Kuttabanda2

On 2/27/2018 at 4:34 AM, paapiman said:

Yes, if there is historical evidence to suggest that the appendage material was recited or approved by Sri Satguru jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Historical evidence requires dissertation, analyzation, and supplication. That applies to Raagmala as well.

every word uttered by the Guru Sahibans is considered Gurbani due to them being Gurvaak, Then why aren’t they recited, memorized, and chanted daily? 

Which Samparda recites Guru Sahib’s Hukamnamas as Gurshabad? 

There is a clear distinction between Gurbani and Hukamnamas. One is Dhur Ki Bani, Gurshabad. While the other is an edict related to matters and happenings of that time. 

Interestingly how the definition of Gurbani and views change to better accomodate Raagmala. 

On 1/25/2018 at 7:27 AM, amardeep said:

How much of the Khasatriya marayada and culture was adapted by the Khalsa?

I can think of

• Jhatka
• Singh
• wearing royal dastaars
• Shastar Puja

The Khalsa “adapted” Khshatriya Maryada because the Khalsa is a Panth of Khshatriyas. 

The Dharam has always been around. History and time had shrouded it until Guru Sahib Ji was Pargat.

if you look into indian history. Ancient Khshatriyas even adorned uncut Kes: long uncut hair, mustaches and beards. This tradition was so strong that protecting one’s Joora in battle was a must. Warriors of opposing tribes and kingdoms would actively attempt to cut each other’s topknots off as it was a sign humiliation and dishonor for the victim. Shaving the mustache and beard was also similarly dishonorable. 

The Dharam has always been around. It’s just indians and other peoples that have gradually forgotten their roots. 

The Sikh Panth is only a revival of this true Dharam. 

This is what people of Dharmic background did in India. Especially among the Khshatriya, warrior tribes/peoples of India. There is a tradition of ‘ਜੌਹਰ’ where Rajput and Khshatriya women would pull out their sword and slaughter the old and young before setting themselves on fire (though drowning, slitting their own throat and other methods were also employed) to avoid rape, enslavement, and humilitation at the hands of the enemy. The Punjabi and Hindi phrase ਜੌਹਰ ਵਿਖਾਉਣਾ (literally translating to ‘ to show Jauhar’) comes from this. It’s a proud Khatriya tradition. It was considered an act of resistance and noncompliance. Shaheed Bibi Anoop Kaur Ji is an example of this. 

On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

I asked you what the original language was of the book as Anurag Singh  said it was written in Sanskrit. You said that Ashok beleived it to be written in Sanskrit as well. So then, I asked that is one thing they can agree on. Then you said...

I apologize for that confusion. 

I don't know why I said yes. Confusion on my part.

Ashok says the Kaam Kandla is written in hindi-Braj, not sanskrit. I mixed a few minor details up.

On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

Like I said, Anurag Singh is publishing a book very soon on raagmala whihc he says he has been researching for, for 11 years. Let's see what he comes out with.

Great. It'd be nice to see what he has to say. Until then, citing him won't really be relevant. 

On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

You want to go down that dangerous ground?

Yeah, I already have.

On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

It was still flying in the face of  200 year established sikh praxis. As for their literature of propating Dasam Granth, have you ever read any?

What occurred in the 19th century is not reflective two centuries worth of Sikh practice. 

And of course, I've read the works of Randhir Singh (Research Scholar) which were published by the SGPC. Everyone has.

On 1/10/2018 at 3:48 AM, chatanga1 said:

Why was it only Dasam Granth that got damaged and not Guru Granth Sahib?

I don't know. However the scuffle occurred, the SDGS Bir was damaged. You expect that every possible theoretical variation and dynamic of that fight should result in both Birs getting damaged?

On 1/10/2018 at 3:48 AM, chatanga1 said:

Why are there no reports of anything else being damaged there?

I wouldn't know that either. Perhaps you should look into that. Find a few ripped curtains and pieces of Shattered glass.

On 1/10/2018 at 3:46 AM, chatanga1 said:

Yes that stance is working out very successfully isn't it?

For them? Yeah, sure. 

On 12/30/2017 at 10:04 AM, paapiman said:

approved by Sri Satguru jee, it will be considered as Gurbani by Sikhs. 

