Keerat Singh

You will find a teacher at Jawaadi Taksal which now forms part of Ludhiana. 

If you can travel to Jalandhar, learn from Bhai Shaminderpal Singh ji. 

Just to add to this discussion as Bhai Mani Singh ji is mentioned, please look at Gurbani Path Darpan by Mahant Surjit Singh from the Sato Gali Taksal. They do pronounce words in accordance with the language they come from. For example masakat is pronounced with sasa pair bindi. Furthermore adak is pronounced in the word. In the Damdami Taksal equivalent, adak is also pronounced. 

I do not believe all unkars and sihari are pronounced. A deeper understanding of the language is needed when it comes to pronunciation. Languages change and develop over time, as we have seen with the entrance of lala pair bindi in Punjabi, this has been introduced in order to preserve the correct pronunciation of words.  

You need to speak to the Mahant for Darshan. I dont know what the current Mahant is like, but previously you would need to speak to the Mahant. 

The title "guru was given to all teachers. For example even today, you would refer to your music teacher as "Guru". My understanding after meeting Mahant ji  many years ago, they do not accept Ram Rai had a separate Gaddi as satguru, but he was seen as the Vidya Guru of the Mahants and therefore the title Guru continued. You will note that the first Mahant does not have the title Guru but Sri Mahant. They also believe in Guru Gobind Singh ji who came and killed the bad Mahants. The Karhaa where the Mahants were killed and hole created to call each Mahant to the place Guru Gobind Singh was, is kept by the Mahants. There was land dispute going off years ago, I do not know if they still have control off that section. 

From their website it does not look like the current Mahant has changed the above view.    

Guru Gobind Singh ji appointed a Mahant to do seva  at Anandpur Sahib when they left. A Mahant in charge of a Gurdwara is nothing new. 

I have met Sri Mahant Indiresh Charan Dass ji. A great Sadhu with lots of gian. 

I have been to the dera aswell. The Dera has two handwritten saroops. One is the saroop taken by Ram Rai to Delhi from which Aurangzeb raised the meaning of the shabad Mithi Musalman kee. 

If you are from a samparda background, you wont see anything anti Sikhi at the dera.

Just to add to this discussion. My teacher has told me that the Bhai Mardana Rabab was at Patna in Bihar. Unfortunately the instrument was burnt with other relics in 1984. However he describes the instrument as being very small/folk type of Rabab. Like Tsingh stated, there seems to have been an evolution in the type of Rabab being played from the 1st to the 5/6 guru. Maharaj kirpa an attempt will be made to make a copy of the instrument. 

It is uttam purakh.

Another point which those who adhere to Gurbani Viakaran fail to mention is that nearly all of Guru Tegh Bahadur jis shabads to do not follow the rules of Vaikaran. 

the main reason people are against Raag Mala is because they say it does not follow Gurbani Viakaran. Such an argument has no weight.  

Was there meant to be one maryada as presented by the SGPC and advocated by all samparda? Everyone claims their maryada is the correct one. 

If an udasi could have been left with control of Sri Anandpur Sahib when Guru Gobind Singh ji left, Sevapanthi samparda flourished at the same time as did the Nirmala's, it makes one think whether the guru intended for their to be one maryada as the SGPC are trying to implement. 

Jin tu jata so grisht udasi parvan. 

Parvangee is not within our hands or the SGPC.   

Two separate maryada is accepted as being parvan in the shabad above, unity I believe will come in finding common ground and accepting differences in our paths.  

Viakaran uses spellings to explain how gurbani should be translated and pronounced . 

The word Ramdas comes in gurbani to refer to Guru Ram das ji, sect Ramdas and also the servants of Rab ji. 

The spellings of Ramdas 

Ramdas Sarovar nate - There us no unkar under Ramdas 

Jogi Jati Basino Ramdas - There is no unkar under Ramdas (this is referring to the followers of Ramdas)

Ramdas Sodhu Tilak deeya - there is no unkar under Ramdas (this is referring to Guru Ramdas ji)

Why is it that these three words have different meanings, yet all three has the same spellings? Viakaran will not provide the answer. 

