amardeep

I couldn’t find it. Maybe it was a Granth I found on Punjab digital library then. I once remember going trough a book with no front page or title but looking at the content I could tell it was about medicine. Try look on Punjab digital library they have all kinds of gold there. The udasis and nirmale did stuff on medicine in the Sikh tradition. I heard that sewa panthis also did due to their lineage of Bhai Ghaneya but I’ve never seen anything from them 

If you listen to the katha of Rababis you'll see they also sometimes do something similiar of mixing diversity to present unity.
Ik oankaar Allah
Satnam Allah
Karta Purakh Allah
Nirbhau Allah
etc etc.
 
Kavi Santokh Singh has a manglacharan similiar that goes something like:
 
Ik Nanak
Oankaar Angad
Karta Amardas
Purakh Ram Dass
Nirbhau Arjan
Nirvair Har Gobind
Akaal Moraat Har Rai
Ajuni Har Krishan
Saibhang Tegh Bahadur
Gur Prasaad Gobind Singh
 
Diffent guru bodies, same spirit. One.
 

So in essence:

One Oankaar, The Victory of Vahiguru
One Oankaar, [may] the Sword assist me
One Oankaar, I kneel before the Power [behind the sword]
One Oankaar, I kneel before Krishna
Now begins the vernacular translation of the tenth chapter of the Bhagavat Purana, By your power O' Shiva.
 
The above manglacharan mixes different Indic theologies into one philosophy. It would be like writing a Abrahamic text that invokes Allah, Jehova, Jesus etc in one go!. Contradictory for some, unity for others.
The first line invokes the followers of Akaal Purakh (Sikhs)
The second line invokes the Goddess Shakti worshippers
The third like invokes the Brahma worshippers (Kara refers to creator ie brahma)
The fourth line invokes the Vaishnavas
The fifth line invokes the Shivaites
The last three are the trimurti.
 

I think you need to spend some more time studying what Vedanta is. A lot of the things you ascribe to the Gurus can already be found in Vedanta, - that is why the Nirmale and others started to interpret Sikhi in this lense. This does not mean that Sikhs are Hindus – but it is a common framework to interpret reality.
For instance, many people think that Sikhi rejects the Vedas because Sikhi puts naam and Brahmgian at the front while it limits the importance of the Vedas. This stance, however, is a key component of Vedanta!!! The Mundaka Upanishad divides wisdom into two categories: The higher and the lower. The higher form of wisdom is Brahmgyan while the lower is knowledge of Vedas, phonetics, grammar, etymology, meter, astronomy and the knowledge of sacrifices and rituals.  This atittude towards Vedas is entirely in line with both Vedanta and Gurmat.
In this regard, your understanding of Jup can most likely easily be found within the terminology of Vedanta and is not unique to Gurmat. And terms like karma, samsara, jeev, brahman, maya, prakrit etc are all from the Vedantic corpus of philosophy.  Gurbani was revealed through shabads that came individually to different people at different times. If Guru Nanak in South India used the word Atma, it is expected that the Hindu would understand what this word meant without having to read 600 shabads of Guru Nanak (revealed in Northern India) to understand what is being said to him. Gurbani was revealed over centuries, - it does’nt make sense that only people who had studied all the shabads would be able to understand what they were being told when the Guru revealed shabads to them.
Your approach seems to be heavily depend on logic. But Sikhi defies logic. This does not mean that Sikhi is all Disney world and mythology. But a traditional premise is that Sikhi breaks the make up of the mind. You say that Jup comes from the process of Jupi.  You equate jup with jupi. This is very logical, that X is connected with Y and therefore through doing X you will attain Y. BUT the foundation of Gurmat through the Sri Japji Sahib is ਸੋਚੈ  ਸੋਚਿ  ਨ  ਹੋਵਈ  ਜੇ  ਸੋਚੀ  ਲਖ  ਵਾਰ  and ਚੁਪੈ  ਚੁਪ  ਨ  ਹੋਵਈ  ਜੇ  ਲਾਇ  ਰਹਾ  ਲਿਵ  ਤਾਰ .  So here clearly the Guru is breaking common logic by going the other way and saying Soch does NOT happen through Sochai. And chup does not happen through chupai! This is a clear break with the way we understand logic and how Things are connected.  
Your idea that SIkhi fits with grammar, science and logic is fair to have but it does not have any tradition behind it. Whereas the Sampradays stretch back hundreds of years and that in itself Means their ideas have to be taken seriosly.
You say that jupi happens through Listening ,Believing Accepting and Living. This is called shravan, manan, and nididhyasana in Vedanta and is a key component in understanding reality and transcending the self. Again, your use of grammar takes you back to a Vedantic mindset which the sampradays could easily have done through their traditions, uthankas etc.
Again – there is NO way Gurbani discards the old meaning of these words. Gurbani is didactic – it is supposed to change your ways and by this , it implies that the orders given are understood by the people. If Gurbani says to do X it must be inferred that people understand what X means. And not that they have to study six hundred pages of philosophy and grammar to understand what is really meant. In your example, it means that the Panth was dillued for 300 years until Professor Sri Sahib Singh wrote his teeka. That does NOT make any sense and defies all logic of what a coherent, strong and independant religion is about.
 
