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.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 :crazy:-- McLoed is not someone who is easy for some of us to read in a quiet detached way :}8-:
We could try!
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?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.
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.
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.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.
I understand your point. But I also think the historical role of much western "historiography" also needs to be considered. This was previously used as a tool to validate/justify colonialism and demean and undermine cultures rightly or wrongly. Some of us feel that often some academic institutes or pursuits still continue in this fashion albeit to a lesser degree.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.
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.
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.
Arya Samaj predates RSS to about the 1870's. And even before the organization of Arya Samaj, splinter Udasis, Nirmalas, and Mahants attempted to create sanatan Sikhism. Prior to Singh Sabha movement the Nirankari reform of the 1850's resisted this Hinduization of Gursikhi. And prior to Maharaja Ranjit Singhs empire, in the 1700's the Dal Khalsa under the Sikh Misls ruled Punjab and were not in any way sanatan. Sanatan corruptions of Sikhism are a later historical development.Documentation that predates the formation of RSS, or uses sources from the 19th Century.
ੴ is a radical concept to the traditional Omkar. It distinguishes that the Oangkar is really one, not a trinity, not a multiplicity. Nevertheless, everything is manifested within that One, unity of the Primal Being. Vaaran Bhai Gurdas :Vaar3Pauri15:SearchGurbani.com
ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮ ਭਗੌਤੀ ਸਿਮਰ ਕੈ...॥
In the beginning I remember Bhagauti..
According to the RSS this clearly shows that in Khalsa Dharma there is worship of the goddess. They claim that the word "Bhagauti" is 'Bhagwati', which means goddess. Guru Gobind Singh Ji used to write poetry in Persian script and hence Bhawati and Bhagauti are written in the same way due to the lack of inflection to differentiate both. What Bhagauti really means in Gurmukhi though means Akal Purakh Sahib...
It is written in the Var of Chandi:
ਲਈ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਦੁਰਗਸਾਹ ਵਰ ਜਾਗਨ ਭਾਰੀ ॥ ਲਾਈ ਰਾਜੇ ਸੁੰਭ ਨੋ ਰਤੁ ਪੀਐ ਪਿਆਰੀ ॥
Durga held out her sword, appearing like a great lustrous fire; She struck it on the king Sumbh and this lovely weapon drank blood.
If the word 'Bhagauti' means goddess then does, the above mean, "Durga caught hold of bhagauti (goddess) and hit her on the head of Raja Sumbh and tasted his blood?" What kind of goddess is this bhagauti? Is she a tool that can be to used to hit others?
...In the Bhagauti Stotar (Panegyric verse) and in the writings of Bhai Gurdas Ji it is written:
ਨਮੋ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਭਗੌਤੀ ਬਢੈਲੀ ਸਰੋਹੀ ॥ (ਭਗਉਤੀ ਸਤੋਤ੍ਰ ਸਤਰ 1)
Hail to Siri (mighty) Bhagauti (Sword) that cuts sharp.
ਨਾਉ ਭਗਉਤੀ ਲੋਹੁ ਘੜਾਇਆ ॥
Name Bhagauti made of iron. (Bhai Gurdas Ji, Vaar 25)
Does it mean that Bhagauti, a goddess, is made of iron?
Panthic Weekly: Guru Sahib, Kalika and Bhagauti - PART 2
Zafarnamah ji I really am not a historian and not sure of yourself.There is no reference to the "Dasam Granth" in the Prem Sumarag. It does contain a reference to the "Jaap" and the "Bachitar Natak," which is not the same as the Dasam Granth. This is not to say that the "Bachitar Natak" is not apocryphal but that it was in use in some sections of the Sikh community in 1701 when the Prem Sumarg was completed. McLeod's dating is incorrect since Bhai Randhir Singh used a 1701 manuscript from the Lahore Public Library. McLeod is unable to conceive the assertion of a Khalsa identity in any period before the colonial encounter; therefore, he is obliged to date the text as close to the Singh Sabha period as possible. The text is also remarkable for its rejection of dowry and its advocacy for administering Amrit to women, all of which was too modern for McLeod and could not possibly be dated to 1701, when the tenth Guru was still alive.