People who follow vaikaran say that Ramdas sarovar nate does not refer to the Guru Ram Das, they say it refers to the lords servant. But if you look at the shabads which refer to the lords servant, they have an unkar under the sasa. For example:

Asee jugat Nanak Ramdas - Such is the way, O Nanak, of the Lords Servant. 

If Ramdas sarovar nate was to mean the Lords servant, surely it would be spelt the same as the above shabad. But it is not. People who follow Viakaran do not believe that by bathing in Ramdas sarovar, sins are erased. They therefore do not follow the trend in shabads which have an unkar under which refers to the Lords servant. 

It gets even more confusing, the following shabad has an unkar under, but it refers to Guru Ramdas ji,

Sohe Ramdas gur bal, bhan mil sangat than than karo. 

Why does this shabad have an unkar under? There is other shabads by the Bhatts referring to Guru Ramdas ji with an unkar under. Viakaran provides no answers for this. There is no set spellings for the word Ramdas which would indicate what the meaning is for each shabad with the word Ramdas. 

Again I will say do not dismiss viakaran. However those people who do not believe in Raag mala just because it does not fit with viakaran will have a hard time explaining shabads which do not fit with the rules of viakaran. Rab ji is not bound by limits, therefore viakaran has been left with flaws intentionally by the guru. After reading vaikaran, you may learn rules of grammar, however in order to understand what maharaj is saying, eventually you will have to seek guidance from samparda arath. If you don't you will not find any achievement in your spiritual journey. This is the conclusion I have come to. 

One example I can give where Prof Sahib Singh clearly says that viakaran does not always work is the note he writes in Jap ji Sahib on the line ahran mat, ved hateyar. 

According to viakaran, where ved has an ankar under the dada, the meaning is singular meaning knowledge. But Prof Sahib Singh admits that where the word comes as singular it does not necessary mean the arath do not refer to the veda or Religious books.  He clearly writes that you have to consider the on going shabad and meaning behind it.

There are many other examples. Atleast Prof Sahib Singh was honest enough to admit this. Today's missionsary paracharks are hiding this fact, knowing full well tha Samparda parcharak who dismiss viakaran wont catch the flaws in viakaran. 

Most the teeka's have given similar araths. 

I think maharaj is talking of events which are taking place rather than signs of things to come. 

If you take the pangti together then it seems men are continuing to do their moorakta, (hunting can mean plundering, murdering or even hunting for maya), women have joined in and have become advisers in such durmat.  

There is nothing negative in the comment women have become advisors, its only when we take the whole shabad together we can try to make sense of it. 

 This is one potential arath. It will be nice to see how others understand this shabad. 

Sant Gyani Mehar Singh who has been a big inspiration to me has told his students the same as sant Ishar Singh. I can't say whether Sant Baba Jwala Singh ji did the same but my family and others associated with them all used to say that for one year abyaas was important. 

I agree with Paji especially about the sacrifice of the mind, body, soul etc. not everyone is the same, but sometimes jumping head first leads to a lot problems later.  Amrit is pavittar and has a lot of shakti. Unfortunately often there is no abhyaas before Amrit and none after either

Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa 

Waheguru ji ki Fateh

Below is an interview and performance by my vidya Guru, Somjit Dasgupta. Ill post some more videos soon with other instruments such as Sarod and Sursringar .  

If you look at some of the ithaasic sakhia in the Guru granth sahib and match them to the dates they occured, i think some serious questions will arise how some of the bhagats could have met the gurus.

For example look at the shabads of Bhagat Kabir jee and Bhagat Naamdev jee when the kings of their time tried to kill them.

Also Bhagats like Jaidev jee have their own ithaasic sakhia. Look at who was the raja during that period. I dont understand how the Meharbaan Janamsakhi is mentioning the meeting between guru jee and Bhagat jee.

