100% Agree Singh Ji. It's also important to note that contemporary accounts like Prahlad Singh's Rehatnama and the Bhatt Vahi entry by Narbud Singh make no mention of any text outside of SGGS being given Gurgaddi.
Thanks for the translation Singh Ji. I guess some would be hesitant to accept that Kavi Shyam was an actual court poet, rather than the pen name of Dasmesh Pita. The portion near the end that reads: "These translations, composed and compiled by the merciful and compassionate Guru" creates a little bit of confusion as to if Guru Sahib had the court poets and other scholars do all the translating into the Vernacular or if they completed all of that themselves.
Based on the preceding verses it would appear the former is the case, which would mean that (about 64% ~ Chaubais Avtar and Charitropakhyan) of the Dasam Granth is the work of Court Poets. I know somebody a decade ago that discussed this quotation from the Mehma Parkash, but most users disagreed with his translations in regards to the court poets rewriting the literature into the common peoples' language.
Thank you for the kind words, Bhai Sahib. Dr. Rattan Singh Jaggi articulates that it is fully the court poets compositions — part of the Vidyā Sāgar, but that Māhārāj gave it such honor reverence and respect, they stated that it is as if they composed it themselves, and this is where the confusion concerning the authorship of Dasam starts. Later Grańths, like Sūraj Prakās, then confuse the composing of the Vidyā Sāgar to the Gurū themselves, due to these reasons.
We know that having multiple 'Kavĩ-Shāps' in a single composition, with only one author has no precedence in any contextual literary or poetic tradition, but in this case, it was multiple Kavī's and therefore makes complete sense. Kavī Rāms work(s) also exists, which Dr. Jaggi effectively elucidates.
I also saw your work, the translation of the Rāgmāļā refutation by Giani Lal Singh Sangrur of the Bhasaur, good work!
Yeah the idea of multiple pen-names never really resonated with me, but with multiple Darbari Kavis it makes more logical sense. Since Dasmesh Pita was the patron of the text it would explain why they were seen as its de-facto creator rather than the various kavis who compiled it together.
For Sikhs that believe the entirety of the Dasam Granth is the Guru's direct Krit this information would be difficult to accept. Especially for those that go to the extreme of performing Parallel Parkash of the text with SGGS.
I do wonder why Rattan Singh Bhangu did not mention the Vidya Sagar in their Sri Gur Panth Parkash? They do bring up compositions that eventually formed part of the Dasam Granth, but solely as independent compositions not structured together.
Parallel Prakash is something, to be clear, cannot be philosophically defended, nor is it rationally tenable. This is a praxis which rose much later, after the passing, or rather, physical departing of the Guru, any attempts to defend this post-Guru praxis constitutes the 'Appeal to Tradition', or 'Historical Fallacy.' We already know that the so-called 'Dasam Granth' was done 'Prakash' of prior to Jathedar Kartar Singh Jhabbar, Jathedar Teja Singh Bhuchar, and the Khalsa Biradri (who btw, were also led by Bhai Mehtab Singh 'Bir', himself part of the Singh Sabha Bhasaur) assuming custodianship of Akal Takht Sahib and Durbar Sahib, but that does not equate to it being a Guru-accepted praxis, nor does it equate to the doctrinal acceptance of compositions like 'Chaubis Avtar', or 'Charitropakhian' - these are doxographical translations, and/or even 'transcreations' of earlier works, nothing more. Dasam Granth is a post-Guru compilation, and its 'Prakash' is an innovation, only the Guru can be done 'Prakash' of, and it is only the Gurgaddi-bestowed Guru, whose veneration can be properly and philosophically defended.
100% Agree Singh Ji. It's also important to note that contemporary accounts like Prahlad Singh's Rehatnama and the Bhatt Vahi entry by Narbud Singh make no mention of any text outside of SGGS being given Gurgaddi.
Thanks for the translation Singh Ji. I guess some would be hesitant to accept that Kavi Shyam was an actual court poet, rather than the pen name of Dasmesh Pita. The portion near the end that reads: "These translations, composed and compiled by the merciful and compassionate Guru" creates a little bit of confusion as to if Guru Sahib had the court poets and other scholars do all the translating into the Vernacular or if they completed all of that themselves.
Based on the preceding verses it would appear the former is the case, which would mean that (about 64% ~ Chaubais Avtar and Charitropakhyan) of the Dasam Granth is the work of Court Poets. I know somebody a decade ago that discussed this quotation from the Mehma Parkash, but most users disagreed with his translations in regards to the court poets rewriting the literature into the common peoples' language.
Thank you for the kind words, Bhai Sahib. Dr. Rattan Singh Jaggi articulates that it is fully the court poets compositions — part of the Vidyā Sāgar, but that Māhārāj gave it such honor reverence and respect, they stated that it is as if they composed it themselves, and this is where the confusion concerning the authorship of Dasam starts. Later Grańths, like Sūraj Prakās, then confuse the composing of the Vidyā Sāgar to the Gurū themselves, due to these reasons.
We know that having multiple 'Kavĩ-Shāps' in a single composition, with only one author has no precedence in any contextual literary or poetic tradition, but in this case, it was multiple Kavī's and therefore makes complete sense. Kavī Rāms work(s) also exists, which Dr. Jaggi effectively elucidates.
I also saw your work, the translation of the Rāgmāļā refutation by Giani Lal Singh Sangrur of the Bhasaur, good work!
Yeah the idea of multiple pen-names never really resonated with me, but with multiple Darbari Kavis it makes more logical sense. Since Dasmesh Pita was the patron of the text it would explain why they were seen as its de-facto creator rather than the various kavis who compiled it together.
For Sikhs that believe the entirety of the Dasam Granth is the Guru's direct Krit this information would be difficult to accept. Especially for those that go to the extreme of performing Parallel Parkash of the text with SGGS.
I do wonder why Rattan Singh Bhangu did not mention the Vidya Sagar in their Sri Gur Panth Parkash? They do bring up compositions that eventually formed part of the Dasam Granth, but solely as independent compositions not structured together.
Parallel Prakash is something, to be clear, cannot be philosophically defended, nor is it rationally tenable. This is a praxis which rose much later, after the passing, or rather, physical departing of the Guru, any attempts to defend this post-Guru praxis constitutes the 'Appeal to Tradition', or 'Historical Fallacy.' We already know that the so-called 'Dasam Granth' was done 'Prakash' of prior to Jathedar Kartar Singh Jhabbar, Jathedar Teja Singh Bhuchar, and the Khalsa Biradri (who btw, were also led by Bhai Mehtab Singh 'Bir', himself part of the Singh Sabha Bhasaur) assuming custodianship of Akal Takht Sahib and Durbar Sahib, but that does not equate to it being a Guru-accepted praxis, nor does it equate to the doctrinal acceptance of compositions like 'Chaubis Avtar', or 'Charitropakhian' - these are doxographical translations, and/or even 'transcreations' of earlier works, nothing more. Dasam Granth is a post-Guru compilation, and its 'Prakash' is an innovation, only the Guru can be done 'Prakash' of, and it is only the Gurgaddi-bestowed Guru, whose veneration can be properly and philosophically defended.