Gupt Singh Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 thnx man. will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihang Gargaj Singh Posted November 9, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 A book for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji The Guru Granth Sahib - cannon and meaning (by Pashaura Singh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidak Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 Gajjar Singh, Anyone who recommends Pashaura's work for serious study must have a loose screw or a total lack of understanding of authentic scholarship. Perhaps you should take a look at the following statement by Pashaura to the Akal Takhat in relation to the book you have just recommended: The Five Singh Sahiban, Sri Akal Takht Sahib, Amritsar Sahib Your Holiness, Waheguru ji ka Khalsa; Waheguru ji ki Fateh. Under orders from Sri Akal Takht Sahib, appearing at the Takht Sahib, this humble servant pleads guilty to the five charges in respect of my thesis (The Text and Meaning of the Adi Granth), read out as well as given to me in writing. I hereby reject in thought, word and deed all such objectionable formulations that occur in my thesis. I beg forgiveness of the Panth for whatever hurt the conclusions drawn by me in my thesis have caused to the Panth. In future I pledge to serve the Panth as a humble servant of the Panth. I also willingly accept whatever decision is announced by the Singh Sahiban. Sd. Pashaura Singh 25/06/1994 *** Furthermore, you should read "Early Sikh Scriptural Tradition: Myth and Reality", by Balwant Singh Dhillon, who demolishes Pashaura's gutter level scholarship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snigga Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 even baba jarnail singh bhindranwale admitted he doesnt understand the grammar in ragmalla. Why to do people insit on spreading faleshood? Does no one have fear of death? how can you spread lies such is thsi one with a clear head?? I hope you retract these comments or at least provide the evidence, with which leads you to make such comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 i dont understand why anyone should bother trying to proove the authenticity of raag maala, if some individuals doubt its significance then thats up to them :roll: its funny how some people run out at the end of an akhand paat when ragmaala is being recited supposidly because its "kachi baani"... but then the granthi in the ardas mentions "flaana singh ikki pound... chugal kaur sava pound" which goes on for like 10 minutes.... and no one seems to say anything then :roll: and also saying "baba jarnail singh bhindrawale didnt even know the meaning of ragmaala" is pure nindiya, i can happily give u audio katha of them explaining ragmaala... :roll: or are you gonna say "thats not their voice, its alam " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Singh_but_cant_Sing Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 Fateh Ji, I am just wondering who was the first one to bring up the issue of the raag mala?As in who said that it isnt part of SGGSG? Forgive me for being so ignorant. Fateh ji. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 its not nindya at all. a taksali told me that baba ji doesnt understand the grammar. please dont accuse me of doing nindya on baba jarnail singh, since hes like one of my favourite gursikhs ever NO ONE understands the grammar. can u tell me why singular words are used when plural words are? no one knows, its a fact! only guru arjan knows........if he wrote it......or if he didnt.....then ragmalla shouldnt be there! i wouldnt peg it out at the end of an akand paath, but my current feeling is that it isnt authentic. ive heard about all the taksali vids explaining ragmalla, all the other issues, but none have touched the grammar on WHY singular words are used instead of plural ones.....im gnna repeat it again......does this make sense to you and can u explain it: there are 1000 person at my school and there are 50 teacher. we do 4 subject a day, and a number of free period a week. can u give me some kind of explanation on why ive used singular words? no, because there isnt one :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 so is this just arguement hopping?.. first it was "why isnt there a mahala at the start of raagmaala"... and then it was "there isnt ragmaala is older birs"... and now its the plural? personally i see it as people are tryin to find any little thing to deny its authorship - i believe it is gurbani, however IF it isnt then by reading it and believing in it i am not doing anything wrong. however IF it is gurbani and someone stood and fought that it isnt, and doubted guru ji, then may akaal purakh help them :twisted: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 i just can't understand why Baba Gurbachan Singh's words aren't enough...... it makes me mad...i'm not taksali or anything, but is there anyone on this forum that can actually question this logic: I will read raagmala because it's a part of my Guru. If it turns out that it's not real baani, then i will beg forgiveness frmo my All-Powered master. If it is baani, and i chose not to read it, then i'm putting my mat in front of Guru's mat, and therefore, i can not be forgiven. To me, it's like.. if you call yourself