 

Its not recycling - it’s continuing the eternal wheel of Dharam. The gurus consistent use of Vedanta testifies to a continuation of an earlier tradition. The presence of bhagat bani in the Guru Granth Sahib also testifies to people being able to achieve mukhti prior to Guru Nanak in 1469, which means that there is an earlier tradition that the gurus were continuing and adapting to the times.
Good that you admit that you believe Sikhi was non existent from 1710 - 1950s and the panth has been deluded for the past 300 years. It shows your extreme point of departure  
 
You forgot to answer my question on where the gurus promoted the method of grammar in understanding gurbani. Bhai Gurdaas didn do that. Using gurbani tuks to interpret and explain Gurbani is a samprdaic tradition as can be seen throughout Kavi Santokh Singhs Garabganjani Teeka from the 1820s where he quotes extensively from the Anand Sahib, Asa Di vaar etx to explain  the meaning of Japji sahib. He also uses grammar to explain some Tuks  and why the verbs have a certain past Or present tense etc. Again, your idea that these things are new, logical and scientific is absurd - they’re a part of the sampradaic tradition!! The only difference is that the nirmale and others didn Chop off their feet while analysing and throwing the baby out with the bath water as present day missionaries do. 
Beautiful quote by Prof Puran Singh. Thanks for sharing. He is right In a way. Some nirmalas have taken things to far and you can also find the samprdaic  Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale accusing the nirmale and Udasis of the same in his Gurbani Paath Darshan. The samprdayas are not perfect, they make mistakes and it’s good to have a panthic discussion on that. But it’s rather extreme to just reject it all, throw the baby out with the bath water and dismiss 300 years of tradition just because they might make a few mistakes here and there.

Its not recycling - it’s continuing the eternal wheel of Dharam. The gurus consistent use of Vedanta testifies to a continuation of an earlier tradition. The presence of bhagat bani in the Guru Granth Sahib also testifies to people being able to achieve mukhti prior to Guru Nanak in 1469, which means that there is an earlier tradition that the gurus were continuing and adapting to the times.
Good that you admit that you believe Sikhi was non existent from 1710 - 1950s and the panth has been deluded for the past 300 years. It shows your extreme point of departure  
 
You forgot to answer my question on where the gurus promoted the method of grammar in understanding gurbani. Bhai Gurdaas didn do that. Using gurbani tuks to interpret and explain Gurbani is a samprdaic tradition as can be seen throughout Kavi Santokh Singhs Garabganjani Teeka from the 1820s where he quotes extensively from the Anand Sahib, Asa Di vaar etx to explain  the meaning of Japji sahib. He also uses grammar to explain some Tuks  and why the verbs have a certain past Or present tense etc. Again, your idea that these things are new, logical and scientific is absurd - they’re a part of the sampradaic tradition!! The only difference is that the nirmale and others didn Chop off their feet while analysing and throwing the baby out with the bath water as present day missionaries do. 
Beautiful quote by Prof Puran Singh. Thanks for sharing. He is right In a way. Some nirmalas have taken things to far and you can also find the samprdaic  Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale accusing the nirmale and Udasis of the same in his Gurbani Paath Darshan. The samprdayas are not perfect, they make mistakes and it’s good to have a panthic discussion on that. But it’s rather extreme to just reject it all, throw the baby out with the bath water and dismiss 300 years of tradition just because they might make a few mistakes here and there.