So it's appendage to a Sarroop means its approval?

This view was never presented before, as far as I know, by personalities on the Pro-Raagmala side.

On 12/30/2017 at 10:04 AM, paapiman said:

Anything recited or approved (even though written by someone else) by Sri Satguru jee (whether included or not in the saroop) will be considered Gurbani or Gurvaak by Sikhs.

So then Hukamnamas must also be considered Gurbani by your standards?

On 12/30/2017 at 10:04 AM, paapiman said:

by Sikhs.

Not by Sikhs, but by some Sikhs (a demographic who's impressionable existence is questionable).

On 12/28/2017 at 6:18 AM, Soulfinder said:

Veer ji very interesting articles and i would like to add another similar view that the SGPC Singh Sabha had removed quite a few banis from the current saroop of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib Ji the banis as das has read them personally includes Brahm Kavach, Uggardanti, Bhagauti Astotar and many more.

Those Banis were removed by the Sodhak Committee, composed of Snaatan Singh Sabha members, not the SGPC.

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

Anyway both Ashok and himself can agree on the original being in Sanskrit.

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.

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

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

Ta fer saboot agge pesh kare ta.

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

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. 

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.  

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

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.

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. 

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

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.

Where is this decision recorded? 

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

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.

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. 

On 12/21/2017 at 10:03 AM, chatanga1 said:

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

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.

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).

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.  

2 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

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

yes

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.

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'.

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.

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.  

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

On 9/10/2017 at 10:14 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

Firstly thanks for a very interesting reply, there is a lot of info there. The original topic was about SGPC RM which has now moved onto Raagmala. If the admins are happy to leave it here then fine, otherwise maybe these last few posts could be merged to an existing Raagmala topic or a new one started.

 

According to my own reading Akbar lsited all his poets and musicians and staff in his book but there is no mention of a Kavi called Alam. There. The only Alam I have heard of was from Guru Gobind Singh Ji's times.

 

 

Who is the other one you know about?

 

 

Yes the differences in that text is very small. What book is this from, and what is the opening line(s) to the whole story?

 

 

Yes I have read that in Gurdit Singhs book. What language was it written in, any idea?

 

 

How can you be so sure that the Kartarpuri Bir claimed so, isnt the original? What if the others in possession of the sodhis are contemporary copies of the same bir?

 

 

As many as that? I have read that there were over 500 at the time,  when SGPC began to prepare a saroop for printing.

 

 

Any idea on what the observations differed over?

 

 

"Panchmesh" lol you mean Pancham. I have heard that some scholar say the Kartarpuri Bir is not the original but equally I have read that many people beleive it to be so. I know that Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale mentioned this Kartarpuri Bir when talking aout Raagmala. It's odd that Sant Gurbachan Singh thought otherwise.

 

 

During that time didn't Baba Wadhbhag Singh escaoe to the mountains ? I'm pretty sure that he would have taken the Bir with him. After all it majorly supported their claim to  be of the true guru lineage

 

 

And do those have Sri Raagmala in? Do these Birs have any differences in them ?

 

 

So the SGPC still printed the current saroop we have today with mistakes in them? That would be a great topic by itself to research.

 

 

I know, but when you read a book (or watch a film ) that feels so poor,  its very hard to sit down to go through that again.

 

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

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

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.  They differ from the DamDami Bir. Had Baba Vadhbag Singh taken that Bir, and the Kartarpuris held it, we wouldn't have such a controversy over it.  If the other birs that are in possession of the Kartarpuri Sodhis are  closer to the original, they should match up with the DamDami Sarroop. 

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

And for observations, The observations differed on everything from the Banis in the sarroops, mangals, mool mantar, missing shabads/words, hartal, inclusion of kachi bani, etc.  The aforementioned scholars detail it all. Some differences were consolable and sensical, like placement or inclusion tipis, bindis, aunkars, etc, at places, basic vyaakaran marks.  Others were major differences like missing tukks, kachi bani tukks here and there, missing nishaans, different mool mantar, etc. 

I meant Panchmesh.  It's also in use. 

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

I also don't know if the SGPC amended their mistakes after Talwara Ji and Vedanti Ji, I think they did, but I'm not too sure.  

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

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.