more intelligent than Guru, you're paving the one-way path to hell. can ANYONE on this forum..... ANYONE question that logic.... like...how does it not make sense? One of the greatest intellects of all time, Baba Gurbachan Singh, puran brahmgianni..... and we go to the works of englishmen, and other prominient "gursikhs".... makes me wonder what some of the motivations really are of some people... follow sikhi? or prove guru wrong.... :? :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 look.........i respect baba gurbachan singh MADLY......i dont see myself as knowing more than him......but there are gurmukhs who have opposing opinions on so many things.....and on this subject i have to go with bhai randhir singh cuz his argument just makes more sense to me....im sorry man...... this is the logic......there is one part right at the end of the guru granth.....it doesnt follow the grammar system or the infallible numbering system of the rest of the granth (incidentally used to prevent corruption)......we have no definate birs written by the gurus which can prove it (since the authenticity of the kartarpuri bir has bene doubted).....and the same ragmalla appears in a pornographic story written by alam.......there is plenty of other strange stuff at the end of birs like rattan malla and recipies so by removing it we are not taking away our guru.......gurmukhs like bhai randhir singh say it has no raas as other shabads do.......scholars like kahan singh nabha say its not real either........its not like the argument either way is like really really obvious....so YES discuss but dont make it out that its BLATANT the ragmalla is gurbani......because its not...its VERY VERY cloudy from whatever view u see it from. the mahalla thing has never been an issue to me, but the above stuff has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 or prove guru wrong.... :? :? if u read the ragmalla and u see it has blatant grammar mistakes in it......then does that make the guru wrong? did guru arjun make a mistake? all the gurus were 100percent infallible.....so why would there be basic grammar mistakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsb Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 so how come the placment of Mundaavni Mahala Punjvaan isn't being questioned? in every other set of shabads in different raags, the saloks are done in numerical order... from Guru Nanak to whichever Guruji was the "last" to add to it... how come Mundaavni Mahala Punjvaan is after Guru Tegh Bahadur saloks? argue about this too... or do you conveniently have a scholar to back you up on this one too??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nadz Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 sure to understand raagmala to its fullest u must have raag vidiya? if you know next to nothing of raag, then u cant expect to understand it, and to reject bani just because is doesnt make sense to you is pretty silly right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranvale still has the best theological arguments to defend Ragmala. I think a structuralist aproach would reinforce his arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAadmin Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 Check out what takshal has to say... One of sampardama from guroo maharaj time. If you dont trust mahapurkh's then you cant trust guroo's. I ll pick up mahapurkh's view on ragmalla rather than so called scholars any day http://www.damdamitaksal.org/vichaar/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 guys theres really no need to stress on it....................bhai randhir singh is just as much a mahapursh and baba gurbuchan singh.....they are both gurmukhs no doubt.......because they have different views on something does that mean one is outright wrong and heretical? regarding the placement of mundaavni mahalla 5 at hte end of the guru granth, i have always taken the meaning of mundaavni as meaning SEAL thus it is the SEAL or end of the guru granth. i seem to recall it is a seal given relating to making food/dishes, which fits in since it says "on this plate x things have been presented" or something similar. ill admit i have little knowledge of raag. but i have never seen anyone totally match all the ragmalla rags with SGGS rags and vice versa. n30 singh that links has just been discussed. alot. the taksals been around since the gurus times but have all its views remained entirely static from the gurus times? i dont want to get into a discussion on it but just because the taksal says so isnt a valid argument. lalleshvari, could u please show me this argument for ragmalla? because as i have said about a million times, ive never seen a compelling argument either way! lalleshvari with your great scholarly skills, could you please explain the grammatical MISTAKES in ragmalla, and no matter how u look at it, they are mistakes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 check taksali site. For the mistakes: learn the language first otherwise what's the point of me indicating "mistakes". what mistakes? :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snigga Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 KDiddy AKa Khalsa Soulja In which publication does Bhai randhir Singh state that raag Maalaa is not bani please include refrence, or are you following