused on the authorship of Dasam Granth during mid-sixties. This was later published in book form entitled 'Dasam Granth da Krititav' (Authorship of Dasam Granth). As an expert on the ancient Gurmukhi scripts he argued that:

1.Unlike the practice of writing sentences with no spaces between words the said letter had words separated as done at present. 2. The writing had been done using a metallic nib that had been invented only during the first decade of the nineteenth century nealy a hundred years after the period claimed for the letter writing. Incidentally, metallic nib had been invented in Birmingham in England around 1805. 3. The shapes of Gurmukhi characters in the purported letter are closer to their modern shape than to that prevalent in early eithgteenth century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandpuria (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So called edict of SGPC[edit]

There is no such edict by SGPC. In fact SGPC has no right to issue hukamnamas. However in 2006 Akal Takhat had passed an edict declaring those speaking against Dasam Granth as mischievous miscreants. Please see that edict here http://sridasamgranth.com/#/dasamgranthhukumnamanov200/4528978466).

Sikh historians and Dasam Granth[edit]

Most Sikh historians like Dr. Ganda Singh, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Dr. Taran Singh, Principal Satbir Singh, Kapur Singh, Prof Sahib Singh, Dr. Kirpal Singh etc agree that the complete Dasam Granth was penned by tenth Sikh Guru. Many articles written by these historians are posted on http://www.patshahi10.org

This approach is called "cherry-picking". Could also start listing other scholars and their arguments? Also, help us understand where Dr. Ganda Singh and Kahn Singh Nabha agreed that "complete Dasam Granth" was penned by tenth Nanak? Even if they did, it cannot be put as "universal truth" on Wikipedia. All those questioned raised by other scholars will also make the was to wikipedia in the similar fashion. --RoadAhead Discuss 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Ganda Singh has written numerous articles in which he has quoted from every composition of Dasam Granth. Read Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha's "Hum Hindu Nahin" to understand his faith in the banees of Dasam Granth. You claimed that other such "scholars" exist. So you should list them and also quote their works. There is no single Sikh historian who denigrates Dasam Granth. If you disagree then come up with evidence instead of giving mere statements. Gurmatscholar (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly there was no debate on the authorship before 1980s. Bhag Singh Ambala was the first person to cast doubts on the authorship and he was excommunicated from Sikhism (Ref: http://www.santsipahi.org/patshahi10/bhagsingh.html).

Incorrect, please get your facts right on this. The questions on this issue have started to appear right from the time when this text appeared on the scene. --RoadAhead Discuss 22:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that there was no controversy on the authorship of Dasam Granth before 1980s. If you disagree then provide evidence for your claim. Gurmatscholar (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hence the onus is on those detractors, who are carried by baseless propaganda, to come up with references for their preposterous claims. Gurmatscholar (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, please see Burden of Evidence.
Burden of Evidence is on the one who is challenging the material with counter claims. In this case its you. You are continuously failing to provide references to your claims. Gurmatscholar (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the above sites that you mention are either propagandist (esp. www.patshahi10.org) or non-scholarly (www.santsipahi.com) in nature. None of those have research or scholarly work. Please see WP:Sources --RoadAhead Discuss 21:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling names such as "propagandist" doesnt help. If you have any problems with a specific material then please provide your evidences. Gurmatscholar (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Krishan Bhagvan a worm....[edit]

ਕਿਤੇ ਕਿਸਨ ਸੇ ਕੀਟ ਕੋਟੈ ਉਪਾਏ, ਉਸਾਰੇ ਗੜੇ ਫਿਰ ਮੇਟੇ ਬਨਾਏ॥

I challenge anyone to find the page on which this is on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SKRON (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Skoron! The quote is from page 50 of the original text. Here is the original canto
ਕਿਤੇ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਸੇ ਕੀਟ ਕੋਟੈ ਉਪਾਏ ॥
The Lord created millions of worms (insignificant creatures) like Krishna.
ਉਸਾਰੇ ਗੜ੍ਹੇ ਫੇਰ ਮੇਟੇ ਬਨਾਏ ॥
He raised and shaped them; then He wiped them (Krishnas) out and recreated them.
ਅਗਾਧੇ ਅਭੈ ਆਦਿ ਅਦੈ ਅਬਿਨਾਸੀ ॥
He is extremely profound, fearless, primeval, unique and indestructible.
ਪਰੇਅੰ ਪਰਾ ਪਰਮ ਪੂਰਨ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸੀ ॥6॥96॥
He is beyond everything and His splendour is eminent and perfect.(6)(96)
Thanks Gurmatscholar (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.dasamgranth.org/dasamgranth/glory.shtml and http://www.santsipahi.org/patshahi10/bhaimanisinghletter.html Infringing material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is relocated from article[edit]

Content deleted from article and reproduced here:

On 20 February, 2000, at Gobind Sadan, Virsa Singh released the first complete Punjabi translation of the writings of Guru Gobind Singh, plus other scholarly works about the life and teachings of Guru Gobind Singh. "Jaap Sahib" "Tawprasad Sawayeya" and "Kabiobach Bainty Chawpaye" are compulsory for reciting in nitnem of a Khalsa (baptised Sikh) every morning. These writings are also recited during Sikh baptism.

