Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal

[chatanga1]

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

The other Kavi Alam was a poet of the Mughal Court.

 

Which Mughal court was he a poet of?  it couldn't have been Akbars as he listed every official, poet and courtiers in his book. There is no Alam there.

 

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

The book is Madhavnal Kaam Kandlam. It's written in Braj Basha.

 

This MKK is written in Brij, but is this the original? Prof Anurag Singh contends the original was written in Sanksrit.

 

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

We can say with certainty that's it not original because the analysis done by those who observed and studied it goes against it's claim of authenticity.

 

Are there any scholars who claim  that it is the original bir?

 

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

They differ from the DamDami Bir.

 

From what I've Guru Gobind Singh Ji made some changes to Kartarpuri bir. How many I dont know.

 

Also we don't know whether the Damdami bir is still in existence. From our history we can see that the Sikhs lost this Bir during Vadda Ghallughara. But there has ever been any instance in history where tradition says the Kartarpuri Bir was lost. IN the same way we have the tradition that Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib was lost during evacuation of Sri Anandpur Sahib.

 

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Had Baba Vadhbag Singh taken that Bir, and the Kartarpuris held it, we wouldn't have such a controversy over it. 

 

Personally I don't believe that Baba Vadhbhag Singh would have left the Bir there. If it had been burnt then I'm sure some historical source would have picked it up. It would have been an episode that would have been told time and time again throughout writings of Sikh history. At the moment both our opinions are conjecture.

 

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

In simple, They've showed each scholar a different Bir.  That's a suspicion many vidhvaans in the Panth have over the Kartarpuri Sodhis. 

 

I wonder why they would do that. Knowing that these scholars will share and compare notes.

 

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I meant Panchmesh.  It's also in use. 

 

Cool.  I'm going to start using it.

 

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I don't know if those other pothis and birs have Raagmala in them.  Not many studied them. Some were just recently discovered.

 

There were about 2 or 3 years ago, 12 historic saroops  of Aad and Dasam Granth found in Daccan in a Gurdwara. The locals had them but weren't too aware of them.  I watched the program on Sikh Channel about it. One Bir had in it the births and jyoti jyots of the Guru Sahibs upto 9th Guru Sahib. Only Guru Gobind Singh Ji's was not written, so these saroops looked to be from that time. This bir of Guru Granth Sahib has raagmala in it.

 

What is your personal opinion of Raagmala?

 

9 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Lastly, it's a book, not a brain tumor.  If one cares for Khoj, he'll read it.

 

[chatanga1]

10 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Shamsher Singh Ashok's book goes into detail about the whole Kavi Alam issue. I'll post his response to those claims here in a bit. 

 

 

What did you get from reading the above @Kuttabanda2? @paapiman?

 

[chatanga1]

This puratan saroop lists only the jyoti jyot of the first 9 Guru Sahibs. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's name is not there which leads some to feel this saroop was compiled in his lifetime. Watch the video and share your thoughts.

 

 

[paapiman]

On 9/21/2017 at 5:28 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

What did you get from reading the above @Kuttabanda2? @paapiman?

 

Starts off with Praises of Waheguru.

Chaupai seems to be talking about Hazrat Muhammad saab.

Towards the end, it talks about the four companions of Hazart Muhammad saab.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

What an interesting read! Indic terminology and then proceeds to Islamic content!

[amardeep]

Why did the puratan saroops carry the dates of the jyoti jyot of the Gurus?

[chatanga1]

For our general information I would say. These Granths also held the process of preparing the ink as well. I don't know why that would be entered, but maybe for others who wished to make a copy of these Granths?

[Kuttabanda2]

On 9/21/2017 at 2:24 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

Which Mughal court was he a poet of?  it couldn't have been Akbars as he listed every official, poet and courtiers in his book. There is no Alam there.

 

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. 

 

 

On 9/21/2017 at 2:24 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

This MKK is written in Brij, but is this the original? Prof Anurag Singh contends the original was written in Sanksrit.

 

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.

[Kuttabanda2]

On 9/21/2017 at 2:24 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

Are there any scholars who claim  that it is the original bir?

 

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. 

On 9/21/2017 at 2:24 AM, chatanga1 said:

From what I've Guru Gobind Singh Ji made some changes to Kartarpuri bir. How many I dont know.

 

 

   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. 