Angy please answer the following few questions:
Can you name 3 Sikhs prior to the British Raj that you feel were on the right path and understood Sikhi? (and dont just mention names - provide evidence that these Sikhs belived the same as what you consider right Sikhi today) if grammar is the way forward, then why did neither the Gurus nor any of their followers write any teeka that focuses on grammar and it's importance? Did the Gurus ever encourage a study of the grammar of Gurbani If you dont believe in the sampradas, was there any institution of the past that you believe were right in teaching Sikhi?

I think you need to spend some more time studying what Vedanta is. A lot of the things you ascribe to the Gurus can already be found in Vedanta, - that is why the Nirmale and others started to interpret Sikhi in this lense. This does not mean that Sikhs are Hindus – but it is a common framework to interpret reality.
For instance, many people think that Sikhi rejects the Vedas because Sikhi puts naam and Brahmgian at the front while it limits the importance of the Vedas. This stance, however, is a key component of Vedanta!!! The Mundaka Upanishad divides wisdom into two categories: The higher and the lower. The higher form of wisdom is Brahmgyan while the lower is knowledge of Vedas, phonetics, grammar, etymology, meter, astronomy and the knowledge of sacrifices and rituals.  This atittude towards Vedas is entirely in line with both Vedanta and Gurmat.
In this regard, your understanding of Jup can most likely easily be found within the terminology of Vedanta and is not unique to Gurmat. And terms like karma, samsara, jeev, brahman, maya, prakrit etc are all from the Vedantic corpus of philosophy.  Gurbani was revealed through shabads that came individually to different people at different times. If Guru Nanak in South India used the word Atma, it is expected that the Hindu would understand what this word meant without having to read 600 shabads of Guru Nanak (revealed in Northern India) to understand what is being said to him. Gurbani was revealed over centuries, - it does’nt make sense that only people who had studied all the shabads would be able to understand what they were being told when the Guru revealed shabads to them.
Your approach seems to be heavily depend on logic. But Sikhi defies logic. This does not mean that Sikhi is all Disney world and mythology. But a traditional premise is that Sikhi breaks the make up of the mind. You say that Jup comes from the process of Jupi.  You equate jup with jupi. This is very logical, that X is connected with Y and therefore through doing X you will attain Y. BUT the foundation of Gurmat through the Sri Japji Sahib is ਸੋਚੈ  ਸੋਚਿ  ਨ  ਹੋਵਈ  ਜੇ  ਸੋਚੀ  ਲਖ  ਵਾਰ  and ਚੁਪੈ  ਚੁਪ  ਨ  ਹੋਵਈ  ਜੇ  ਲਾਇ  ਰਹਾ  ਲਿਵ  ਤਾਰ .  So here clearly the Guru is breaking common logic by going the other way and saying Soch does NOT happen through Sochai. And chup does not happen through chupai! This is a clear break with the way we understand logic and how Things are connected.  
Your idea that SIkhi fits with grammar, science and logic is fair to have but it does not have any tradition behind it. Whereas the Sampradays stretch back hundreds of years and that in itself Means their ideas have to be taken seriosly.
You say that jupi happens through Listening ,Believing Accepting and Living. This is called shravan, manan, and nididhyasana in Vedanta and is a key component in understanding reality and transcending the self. Again, your use of grammar takes you back to a Vedantic mindset which the sampradays could easily have done through their traditions, uthankas etc.
Again – there is NO way Gurbani discards the old meaning of these words. Gurbani is didactic – it is supposed to change your ways and by this , it implies that the orders given are understood by the people. If Gurbani says to do X it must be inferred that people understand what X means. And not that they have to study six hundred pages of philosophy and grammar to understand what is really meant. In your example, it means that the Panth was dillued for 300 years until Professor Sri Sahib Singh wrote his teeka. That does NOT make any sense and defies all logic of what a coherent, strong and independant religion is about.
 