Problems:

  1. What is Gobind Sadan?
  2. Who is Virsa Singh? Why do we care what he does?
  3. "writings of Guru Gobind Singh"? How was this decided?
  4. What "other scholarly work"? Who decided the "scholarly" quality?
  5. Later part is redundant; already being mentioned in the first section.
  6. There are no citations?

--Roadahead ★ 21:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied/translated?[edit]

The following added by an editor contains Punjabi copied pasted from http://www.santsipahi.org/patshahi10/bhai-mani-singh-letter-analysis-dr-harbhajan-singh.html

ਸਤ੍ਰਾਂ ਸੈ ਅਠਤ੍ਰੈ ਸਾਲ. ਪੰਥ ਇਕਠਾ ਭਯੋ ਬਿਸਾਲ....
ਇਕ ਦਿਨ ਆਗਿਆ ਪੰਥ ਕੀ ਮਨੀ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਪਾਇ.
ਬਾਣੀ ਦਸਮੇਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਕੀ ਸੰਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਕਰ ਧਰ ਭਾਇ. 20.
ਏਕ ਜਿਲਦ ਮੈ ਕੀਨੀ ਕਰ ਹੈ. ਤਿਸ ਕਾ ਭੋਗ ਹਕਾਇਤ ਪਰ ਹੈ.
(ਗਿਆਨੀ ਗਿਆਨ ਸਿੰਘ. ਪੰਥ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼)

One day in 1778 Bikrami (1721 AD) the panth got together...
Bhai Mani Singh accepted the orders of the panth
And he collected the banees of the Dasam Guru.
Compiled in one bind (the beerh) ends at Hikayat
(Giani Gian Singh, Panth Parkash. Page 305)

Problems:

  1. Where is the punjabi text from?
  2. Who did the English translation of the Punjabi text?
  3. Fix the citations give the original source, with publications.
  4. These quotes are being fallaciously used; they are not saying that the present content was compiled by Bhai Mani Singh, but that he compiled some content.

--Roadahead ★ 22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is irrelevant whether one website posts the quote or not when the original page numbers are given in the refernces..
  2. Any one who can read and understand punjabi can do the translation
  3. The quote says that Bhai Mani Singh compiled the writings of Guru Gobind Singh.

Gurmatscholar (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That is not correct, the proper original source you are using needs to be cited. (2) That is not correct either, wikipedia cannot rely on your translation. So if you are using the translation from some other source, cite that. (3) Yes, the writings of Guru Gobind Singh, but which one? --Roadahead ★ 22:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The exact page number of Panth Parkash is given. Please read the quote again...it says that the writings which Bhai Mani Singh collected end with the composition 'Hikayat'. And anyone who is familiar with the current Dasam Granth knows that Hikayat is the last composition.Gurmatscholar (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet not mentioned that you are reading and quoting selectively. Giani Gian Singh, in the same work (Panth Prakash), also writes that this collection was lost in Second Sikh Holocaust (1762) and you want to use selective reference from Panth Prakash? Also the title of this article "Dasven Padshan Da Granth" was first proposed by John Malcolm and it is his claim. This should be mentioned on the article. --Roadahead ★ 07:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please post the exact quote of Giani Gian Singh where he writes that Dasam Granth was lost in the Second Sikh Holocaust (1762). Historians have talked about Vidyasagar Granth which contained the works of Guru's poets being lost earlier. And Vidyasagar Granth is differnt from Dasam Granth. You are wrong in your observation that Dasven Patshan Ka Granth was proposed by Malcolm. I have read Malcolm's account. As a historian he has only reported what he saw....that Sikhs revered Adi Granth and Dasven Patshah Ka Granth. Rest all are cospiracy theories without substance. The oldest Beerh of Dasam Granth, from a century before Malcolm wrote his book, bears the name "Patshah Dasven Ju Ka Granth". Gurmatscholar (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check page-18 in Panth Parkash where Gian Singh claims that the "asal" (real) "granth" by "dasam guru" (10th Guru) was with Buddha Dal and was lost in "vaddha ghalughara" (greater holocaust/Second Sikh Holocaust (1762)). Malcolm Reported what he saw? ...are you sure about this claim? Where is the first occurance of this title "Dasma Padshah ka Granth" before Malcolm? The claim "without substance" is claiming "Malcom reported what he saw" when there is no evidence of the occurance of the title ""Dasma Padshah ka Granth" which Malcom imposed on some existing litrature which he called "Vachitra Natac". Regards, --Roadahead ★ 18:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the exact quote from Panth Parkash is posted it is not possible to understand what Giani Gian Singh wrote. Buddha Dal has certainly not lost the Dasam Granth! Your claims about Malcolm (a statesman cum historian) 'imposing' something cant be considered valid unless they are corroborated with solid proof. No conspiracy theories and especially those that suddenly popped up in someone's head 200 years after Malcolm wrote his book. What you allege is certainly not what is evident from his book.Gurmatscholar (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have the book? ..where did you find the earlier quote that you quoted? --Roadahead ★ 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page 18 of Panth Parkash has reference to British visit to Ludhiana. In fact there is no mention of either Buddha Dal or Vadda Ghallukara Second Sikh Holocaust (1762) there. Gurmatscholar (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gurmatscholar, are you sure that there is no mention of Buddha Dal or Vadda Ghallukara? ..seems like you are still reading selectively. Let me type the words directly for you, by highlighting both the mention of - "Buddha Dal" and "Vadda Ghallukara" Second Sikh Holocaust (1762):