[Kuttabanda2]

On 9/21/2017 at 2:24 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

were about 2 or 3 years ago, 12 historic saroops  of Aad and Dasam Granth found in Daccan in a Gurdwara. The locals had them but weren't too aware of them.  I watched the program on Sikh Channel about it. One Bir had in it the births and jyoti jyots of the Guru Sahibs upto 9th Guru Sahib. Only Guru Gobind Singh Ji's was not written, so these saroops looked to be from that time. This bir of Guru Granth Sahib has raagmala in it.

 

What is your personal opinion of Raagmala?

 

 

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. 

 

[Kuttabanda2]

On 9/26/2017 at 2:51 PM, amardeep said:

Why did the puratan saroops carry the dates of the jyoti jyot of the Gurus?

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.

[chatanga1]

4 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

That was actuallt erroneous, sorry. He was his contemporary, not his court poet. I got mixed up there. 

 

If his work was important enoug to have been used in Akbars court, Im sure his name would have got a mention if he were a contemporary or court poet.

 

4 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I think 'Raagmala Da Sohila' also covers the identity of Kavi Alam, the author. 

 

Have you seen the Raagmala ascribed to Kavi Alam?

 

4 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

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.

 

I can't see that Anurag Singh has shifted from any thoughts of his fathers.

 

4 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Dasmesh Pita Ji didn't make any changes to Kartarpuri Bir, he did edit the copy (DamDami Bir) however.

 

Isn't there a tradition in Sikhi that Guru Sahib changed Bhagat Kabirs word "KHulasa" to "Khalse"?

 

4 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

However, they didn't allow an independent team to study the Sarroop to verify their authenticity.

 

What would be an independent team in your opinion and why wouldn't the the team that made the video fit that criteria?

 

4 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I don't believe Raagmala is Bani. 

 

 What do you see raagmala as? Kachi bani?

[Kuttabanda2]

5 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

If his work was important enoug to have been used in Akbars court, Im sure his name would have got a mention if he were a contemporary or court poet.

 

 

Have you seen the Raagmala ascribed to Kavi Alam?

 

 

I can't see that Anurag Singh has shifted from any thoughts of his fathers.

 

 

Isn't there a tradition in Sikhi that Guru Sahib changed Bhagat Kabirs word "KHulasa" to "Khalse"?

 

 

What would be an independent team in your opinion and why wouldn't the the team that made the video fit that criteria?

 

 

 What do you see raagmala as? Kachi bani?

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.  

[chatanga1]

22 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

He was his contemporary and not his court poet,

 

Reading your post is a little confusing as I'm not sure what parts of my post you are refering to. If you highlight the text you will get an automatic pop-op with "quote" on it. Press that and it will quote the highlighted text. use that, it makes it much easier.

 

Now coming back to the poet, this work was said to be produced in Akbars court by one of his poets. Are you saying that there were two Alams who wrote 2 Kamkandlas?

 

22 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

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.

 

What language did either of these poets write their versions in? I asked you before what language the original Kaamkandla was written in but didn't see a reply.

 

22 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

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. 

 

What language was the book in that you saw?

When you saw it in print, was the Raagmala in there?

 

22 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

And yes, there was that changing of 'Khulase' to 'Khalse' is noted.  

 

Great, so we can agree that Guru Sahib did make change(s) to the Kartarpuri Bir.

 

22 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

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.

 

"Owner" of the saroop? This saroop is not in a Gurdwara, or part of the saroops that the Sikh Channel team saw?

 

22 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

I see Raagmala as the writing of an irrelevant sixteenth century poet attached to the end of SGGSJ.  

 

Thanks for being honest. I'll come back to that in a while.

May I ask what you make of the SGPC decision to ask the Panth to read Raagmala where it is already read, and to do bhog on Mundavni where raagmala is not read?

Also what do you feel about the SGPC decision to state "nobody should commit the "ਹੀਯਾ" of producing SGGS without raagmala?

[Kuttabanda2]

On 12/15/2017 at 10:44 AM, chatanga1 said:

Reading your post is a little confusing as I'm not sure what parts of my post you are refering to. If you highlight the text you will get an automatic pop-op with "quote" on it. Press that and it will quote the highlighted text. use that, it makes it much easier.

Thanks. That helps a lot.