 

I think you need to spend some more time studying what Vedanta is. A lot of the things you ascribe to the Gurus can already be found in Vedanta, - that is why the Nirmale and others started to interpret Sikhi in this lense. This does not mean that Sikhs are Hindus – but it is a common framework to interpret reality.
For instance, many people think that Sikhi rejects the Vedas because Sikhi puts naam and Brahmgian at the front while it limits the importance of the Vedas. This stance, however, is a key component of Vedanta!!! The Mundaka Upanishad divides wisdom into two categories: The higher and the lower. The higher form of wisdom is Brahmgyan while the lower is knowledge of Vedas, phonetics, grammar, etymology, meter, astronomy and the knowledge of sacrifices and rituals.  This atittude towards Vedas is entirely in line with both Vedanta and Gurmat.
In this regard, your understanding of Jup can most likely easily be found within the terminology of Vedanta and is not unique to Gurmat. And terms like karma, samsara, jeev, brahman, maya, prakrit etc are all from the Vedantic corpus of philosophy.  Gurbani was revealed through shabads that came individually to different people at different times. If Guru Nanak in South India used the word Atma, it is expected that the Hindu would understand what this word meant without having to read 600 shabads of Guru Nanak (revealed in Northern India) to understand what is being said to him. Gurbani was revealed over centuries, - it does’nt make sense that only people who had studied all the shabads would be able to understand what they were being told when the Guru revealed shabads to them.
Your approach seems to be heavily depend on logic. But Sikhi defies logic. This does not mean that Sikhi is all Disney world and mythology. But a traditional premise is that Sikhi breaks the make up of the mind. You say that Jup comes from the process of Jupi.  You equate jup with jupi. This is very logical, that X is connected with Y and therefore through doing X you will attain Y. BUT the foundation of Gurmat through the Sri Japji Sahib is ਸੋਚੈ  ਸੋਚਿ  ਨ  ਹੋਵਈ  ਜੇ  ਸੋਚੀ  ਲਖ  ਵਾਰ  and ਚੁਪੈ  ਚੁਪ  ਨ  ਹੋਵਈ  ਜੇ  ਲਾਇ  ਰਹਾ  ਲਿਵ  ਤਾਰ .  So here clearly the Guru is breaking common logic by going the other way and saying Soch does NOT happen through Sochai. And chup does not happen through chupai! This is a clear break with the way we understand logic and how Things are connected.  
Your idea that SIkhi fits with grammar, science and logic is fair to have but it does not have any tradition behind it. Whereas the Sampradays stretch back hundreds of years and that in itself Means their ideas have to be taken seriosly.
You say that jupi happens through Listening ,Believing Accepting and Living. This is called shravan, manan, and nididhyasana in Vedanta and is a key component in understanding reality and transcending the self. Again, your use of grammar takes you back to a Vedantic mindset which the sampradays could easily have done through their traditions, uthankas etc.
Again – there is NO way Gurbani discards the old meaning of these words. Gurbani is didactic – it is supposed to change your ways and by this , it implies that the orders given are understood by the people. If Gurbani says to do X it must be inferred that people understand what X means. And not that they have to study six hundred pages of philosophy and grammar to understand what is really meant. In your example, it means that the Panth was dillued for 300 years until Professor Sri Sahib Singh wrote his teeka. That does NOT make any sense and defies all logic of what a coherent, strong and independant religion is about.
 
 