ਅਸਲ ਦਸਮ ਗੁਰਵਾਲਾ ਗਰੰਥ ।ਰਹਿਤ ਿਬ੍ਰੱਧ ਦਲ ਮੈਂ ਮੱਧ ਪੰਥ ।
ਘਲੂਘਾਰਾ ਜਬ ਵੱਡ ਭਯੋ ।ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦੁਰਾਨੀ ਸਿਹ ਸੋ ਲੀਉ ।
ਅਬ ਸੋ ਹੈ ਕਾਬਲ ਮੱਧ ਜਾਨੋ ।ਬੜੀ ਧਰਮਸ਼ਾਲਾ ਮੈਂ ਮਾਨੋ ।

In these lines there no mention of British visit to Ludhiana, but clear mention of "Asal dasam gurwala Granth" (the real granth of tenth guru) and ghallughara (holocaust). What publication of this work are you reading?
--Roadahead ★ 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier I have checked page 18 of Panth Parkash published by Bhasha Vibhag (Languages Department, Punjab) and there is no mention of the above claim. So your reference is incorrect.Gurmatscholar (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several different publications of this version, the page number may be offset. I'll have to find the original book to confirm the page number again. There are other sources that have quoted exactly the same (from Giani Gian Singh), please check -- Giani Kirpal Singh (samp.), Sri Gur Panth Parkash, Vol. 3 (Amritsar: Manmohan Singh Brar, 1973), pp. 1678-80, verses 61-62. --Roadahead ★ 16:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with External links[edit]

I have just removed the following, thus emptying the External links section

I really couldn't care less which link we supply (apart from those linking to booksellers) but we do not need links to umpteen versions of similar material and this looks like spammed stuff. Please read WP:EL and gain consensus here for the inclusion of just one appropriate link. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up required[edit]

The structure section is mainly unsourced and is making claims with no evidence. It also includes writings found in no varient of Dasam Granth. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutents[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No opposition to merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need pages for each of the 17 (excluding Zafarnama) constituent texts and further constituents thereof? All of these articles are downright shabby with no sources that pass WP:RS (and WP:HISTRS) and there is nil scope to get anything more than a decent stub/start-class article either. Here, at this page, all of them can be covered in the proper context: the constituents are interlinked. I have the same opinion for our page on the History of Dasam Granth. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@TrangaBellam: looks like there are no objections; do you the capacity to do this, as I think that this would best be done by someone with subject knowledge, such as yourself. Klbrain (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam:: Maybe escalate this on your to-do list before the likes of the Khalsa Mahima page descend any further into unsourced madness. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the merge templates on the grounds that the proposal they relate to has been closed. However, my concern is that the discussion did not come to a definitive conclusion about the target. The templates point to Dasam Granth, but many shouldn't redirect there, but rather to other more specific articles. For example it would seem that Charitar 373 would be better placed at Sri Charitropakhyan, of which it is a part. I suggest that interested editors should proceed boldly, but being ready to revert unless there is a clear consensus for a specific target for each article.
For Chandi Di Var I removed the template but the best target is unclear
The following might better merge to a stand-alone Sri Charitropakhyan:
Khalsa Mahima is probably better at 33 Savaiye
Paranath Avtar is probably better at Rudra Avtar
Some specific reconsideration of Sabad Patshahi 10 is warranted, as it acts as a link to the set of Ragas in the Hymns section. Klbrain (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain Kudos to you for taking on the task of dealing with all these articles related to the Dasam Granth. I'd recommend that Chaupai (Sikhism) remain a stand-alone article considering it is part of the daily prayers mandated for Sikhs to recite every morning. Seems notable enough to warrant its own article as a result rather than being merged into the article of the section it is contained within. ThethPunjabi (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re: keeping Chaupai (Sikhism) separate. Klbrain (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dasam_Granth&oldid=1201367118"