On 12/15/2017 at 10:44 AM, chatanga1 said:

Now coming back to the poet, this work was said to be produced in Akbars court by one of his poets. Are you saying that there were two Alams who wrote 2 Kamkandlas?

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.

 

On 12/15/2017 at 10:44 AM, chatanga1 said:

What language did either of these poets write their versions in? I asked you before what language the original Kaamkandla was written in but didn't see a reply.

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.

 

On 12/15/2017 at 10:44 AM, chatanga1 said:

What language was the book in that you saw?

When you saw it in print, was the Raagmala in there?

It's Ashok's book. .  Gurmukhi Script (though the original was written in devnagari), Braj Bhasha.

 

On 12/15/2017 at 10:44 AM, chatanga1 said:

"Owner" of the saroop? This saroop is not in a Gurdwara, or part of the saroops that the Sikh Channel team saw?

I was speaking in reference to another recent sarroop that they claimed was written by Baba Deep Singh Ji coming from the same area.

 

On 12/15/2017 at 10:44 AM, chatanga1 said:

May I ask what you make of the SGPC decision to ask the Panth to read Raagmala where it is already read, and to do bhog on Mundavni where raagmala is not read?

Also what do you feel about the SGPC decision to state "nobody should commit the "ਹੀਯਾ" of producing SGGS without raagmala?

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.

[Kuttabanda2]

On 9/25/2017 at 2:18 PM, chatanga1 said:

This puratan saroop lists only the jyoti jyot of the first 9 Guru Sahibs. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's name is not there which leads some to feel this saroop was compiled in his lifetime. Watch the video and share your thoughts.

 

 

At 20:19, you can see that 'Haqiqat Rah Muhkam Raja Shivnabh Ki' precedes Raagmala, which is itself preceded by 'Rattanmala'.

[paapiman]

On 12/14/2017 at 2:38 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

I see Raagmala as the writing of an irrelevant sixteenth century poet attached to the end of SGGSJ.  

Is that the official stance of AKJ on Sri Raagmala Sahib jee too? Daas is not sure if you are connected to them or not, but do you know about it?

Or do they believe that it was approved or recited by Sri Satguru jee but not included in the Sri Ad Granth saroop? There are other Gurbanis (Sri Pran Sangli, etc) too, which were not part of Sri Ad Granth saroop.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[Kuttabanda2]

17 hours ago, paapiman said:

Is that the official stance of AKJ on Sri Raagmala Sahib jee too? Daas is not sure if you are connected to them or not, but do you know about it?

Or do they believe that it was approved or recited by Sri Satguru jee but not included in the Sri Ad Granth saroop? There are other Gurbanis (Sri Pran Sangli, etc) too, which were not part of Sri Ad Granth saroop.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

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.

 

 

[amardeep]

I think the different writings ( Pran Sangli, Haqiqat Rah Muhkam, Rattanmala, Paintees Akhri) are considered Gurbani in the various sampradays even though they were not included in the Guru Granth Sahib by Guru Arjan and Guru Gobind Singh. They were ucharans by the Gurus and therefore transmitted to future generations. Likewise, the various Hukamnamas and other shabads found in the early janam sakhis likwise are considered Gurbani (- because they come from the Guru) but are not part of the Guru Granth Sahib.

One saroop from 1714 for instance contains the Rajnama that talks about Khalsa Raj. This would be interesting for the Sikhs in the time of Banda Singh Bahadur do study and recite.

[chatanga1]

On 17/12/2017 at 11:21 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

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.

Anurag Singh's contention is that that the original Kaam Kandla was written in Sanskrit and then in translated into Brij.

 

On 17/12/2017 at 11:21 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

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.

See above.

 

On 17/12/2017 at 11:21 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

n 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.

I don't beleive that the SGPC would have held back on raagmala just to maintain unity in the Panth. They had got rid of Sri Dasam Granth from Parkash at Sri Akal Takht Sahib before this, which in itself was a very bold step. They had given  I can't see the the SGPC holding onto Raagmala if they genuinely beleived it was not part of Guru Granth Sahib.

 

The fact is that the SGPC had seen that the majority of puratan saroops contained Raagmala, whereas the other compositions were not as prevalent.  Raagmala in itself as a composition it does not go against Gurbani either.

 

On 14/12/2017 at 7:38 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Anurag Singh took on a stance on Raagmala that contradicts his own father's.