I think you need to spend some more time studying what Vedanta is. A lot of the things you ascribe to the Gurus can already be found in Vedanta, - that is why the Nirmale and others started to interpret Sikhi in this lense. This does not mean that Sikhs are Hindus – but it is a common framework to interpret reality.
For instance, many people think that Sikhi rejects the Vedas because Sikhi puts naam and Brahmgian at the front while it limits the importance of the Vedas. This stance, however, is a key component of Vedanta!!! The Mundaka Upanishad divides wisdom into two categories: The higher and the lower. The higher form of wisdom is Brahmgyan while the lower is knowledge of Vedas, phonetics, grammar, etymology, meter, astronomy and the knowledge of sacrifices and rituals.  This atittude towards Vedas is entirely in line with both Vedanta and Gurmat.
In this regard, your understanding of Jup can most likely easily be found within the terminology of Vedanta and is not unique to Gurmat. And terms like karma, samsara, jeev, brahman, maya, prakrit etc are all from the Vedantic corpus of philosophy.  Gurbani was revealed through shabads that came individually to different people at different times. If Guru Nanak in South India used the word Atma, it is expected that the Hindu would understand what this word meant without having to read 600 shabads of Guru Nanak (revealed in Northern India) to understand what is being said to him. Gurbani was revealed over centuries, - it does’nt make sense that only people who had studied all the shabads would be able to understand what they were being told when the Guru revealed shabads to them.
Your approach seems to be heavily depend on logic. But Sikhi defies logic. This does not mean that Sikhi is all Disney world and mythology. But a traditional premise is that Sikhi breaks the make up of the mind. You say that Jup comes from the process of Jupi.  You equate jup with jupi. This is very logical, that X is connected with Y and therefore through doing X you will attain Y. BUT the foundation of Gurmat through the Sri Japji Sahib is ਸੋਚੈ  ਸੋਚਿ  ਨ  ਹੋਵਈ  ਜੇ  ਸੋਚੀ  ਲਖ  ਵਾਰ  and ਚੁਪੈ  ਚੁਪ  ਨ  ਹੋਵਈ  ਜੇ  ਲਾਇ  ਰਹਾ  ਲਿਵ  ਤਾਰ .  So here clearly the Guru is breaking common logic by going the other way and saying Soch does NOT happen through Sochai. And chup does not happen through chupai! This is a clear break with the way we understand logic and how Things are connected.  
Your idea that SIkhi fits with grammar, science and logic is fair to have but it does not have any tradition behind it. Whereas the Sampradays stretch back hundreds of years and that in itself Means their ideas have to be taken seriosly.
You say that jupi happens through Listening ,Believing Accepting and Living. This is called shravan, manan, and nididhyasana in Vedanta and is a key component in understanding reality and transcending the self. Again, your use of grammar takes you back to a Vedantic mindset which the sampradays could easily have done through their traditions, uthankas etc.
Again – there is NO way Gurbani discards the old meaning of these words. Gurbani is didactic – it is supposed to change your ways and by this , it implies that the orders given are understood by the people. If Gurbani says to do X it must be inferred that people understand what X means. And not that they have to study six hundred pages of philosophy and grammar to understand what is really meant. In your example, it means that the Panth was dillued for 300 years until Professor Sri Sahib Singh wrote his teeka. That does NOT make any sense and defies all logic of what a coherent, strong and independant religion is about.
 
 

“According to Sage Patanjali (400 CE), Japa is not the repitation of word or phase but rather contemplation on the meaning of the mantra,[11] this definition sometimes persists across different sources.[12][13]
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japa

One of the basic messages of Sikhi is that even a good act can become a dead ritual if the right intention/Heart is not in it. In the Sri Japji Sahib we read the following:
ਤੀਰਥੁ  ਤਪੁ  ਦਇਆ  ਦਤੁ  ਦਾਨੁ  ॥ ਜੇ  ਕੋ  ਪਾਵੈ  ਤਿਲ  ਕਾ  ਮਾਨੁ  ॥
Now this is quite strange, as ਦਇਆ  (compassion) is normally considered a good thing. How can ਦਇਆ  then be described as useless? This is because of the Gurmat philosophy that says even good Things can be regarded as bad. In Guru Granth Sahib, Dasam bani and the rahitname you have many examples of kesh, simran etc being described as without merit in some cases. This is the strenght of Sikhi - that it even has a critical look at itself as a religion - if it is not practiced correctly. Then even the sadhanas of Sikhi can become useless.
So jup in the above has two different meanings as you correctly state. In one tuk jup is used positively because it is practiced in the proper way, whereas in the other it is used 'negatively' because it is used in a context of empty rituals. 
The context and wider philosophy is key.

