Prem Sumarag - Have you read it?

I've just read a translation of Prem Sumarag by the notorious Mr. McLeod. Has anyone read it. What do you make of it. Any chance of some intelligent discussion on it?
*

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Dalsingh ji

Where did you find/buy/get the book? I would try to read it and be part of a discussion. I cannot promise intelligent discussion -- McLoed is not someone who is easy for some of us to read in a quiet detached way
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/20845-prem-sumarag-have-you-read-it.html


We could try!

I'm no big fan of McLeod myself. I try and detach myself and remember that he is essentially writing from a sceptical western perspective and may have some innate fear of Sikhism driving his attacks on fundamental beliefs.

The book is on amazon (i'm presuming your in the states):

Amazon.com: Prem Sumarag: The Testimony of a Sanatan Sikh: W. H. McLeod: Books

Better you get it from a library.

I must confess that I did find aspects of it fascinating. Personally I'm guessing it is from the latter part of the 18th century at earliest. Also I don't think it represents a common Khalsa soldiers perspective. But its subject matter (especially the bit on statecraft) is fascinating. I know some people think it is a modern forgery.

it was first published in the 1950s with an introduction from Bhai Randir Singh ji. i wonder how much the McCloud translation differs from the punjabi?

apparently the first manuscript dates to 1801.

do you think McCloud added the "sanatan sikh" bit to the title? it doesn't seem to be in the original printing...

Dalsingh ji,

A context that is needed and is in NO way a support of McLeod. But nonetheless factual and needs to be in place. The Singh Saba Movement was an 20th Century event that shaped the way Sikhi is defined today. Prior to Singh Saba and even afterward hard and fast lines between and among sects of Sikhism were not in place. So when we look at any question we have the distance of time to consider -- a modern lens so to speak. The tradition of looking to human Gurus and even Hindu sidhus for guidance in matters big and small was a common cultural pattern among Sikhs in the Punjab in the 19th Century. And that makes a difference when we are trying to define "sanatan" then and now in terms of how we react to it, or how an historian will describe the interface of "sanatan" and Sikhism.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=20845
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=20845

My statement is not intended as a major consideration in this discussion, but just something to keep in mind. McLeod himself has seemed to be working within a vector that emphasizes earlier cultural traditions.

i believe this is a misconception. RSS and Sanatan Sikhs like to encourage this idea in order to promote the idea of Sikhi as a sect of hinduism. but from the moment the Khalsa was born, there was a very distinct organized and well defined religion for Sikhs. you can find the first sects or splits immediately after Guru Gobind Singh ji left his human body.

read up on the history of Tat Khalsa (the original, not the singh sabha movement) and Bandi Khalsa to see the first schism in the panth.

I would be glad to supply historical documentation from outside of the RSS/Sanatan movement. Documentation that predates the formation of RSS, or uses sources from the 19th Century.

ok, so if before the singh sabha movement there were no sects, please explain the original tat khalsa and bandi khalsa. also damdami taksal and the original nirankari movement (not the anti-panthic sant nirankaris), as well as the naamdharis.

even BEFORE the Khalsa was formed, the followers of Ram Rai tried to form their own sect... they still have gurdwaras in dehradun.

as with any faith, sects and schisms have always existed among sikhs. it's unfortunate, but it's true.

but of course i'd love to read more history.

Read again. Who said there were no sects? This is what I said,

Prior to Singh Saba and even afterward hard and fast lines between and among sects of Sikhism were not in place.

This statement says there were sects, but boundaries were not the same as they are today.

I will be happy to clarify further.