those blinded "Gurmukhs" again? Also you have yet to clear doubts about Sant Jarnail Singh not understanding Raag Maalaa other then a taksali told me so.. "A member of AKJ I know said Bhai Randhir Singh beleieved in Raag Malaa", Their I said it, now does that argument hold any weight to you? Off course not, so why try the reverse?? The funny thing about individuals of these new aged jathay are that they are LOST. They have no real sight. They quote from rehat name and then when the same rehat nama is used to counter their arguments "its not exactly the best source since rehat name have been altered". They follow scholars who back up several of their points but then if the same scholar disagree's or counters other points, then that scholar is thought to be lost or an idiot. The best thing about these people is the way they make up stories and cases and what ever else you need. If someone says something agaisnt their point that source is deemed unathentic, fabricated or just fake. However when someone logically proves that their sources are deemed false, replicated, or just non-existing, then all of a sudden they scramble to call everything else altered afterwards. Now KS, please since you have put great vast amounts of research into this topic please list praatan saroops which do not contain raag maala, where they can be found. (If possible studies that back up the date of compilation). On one hand we deem praatan saroops carrying raag mala as being altered afterwards, (its magical that the moghuls or hindu's, whoever they choose to blame it on had the time and rescources to go through all the birs and in identical penmenship used through out, to add it in) But the few that dont as being the original rather then those being produced without raag mala by vicious mahaants. Kdiddy with all respect to Bhai Randhir Singh, do you not ascertain that they may have been influenced even a tad bit by Bhasoria?? after all they where Bhai Sahibs mentor for a good degree of their life. Also if you really do wish to take a new angle on this we can look at panthic sampudaama's, sants, sewaks, and prechaarks who beleived in sri raag maala vs those who didn't and to keep things interesting we'll only look back 100 years, heck we can look back further but then we can get into authenticty of reports etc.) Now I know I wrote a lot so to recap my main questions/requets for you are: 1) Provide refrence of Bhai Randhir Singh disowning Raag Maala in any of their publications. 2) Provide a list of Praatan Saroops which do not contain Sri Raag Mala Sahib and their locations. 3) List those individals (Do not provide me with any jatha's calling list) who disowned Raag Maala, (basically what I'm asking for is written scholars, known sants mahpurkh, sampurdaams and jatha's I guess will do) Forgive my spelling and grammer as I did not have time to spell check this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 from what i know, bhai randir singh accepted ragmaala near their death :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 from what i know, bhai randir singh accepted ragmaala near their death OK :roll: why didn't he accept it before? How come then AKJ don't read ragmala during akhand paths (God forbid :evil: ). Oh please don't tell me there are nice AKJs who do read Ragmala etc... :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 snigga aka the wanna be nigga the damdami taksal website used to have a section about how bhai randhir singh alledgedly did believe in ragmalla and cited autobiographical notes from a taksali jathedar, but when it was found inaccurate the whole part of the article on ragmalla regarding bhai randhir singh was deleted. that pretty much proves my point on that. i dont need to quote from various books written by bhai sahib because ive only read a few of them. i know people who met bhai randhir singh themselves, and all singhs from his time say he rejected ragmalla. there are books which say it and if you post your question on tapoban.org you will get exact references. other than that do you have any more evidence for the ragmalla other than that website? :roll: lalleshvari............im not going to learn braj, sanskrit and every other language in the SGGS at the tender age of 16 just to be able to ask you why non plural words are used instead of plural ones considering im still a teenager and i can barely read the SGGS, its suprising a grown professional scholar cant even bring a few decent points across like some of the other people here have. BTW my apologies to all, i was incorrect about the plural/singular thing. the words apparently are neither plural nor singular - its still a gramattical anomoly, ive found madan singhs essay which explains: "Grammatical incoherence with Gurbani: Guru Arjan Dev ji evolved a unique system of grammer for Gurbani. This system is also followed by Bhai Gurdas in his poetry of Vaars. It is surprising to read rwg eyk sMig pMc brMgn ]; there is no Aunkar ( u) below rwg eyk to indicate plurality or singularity of rwg and eyk. However, both words here indicate singularity that any one Raga has five wives and eight sons. Similar examples of use of Mukta and Sihari in Ragmala that do not follow the grammar of Gurbani exist. Neither Guru Arjan Dev ji nor Bhai Gurdas ji could have varied the style of Guru Granth Sahib just for