Jump to content

Kuttabanda2

Members
  • Content count

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Kuttabanda2 last won the day on June 9 2017

Kuttabanda2 had the most liked content!

About Kuttabanda2

  • Rank
    Pradhan||Biba with Kainchi Vargi Zubaan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,059 profile views
  1. No, they can't. Ashok's opinion is at odd's with Anurag Singh's. I'm just going to post pages from his book here to clarify that.
  2. Ta fer saboot agge pesh kare ta. The SGPC did not believe in the Parkash of SDGS. Simple as that. Their "short-sightedness" had them print SDGS since the beginning, as well as publish literature propagating it. They won't compromise their stance to shut missionaries up, they have no need to. The literature they produced in support of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji was made for the Sangat to learn. Where is this decision recorded? No. I believe that's incorrect. Sarroops had sakhis, notes, references, and blatant kachi bani appended at the end of them. There may be 4-6 kachi bani compositions that are prominent among sarroops. We can't say for certain until all if not many extant sarroops are consulted. Additionally, Birs were being written up until the mid 1800s. Only the Birs that are old enough, written by Hazoori Sikhs, and/or from the time of Guru Sahib are to be taken into consideration in regards to this matter. If we have 500 Birs, of which 450 are written long after Guru Sahib, it's only reasonable to narrow down to the 50 most original and early sarroops.
  3. That's not established fact. Jabbar didn't throw it out of Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib or spear it. It was damaged in the scuffle that ensued there when the mahants and Nihangs were being removed. This claim was circulated by the mahants, Nihangs, and their sympathizers. You should look ask both sides their stories before passing it off as fact.
  4. What does he base that claim off of? Yet The SGPC didn't disregard Sri Dasam Granth Sahib. SDGS was still revered and wasn't discarded as Kachi Bani. Their stance on it's Prakash akin to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a whole different matter. The SGPC's decision to keep Raagmala in the sarroop was done so that all Sikh sects could use and rely on one standardized Sikh cannon rather than give space for two or multiple versions of SGGSJ to be printed, which would be a slippery slope. So in my eyes, it was done for unity, as well as uniformity. In regards to Puraatan Sarroops, many Puraatan birs had all sorts of texts appended to them after Mundavni and Salok Mahalla Panjva, that doesn't authenticate them. Then there were also Sarroops that did not. Bhai Hardas Ji's Sarroop at the Sikh reference library for example, did not have Raagmala appended to it. Nor did the ones mentioned in Gyani Gurdit Singh's books. It's prevalence in Puraatan Sarroops (stretching from a period of 100-300 years before the 20th Century) does not translate to it's authenticity and rightful place in SGGSJ. I do agree that Raagmala is not directly in conflict with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (unless the pritham raag matter is of any importance to anyone).
  5. They are not Gurbani, however. These sampardas didn't raise any objection when they were excluded from the printed sarroops. Though there are certain groups that believe them to be Gurvaak. Some of these texts are rather written in prose and are Sakhis, instructions, or records.
  6. No faction of AKJ believes in Raagmala to be Bani. Majority of Vidhwans don't believe in texts outside of SGGJ or SDGSJ to be Bani. Even Gyani Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale believed that all Bani (except Dasam, Bhai Gurdas Ji's and Bhai Nand Lal Ji's) was enshrined in SGGSJ (which included Raagmala for him). Pran Sangli, Haqiqat Rah Muhkam, Rattanmala, Paintees Akhri, etc. is not Guruvaak accordng almost all Vidhwans and Sansthas.
  7. At 20:19, you can see that 'Haqiqat Rah Muhkam Raja Shivnabh Ki' precedes Raagmala, which is itself preceded by 'Rattanmala'.
  8. Thanks. That helps a lot. There were two Alams, One that was Akbar's contemporary, another that was Dasmesh Pita Ji's contemporary. The former wrote Madhav Nal Kaam Kandla. There are no "versions", there is only one Madhav nal kaam kandla by one author. I thought I answered that. it was written in Braj Bhasha. It's Ashok's book. . Gurmukhi Script (though the original was written in devnagari), Braj Bhasha. I was speaking in reference to another recent sarroop that they claimed was written by Baba Deep Singh Ji coming from the same area. In regards to the above, I believe the SGPC stated to read Raagmala according to the 'Asthanic Reeti'. I see it as a move to maintain Panthic unity. The same for the second question, it was done to maintain Unity in the Panth considering the pro-Raagmala factions were maintaining their stance at the end of the debate.
  9. Muslims (the collective mainstream) only care for their own kind. Though Khalsa Aid does do a lot of seva, they should tend to our own community as well.
  10. I don't know what importance his work held in Akbar's court. That's not even the point. He was his contemporary and not his court poet, as I corrected myself before. What book do you refer to? This Alam's (author of Madhav Naal Kaam Kandla) writing style differs from the other Alam (Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib Ji's contemporary). Where as the former was poor with sanskrit, the latter was rather fluent. The annual report on Hindi Manuscripts differentiates between the two Alams and ascribe Madhav Naal Kaam Kandla's author to be the former's, the one who was Akbar's contemporary. This resounds throughout the field of study for hindi manuscripts and is just an established fact. Then there is the date written in the manuscript (991 Hijri). I've seen it in print. Anurag Singh took on a stance on Raagmala that contradicts his own father's. And yes, there was that changing of 'Khulase' to 'Khalse' is noted. An independent team would be the team of experts sent from Amritsar but was refused by the owner of the Sarroop when it came to the supposed Baba Deep Singh Ji Sarroop. I see Raagmala as the writing of an irrelevant sixteenth century poet attached to the end of SGGSJ.
  11. It was common in those times. Many Sarroops and Pothis have sakhis, important dates, genealogies, notations, anecdotes and various other writings appended at the end.
  12. However, they didn't allow an independent team to study the Sarroop to verify their authenticity. I'm not sure if those same Sarroops include Bhai Hardas Ji's Birs and Pothis. I don't believe Raagmala is Bani.
  13. There are of course. But the problem is, their observations do not match and the entire issue is muddied in controversy. Correct me If I'm wrong but Pashaura Singh claimed that Kartarpuri Bir was tampered with. Jodh Singh, in accordance to his observations, found no reason to believe so. Dasmesh Pita Ji didn't make any changes to Kartarpuri Bir, he did edit the copy (DamDami Bir) however. The changes were in the numbering system, one matra, and an additional Raag, which had to be done to accomodate Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji's Bani.
  14. That was actuallt erroneous, sorry. He was his contemporary, not his court poet. I got mixed up there. Shamsher Singh Ashok goes over it in his book. I think 'Raagmala Da Sohila' also covers the identity of Kavi Alam, the author. prof. Anurag Singh dai jebia garam kar ke puttle vaang jo marzi kehlaado. Bhaave agle din missionarya banaa lavo. He was relevant in the Sri Dasam Granth Sahib issue, when he gained a liking by a Taksali crowd. He had no qualms about changing his positions and doing a 180° with his views to better suit his audience. As far as I know, He hasn't supplicated his assertion. In my eyes, he's no longer a respectable individual anymore, contrary to his father.
×