 

Thats not really here nor there is it? Bhai Kahn Singh Nabhas son differered with him on some things.

Also I haven't seen in Dr Trilochan Singh's book that he didn't believe that raagmala should be part of Guru Granth Sahib.

Anurag Singh is bringing out a book on Raagmala soon, on which he says he has spent 11 years research. Now I have no real research of my own, only the things I have picked up from katha and writings on raagmala, but i would beleive someone like Anurag Singh would know what he is talkng about.

 

On 14/12/2017 at 7:38 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

i see Raagmala as the writing of an irrelevant sixteenth century poet attached to the end of SGGSJ

 

I can't see that anyone could have attached it. It just wouldn't be something that someone could do so easily. Guru Granth Sahib would have been too closely guarded when being produced for someone to have entered it. Plus  the numbering system in the Raagmala is unusual, whereas the one that has been written by Alam (which differs in words and spelling from SGGS Raagmala) has a numbering system that is different.

[chatanga1]

On 17/12/2017 at 11:21 AM, Kuttabanda2 said:

It's Ashok's book. .  Gurmukhi Script (though the original was written in devnagari), Braj Bhasha.

 

Does Ashok say what the original language of Kaam Kandla was in his book? (Sanskrit)

[Kuttabanda2]

2 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Does Ashok say what the original language of Kaam Kandla was in his book? (Sanskrit)

yes

[Kuttabanda2]

On 12/18/2017 at 4:56 AM, amardeep said:

I think the different writings ( Pran Sangli, Haqiqat Rah Muhkam, Rattanmala, Paintees Akhri) are considered Gurbani in the various sampradays even though they were not included in the Guru Granth Sahib by Guru Arjan and Guru Gobind Singh. They were ucharans by the Gurus and therefore transmitted to future generations. Likewise, the various Hukamnamas and other shabads found in the early janam sakhis likwise are considered Gurbani (- because they come from the Guru) but are not part of the Guru Granth Sahib.

One saroop from 1714 for instance contains the Rajnama that talks about Khalsa Raj. This would be interesting for the Sikhs in the time of Banda Singh Bahadur do study and recite.

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.  

[Kuttabanda2]

2 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

Anurag Singh's contention is that that the original Kaam Kandla was written in Sanskrit and then in translated into Brij.

 

What does he base that claim off of?

 

2 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

I don't beleive that the SGPC would have held back on raagmala just to maintain unity in the Panth. They had got rid of Sri Dasam Granth from Parkash at Sri Akal Takht Sahib before this, which in itself was a very bold step. They had given  I can't see the the SGPC holding onto Raagmala if they genuinely beleived it was not part of Guru Granth Sahib.

 

The fact is that the SGPC had seen that the majority of puratan saroops contained Raagmala, whereas the other compositions were not as prevalent.  Raagmala in itself as a composition it does not go against Gurbani either.

 

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).

[chatanga1]

19 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

What does he base that claim off of?

 

I don't know but maybe he has looked at the original or copy of original. Anyway both Ashok and himself can agree on the original being in Sanskrit.

 

Anurag Singh says that the original was in Sanskrit and had no raagmala in it.

 

19 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Yet The SGPC didn't disregard Sri Dasam Granth Sahib.

 

Well throwing it out of Sri Akal Takht Sahib onto the ground below wasn't really showing any respect either was it?

 

19 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

SDGS was still revered and wasn't discarded as Kachi Bani.

 

Yet the SGPC have for their short-sightedness shown has their act of removing Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth from Sri Akal Takht Sahib been responsible for some of the vitriol against it for the last 5 or 6 decades. 

One of the best ways to shut up the missionarys would be to re-start parkash of Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth at Sri Akal Takht Sahib again. More and more sangat would learn from it being there.

 

19 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Their stance on it's Prakash akin to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a whole different matter.  

 

If the Panth made this decision in the times of Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh, I wouldn't dare to differ.  I don't think that the SGPC (and they were a good bunch back then) would still be anywhere on the level of Baba Deep Singh and Bhai Mani Singh Ji.

 

19 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

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.  

 

I cna't see that the SGPCV would have done it for unity. what purpose has it served upto now? We are still divided over it.

 

19 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

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.

 

All sorts of text is a pretty wide range. There were only ever around 4-6 works found after Mundavni in various saroops. With raagmala the issue is a little more complex as it appears in so many birs whereas the others are more sparse.