It's also vital to note that Professor Sahib Singh's approach is an innovation in terms of Sikh tradition. No other scholar before him had done an entire commentary based on grammar alone. While this is praiseworthy, commendable and adds light to the glory of Gurbani, it is not a "principle" of Gurmat. If it was, you would have seen many more scholars prior to him interpreting Gurbani such.  Grammar was important for the early scholars - you can find Kavi Santokh Singh in the garabganjani teeka using grammar in some verses, and Baba Ganga Ram was teaching grammar in the bungas of Amritsar during the Sikh raj - but the grammar was just a small component of many other methods of interpretation. 
 
Professor Sahib Singh's massive Work is indeed Unique, but you can't say his approach is part of a principle of Gurbani. It is rather an innovation - but a good one as it adds to the plurality and intellectual exercises of the Sikh scholars of history.

Thanks for the example. There is a difference between the meaning of a Word, and the meaning of a sentence. The meaning of a Word can be looked at through a dictionary, but to understand the meaning of the Whole sentence you will have to look at the context in which the Words appear in (including grammar etc). The understanding and use of vedantic terminology is a must when trying to understand Gurbani - and then surely the Guru in his creativity will play with some Words in some shabads and adapt/broaden the meaning. But the root meaning of the Words will always remain the same. That's why I say, there is no such case where red suddenly means blue. .. And the nirmales, udasis and sewapanthis have been doing this for centuries and remained consistent through out even though they have also had their fair share of debates on interpretation.  But it is wrong to say that their interpretation is wrong and unlike Gurbani.

In terms of vedant - Gurbani is replete with Words that originate from the sophisticated terminology of Vedanta. Jeev, Brahm, Atma, Maya, Prakrit, Budh, maya, karma, sansara, mukti, chit are all vedantic terms. If one wants to know what the meaning of these Words are, you will have to look up the meanings in vedantic writings and literature. That's what the samprdayas have done since the 18th Century.  If you believe these Words have a different meaning in Gurbani then please provide some examples of how so.

Yes. We agree. Gurbani adds new layers to existing Words. But it does'nt cancel old meanings. If that was the case, Gurbani would have been followed by a dictionary so that one knows the new meanings of the Words.
"ONE Fundamental Rule of SGGS is all meaning of words should be found from SGGS"  - > when was this rule made and where do you have this rule from?
By the way, could you please provide one example of wrong arths from the samprdayas and also provide the real arth ?

It's also vital to note that Professor Sahib Singh's approach is an innovation in terms of Sikh tradition. No other scholar before him had done an entire commentary based on grammar alone. While this is praiseworthy, commendable and adds light to the glory of Gurbani, it is not a "principle" of Gurmat. If it was, you would have seen many more scholars prior to him interpreting Gurbani such.  Grammar was important for the early scholars - you can find Kavi Santokh Singh in the garabganjani teeka using grammar in some verses, and Baba Ganga Ram was teaching grammar in the bungas of Amritsar during the Sikh raj - but the grammar was just a small component of many other methods of interpretation. 
 
Professor Sahib Singh's massive Work is indeed Unique, but you can't say his approach is part of a principle of Gurbani. It is rather an innovation - but a good one as it adds to the plurality and intellectual exercises of the Sikh scholars of history.

Wow. Beautiful. Thanks for sharing 

No I don’t think so. They added more depth and layers to many words but they didn change the meaning of words such that red suddenly meant blue and tree suddenly meant sun. Nothing of that sort happened 

interesting website, thanks for sharing

Though I doubt the Sikhs ever did this due to the sacredness of Dasam Granth , - there are some 'editorial comments' in large sections of Dasam bani where it states that "if the poets find any errors, please correct and improve upon this Work'. I assume this is a literary tradition of humbleness in Indian literature, but it opens up the possibility of open-ended writings that can keep being added to.   I think this is why Pyara Singh regards the Panj Sau Sakhi as one such example as it contains many sakhis that deal with the invasions of Nadir Shah etc. 
 

If I remember it correctly both the Chibbar writers quote this verse in a context of the Khalsa having to destroy their enemies. Also followed by the Sagal malech karo ranghata 

Durgas forces

Nihangs are mentioned as the warriors of Durga in one of the Chandi banis in Dasam Granth.  Current day nihangs use this reference to trace their history back into primordial time. 

Nihangs are mentioned as the warriors of Durga in one of the Chandi banis in Dasam Granth.  Current day nihangs use this reference to trace their history back into primordial time.