Ragmala. Obviously, it was neither written by Bhai Gurdas ji nor vetted by the fifth master." so i dont think i can compare it to "100 pupil in school" but basically the words are missing something which prevents them being read as plural - so its stil a bla-tant mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Javanmard Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 Khalsasoulja wrote: lalleshvari............im not going to learn braj, sanskrit and every other language in the SGGS at the tender age of 16 just to be able to ask you why non plural words are used instead of plural ones you underestimate your age a lot and I think you sell yourself short to be honest. Any linguist will tell you that it is better to learn languages at a tender age after that it's more difficult. a good advice learn Latin or Sanskrit now and I swear you'll be able to learn many other languages without any problem afterwards because it will structure your mind in a certain way. You'll see how with a lot of dedication the wonders you can accomplish with your brain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snigga Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 Forgive me again, I edited my post since and it seems by the time I was done you had already posted.. Before you take the whole DDT.ORG revising the raag mala page as your proof maybe you should think about why it was done rather then making assumtions and spreading falsehood. You can read over my last post if you wish and and supply the answers if its within your grasp, heck go and get those blinded gurmukhs if you so wish to answer them for you. Lastly the DDT.Org was altered because Singhs of the AKJ requested that arugment be removed as they disagreed with it and in an attempt to not create Eerka, the wishes where fulfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gupt Singh Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 can u provide evidence that hte taksali info on bhai randhir singh suddenly believing in ragmalla is tru other than kartar singh bhindranwales book? 1) Provide refrence of Bhai Randhir Singh disowning Raag Maala in any of their publications. ask on a tapoban website, im not a don when it comes to knowing all bhai sahibs books off by heart. 2) Provide a list of Praatan Saroops which do not contain Sri Raag Mala Sahib and their locations. you say i should know this because ive done "loads of research"? where have i said i have done loads of research? i think you are over estimating my knowledge of sikhi and its history. i dont even know where kartarpur is in india if you want to know about puratan saroops i am not the one to ask. when it comes to birs the only 2 things i know are "kartarpuri bir" and "damdama bir" and a few old dodgy ones. and just because i am ignorant of saroops it doesnt mean that they dont exist. 3) List those individals (Do not provide me with any jatha's calling list) who disowned Raag Maala, (basically what I'm asking for is written scholars, known sants mahpurkh, sampurdaams and jatha's I guess will do) Bhai Kahan Singh Nabha Pyare Singh Padam (who then lists the following 20th century scholars/gursikhs etc who dont believe in ragmalla) 1. Pandit Tara Singh Nirotam 16. Giani Nahar Singh 2. Giani Dit Singh of Singh Sabha Movement 17. Principal Dharam Anant Singh 3. Prof. Gurmukh Singh of Singh Sabha 18. S.G.B. Singh 4. Giani Gian Singh 19. Principal Teja Singh 5. Sadhu Gobind Singh Nirmala. 20. Principal Ganga Singh 6. Pandit Hazara Singh 21. Prof. Dr. Ganda Singh 7. BaSant Singh 22. Prof. Dr. Sahib Singh 8. Bhai Kahan Singh 23. S. Shamsher Singh Ashok. 9. Bhai Randhir Singh 24. Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha 10. Master Mota Singh 25. Bawa Harkishan Singh 11. Giani Sher Singh 26. Prof. Kartar Singh 12. Baba Teja Singh 27. Prof. Gurbachan Singh Talib. 13. Master Mehtab Singh 28. S.Randhir Singh Research Scholar 14. Master Tara Singh 29. Giani Hira Singh 15. Dr Tarlochan Singh 30. Principal Gurmukh Singh again quoting from madan singhs essay: He further writes that in 1849 AD at the Baisakhi gathering of the Khalsa Panth at Amritsar it was unanimously adopted that Ragmala was NOT Gurbani. you say that teja singh had an influence on bhai randhir singh........have u read bhai randhir singhs autobiography? he states that teja singh tried to mess up his amrit sanskar, and also clarifies that FAKE rumours were going around that he had been given a dodgy gurmantar. teja singh didnt believe in bhagat bani. bhai randhir singh quoted loads from it. same with dasam granth - teja singh i think did not believe in akal ustat etc (?) whilst bhai sahib did. after teja singh was excommunicated, bhai randhir singh wrote a letter to him declining to meet him ever again till he had been readmitted to the panth after an invitation to meet up. as i said, im not as knowledgable as you guys on these issues. but i dont see the point in us talking about saroops etc when the previous parts of the debate has even been finished properly - the numbering system, the grammar, etc. why dont we sort that out before we move on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihang Gargaj Singh Posted November 13, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 sidak ji, was there a reason for the personal attack on my name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts