MrDoaba

There are two different versions. One is Buddha Dal and the one you want is the Hazoori version.
You can find in here: http://www.rajkaregakhalsa.net/downloads/Gurbani/Das-Granthi-Pothi.pdf
 
 

My point exactly beere.

I'll tag @BhagatSingh, then lol. Bhagat Singh ji, if you listen carefully you will notice that the paathi in the video is pronouncing the sihari but not as "i", rather "-eh". 
I say "Gurprasad-eh", like how the taksalis say it and how the bhai saab in the video said it, as far as I know that is the correct pronunciation. The sihari is to be pronounced but not as "-i" but "-eh". E.g. 
                             ਆਦਿ ਸਚੁ ਜੁਗਾਦਿ ਸਚੁ ॥ 
Is pronounced: ad(eh) sach(u) jugad(eh) sach(u).
The "(u)" sound can be heard in the video as well, it is very subtle., like the "u" sound in "pundit".
.

Are you retarded? I think you are!
Mata Sahib Devan was the mother of the Khalsa! Every amritdhari is told that the father is Guru Gobind Singh Ji and mother is Mata Sahib Devan Ji.
Mata Ji actually did a lot after Guru Gobind Singh Ji went to Sachkhand. It was because Mata Ji cursed Banda Bahadur, that Banda Bahadur lost his shakti etc. 
Read a book on Mata Ji and you will understand.

Thats why the Khalsa is called Surya Vanshi. And secondly, all were descended from rhagu vansh which included ram chandar.

@MrDoaba
Just wait for the response, which will be in a few days. This gives the perception he has pondered over your comments and gave a thoughtful response.
I bet it will be twice as long as your reply..lol
i said it to @Reader and i'll say it to you too,  you will be going round in circles with bhagat. 
Because his fan boys admire his art, they automatically  take his words for gospel.(they being people on this site)

Okay that's good, keep practicing it until you get it right. Your Ustaad, when you get a proper one, will stop you many times.
I know which Siharis you are talking about, but thanks for the clarification. Your ears are untrained to hear the Paathi's pronunciation because you are making up rules out of thin air. He is pronouncing all the Matre as they should be...you just don't know what sound they make.
All your comments about personal preference and dialect don't mean jack. Colloquial Punjabi and Gurbani Uchaaran are two different things.
If you spoke to ten different Ustaads they would all give you the same answer with small variations, nothing as wild as you are suggesting.
When you write Aadi, the transliteration would be read and pronounced as Aadee - ਆਦੀ...like how we read Swami. This is incorrect. It's Aad-e(h) or Aad-ay. And don't bother explaining what you think Bihari and Sihari sound like because everything you have said so far, is incorrect according to the standards of Gurmukhi rules.
You also seem to be mistaking the grammar rules of Gurmukhi with those for Devanagari. In Devanagari the Sihari and Bihari (or whatever they are called) are used interchangeably at times. Other vowels also sound different. The rules for Gurbani pronunciation are distinct.
For example: In Devanagari  मंगल मूरति  would be written and pronounced  ਮੰਗਲ ਮੂਰਤੀ  in Gurmukhi, not  ਮੰਗਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ. This does not mean that ਮੂਰਤਿ is pronounced like ਮੂਰਤੀ or vice versa. They are distinct sounds...Gurbani has distinct sounds and pronunciation. 
Another example: In Devanagari सति is pronounced ਸਤੀ in Gurmukhi, however, it can also be written  सती  in Devanagari but still have the same meaning. If I wrote  ਸਤਿ, not only would it sound different to सति/सती, it also has a different meaning.
Either way, the sounds/rules of Gurmukhi and Devanagari are different even if they behave somewhat similarly...they are different Lippi's after all. One can write out a line of Gurbani but cannot expect to write it out with the exact corresponding characters as Devanagari. One would have to make changes to replicate the sounds.
I mean tbh, no one has agreed with anything that you've said...you are literally making up your own rules, and still going against the accepted rules when you have been corrected continuously. Forgive me for saying but if you were ever to spend time with proper Gyaani Dhyaani Gursikhs, the lessons in Nimrata you learn would hit you like a ton of bricks, and your hankaar would break as if an earthquake has taken place.
Maharaaj tenu buddhi bakshan.
 

You should write a whole Teeka then, its apparent no-one else has yet to read it as intently as you. 
No Bhagauti isn't Maya, If you ever venture out and look at the Arths done by proper Gurmukh Vidhants, you'd know its a reference to Akaal Purkh's Primordial Power (or a Sri Sahib), that power creates maya etc but it isn't maya entirely. 
Have you ever read any of Mata Ji history? She lead the panth after Guru Pita left for Sachkhand, she was issuing Hukamnamas for the panth, There's books about her Ithihaas too, Mata Ji did alot of seva for the panth. Dear Lord dude. What a nice thing to say about your mother. 
 
None of them were given the status of Mother of the Khalsa, That is a huge huge deal. 
They are mentioned in Shaheed Singh and other Gursikhs lines of the Ardaas.
Well you might, since its apparent you have selective reading glasses on most of the time. Guru Gobind Singh Ji's physical saroop (family) is descended from Raghu Vansh, Lord Ram falls into the same family but no he isn't the father of Guru Ji.
He'd fall under those that helped the Panth too but that's subjective depending on who you ask.
The Mool Mantar is what encompasses Sikh Philosophy. Taking a verse and then spinning it to your usual narratives doesn't make it so.  You seem to bring the same verses out again and again to promote the same nonsense. Krishna Ji wasn't a Puran Saroop of Akaal Purkh, There has only been one and that was in the form of Satguru Nanak Dev Ji. If you ever bother reading Dasam Granth Sahib (and given your above comment it's clear you haven't) you'd know this. That verse that you pasted here, its again a reference to Nirgun Parmeshwar, NOT Krishna the avtar of Lord Vishnu.
 
Your entire post is just use blowing your usual hot air and trying to come across as a self proclaimed "baba", no offence but OP here is discussing the Mother of the Khalsa, not the anyone else. All respect is due to the likes of Mata Nanaki Ji and Mai Bhago Ji but none of them were made the mother of the Khalsa and the Panth itself.  That as a status is huge considering Guru Ji treasured the Khalsa above anything else, so much so he wrote an entire ustat about it. This is about the Mother of the Khalsa. 
 

None of them were made the Mother of the Khalsa, that alone is a huge honour. You are deminishing her contribution, in-fact you outright said that the other Bibis did more for the panth than Mata Ji did. Don't retract now.
The physical hukamnamas that are present, you can view them online.
Wow, it's the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Firstly it's Mata Sahib Devan JI  not Mata Sahib Devan. Funny how you call for respect but seem to refuse to give any.
And his forefather was Raja Dasrath, and so on and so forth. Why stop at Lord Rama? 
I'm gonna quote something you wrote later on, because it seems you want to place Lord Rama in the same Category as Guru Ji. The below quote from you should pretty much answer your own question
So basically Valmiki Ji (writing down the words of Lord Rama) put forth common sense, and suddenly because Guru Ji said the same he's the Spiritual Son but when it comes to the Mool Mantar "oh everyone can agree on that" . Read Dasam Granth Sahib for once, Guru Ji flat out says that the Chaubis Avtar were unable to comprehend God, While Satguru Ji is Pooran Waheguru Saroop, of course Guru Ji knew the mystery of Waheguru Ji. Lord Rama clearly didn't.
On the other side of the spectrum people like you want to place him next to Guru Sahiban when that was something just as detrimental. I know now you'll start to paste quotes from Adi Guru Darbar and try your usual convoluted method to try and make Lord Rama the same as Guru Ji and so on and so forth.
 I would love to see your Teeka, Bhagat Singh, student of Bhagat Singh, member of Bhagat Singh Jatha founded on Sikhawareness. Maya mentioned in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is a reference only to the material, in that sense yes you're right but what you're doing is taking a take, slicing it, taking one piece and saying to everyone "look here its the whole cake". Adi Shakti is beyond that. Maya is restricted to the 3 gunas (Rajas, Tamas, Satav) as a power, that's all it can work with, while Adi Shakti is beyond even that. 
Maya mentioned in Adi Guru Darbar is different from Maya mentioned as material etc. Also if you're going to quote Gurbani have the common decency to get it right.  It's not "Mahakal hai pita apara"; it's ਸਰਬ ਕਾਲ ਹੈ ਪਿਤਾ ਅਪਾਰਾ ॥ and its not "Devi Kalika maat hamara" it's  ਦੇਬਿ ਕਾਲਿਕਾ ਮਾਤ ਹਮਾਰਾ ॥
Funny because according to everyone else the Mool Mantar is the defining verse regarding Sikh Philosophy, So much so that many people say that Guru Granth Sahib Ji is an explanation of the Mool Mantar. 
Again that's your opinion. You need to stop presenting your stuff as facts.
Yes it does. When Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is mentioned, if their banis are within it then they are honoured too. 
 
I think all you're doing is nitpicking, looking for things to argue about and just trying to be argumentative. I'm not sure if its an ego thing or it's because you're bored but why does it annoy you that some Sikhs want to Honour Mata Ji?
 
 
I think the user @samurai2 is right, you seem to have a nasty habit of acting like you're a sarb gyani while everyone else knows nothing. 

Maybe Sri Satguru jee will drag this Dhadri into the arena.
 
Bhul chuk maaf

@BhagatSingh Listen to this recording, it is pretty shudh IMO. You will get a better idea of siharis, aunkars etc
 
 
 

Haanji beere, I'm aware. I just explained in English to make the comparison between this Maryada and Havan.
 

Brahm Kavach Havans are still performed today.
 
This is simply a Vedic Havan being performed by Sikhs. In a Sikh Havan Gurbani is used afaik, but the procedure does not really differ..slight variations on Smagari maybe.

No problem. I'm genuinely not sure what kind of Havan Nirmalas do..I wouldn't be surprised if they do perform Vedic ones though.
Naamdharis and Nihangs do Sikh Havans.
Also, at Akhand Paaths which follow full Maryada, they have someone for dhoop duty...which essentially is akin to a Havan. Same kind of smagari used, albeit sprinked over burning coals rather than an open flame for the duration of the Paath. This may be a good example of link you posted earlier about cleansing the air. I'm not sure if the meaning of this part of Maryada goes any deeper though (it may well).

@BhagatSingh Listen to this recording, it is pretty shudh IMO. You will get a better idea of siharis, aunkars etc
 
 
 

Haanji beere, I'm aware. I just explained in English to make the comparison between this Maryada and Havan.
 

Those Singhs are called "Dhupiye" Singhs.
 
Bhul chuk maaf

Brahm Kavach Havans are still performed today.
 
This is simply a Vedic Havan being performed by Sikhs. In a Sikh Havan Gurbani is used afaik, but the procedure does not really differ..slight variations on Smagari maybe.

No problem. I'm genuinely not sure what kind of Havan Nirmalas do..I wouldn't be surprised if they do perform Vedic ones though.
Naamdharis and Nihangs do Sikh Havans.
Also, at Akhand Paaths which follow full Maryada, they have someone for dhoop duty...which essentially is akin to a Havan. Same kind of smagari used, albeit sprinked over burning coals rather than an open flame for the duration of the Paath. This may be a good example of link you posted earlier about cleansing the air. I'm not sure if the meaning of this part of Maryada goes any deeper though (it may well).

This is a very good question. I have wondered for a long time about this sidelining as well. In Christianity you have an exalted position of Mary, in Hinduism on the devi and in Islam on Fatima. Whereas in sikhi there is no central female figure.  
 

No problem. I'm genuinely not sure what kind of Havan Nirmalas do..I wouldn't be surprised if they do perform Vedic ones though.
Naamdharis and Nihangs do Sikh Havans.
Also, at Akhand Paaths which follow full Maryada, they have someone for dhoop duty...which essentially is akin to a Havan. Same kind of smagari used, albeit sprinked over burning coals rather than an open flame for the duration of the Paath. This may be a good example of link you posted earlier about cleansing the air. I'm not sure if the meaning of this part of Maryada goes any deeper though (it may well).

Dhandri has become, for lack of a better word, an utter sap.
Even when he was okay, and I say okay cautiously, he wasn't anything special.
I did like his Kirtan though.
Shame he is now a sap, as are his chele.
 
Gurbar Akaal!
 
N.B. I am not affiliated with any Samparda.

Brahm Kavach Havans are still performed today.
 
This is simply a Vedic Havan being performed by Sikhs. In a Sikh Havan Gurbani is used afaik, but the procedure does not really differ..slight variations on Smagari maybe.

Good points beere. I will say though however, even if we put aside the deeper theological arguments for a second, Mata Ji still warrants a specific and complete mention in the Ardaas, at least for Her conspicuous role as the Mother of the Panth.
 

Good question, i would think from shiv shakat perspective, shakti-life force form (nari) is incomplete (adhuri) without 'PURKH' formless so thats why focus is mainly on purkh. All though, there are many arguments based on our history which refutes the above perspective as sargun-maya-anything with form is glorified in gurmat sidhant too.