Bhai Gurdas jee does mention the bhagat's and does there ustat in his vaaran. So it is plausible he would have clarified if they became sikhs. IF they did become Sikhs then are you suggesting the bani guru jee collected was prior to their conversion? Does that mean they had reached brahmgian avastha and recited dhur ki bani before guru jee reached them? Why then become Sikhs? Similarly Sain Mian Mir avastha is such that he would enter Sachkhand, however we did not find the need to convert him into a Sikh.

Ive not read any evidence that Baba Farid Shakarganj did not write the shabads and sholak contained in guru granth sahib. Opinions have been expressed from various writers so far. Does his bani suggest he became a Sikh? the following shabad suggests not: Bai namaji kutia

What if the reality is that we will never know exactly what happened based on contemporary and near contemporary accounts. Why is it that some people can live without knowing every last detail, whilst others start throwing around accusations of lack of faith when someone doesn't fully accept the traditional narrative?

Strange phenomena. Causes even more tension for no reason.

You make a real good point about never knowing. Unless you are some Brahmgiani ofcourse. We have quite a few of them around . Only joking.

It works the other way aswell. Those who accept the traditional narrative are accused of being followers of Bipran kee Reet or Kalka fauj. Amrit kisi Chooha nu vini jeenda kar sakda is what is often heard amongst certain groups. Two extremes on both sides.

Even so, given the epochal nature of 1699, it is surprising they didn't go into more detail. Kankan say "5 Sikhs were asked for".

If the 5 were taken into tents then only they and Guru ji really know what happened, what makes me laugh is when people today talk as if they actually witnessed the day itself.

I don't know what the big fuss is about myself. All accounts seem to point at 5 people being chosen. Amrit being given with a khanda. Keeping of kesh and weapons and following some injunctions especially in terms of avoiding certain schismatic groups. Goats or no goats, it doesn't change the test and the fact that they came forward not knowing what was to happen to them. A test of loyalty, bravery, conviction etc.

As Humans I think we have the urge to know what happened. You make a good point about it just being a fuss. Its so true, they didnt know what was going to happen. But some people have the belief that if guru jee said something, their bachan is ataal and therefore only the heads of the panj piyari and not goats could be taken off. From that point of view its something to argue about. Jo gur kahai soee bhaal manoo.

No problem, it was a simple misunderstanding on my part. No one really considers the opinions of those people you mention seriously so lets leave them out of it. I don't think they represent any 'majority' view or even scholarship based on a 'majority' of sources.

Fair enough, but it is pretty surprising that even people like Kavi Kankan, Sainpati, Sewa Das don't explicitly mention what happened in 1699 in the way we understand it today. What shocked me most was that even Bhangu, writing in the early 1800s doesn't.

Kavi kankan seems to repeat the story of worshiping devi on the eve of creating the Khalsa. What I recall of his mentioning of 1699 didn't go into lots of detail. Do you have his work so you can share it with us? I've attached the small portion I have to this post.

Personally I'm not accepting the account by Abul Turrani until it's provenance is properly established. Seeing as a number of people have contacted Aligarh uni about it with no success, I remain unconvinced about it until further evidence emerges.

The thing is some historical events are written in short cut. So we dont really know what Kavi Kankan, Sainapati etc point of view is. Maybe its because its written in poetry. A good example is Guru Nanak Dev jees visit to Mecca which Bhai Gurdas jee refers to. However he only refers to the story of the kabba moving when guru jees legs were moved. There is alot more that happened. For example the second time guru jee returned to Mecca the Muslims were doubting Guru jees shakti and guru jee once again showed another kautik. Another example is the Shahidi of a Muslim Mullah of Mecca who became a follower of Guru Nanak Dev jee. He was eventually killed for becoming a faqir and singing Guru Nanak Dev jees praises. Maybe this is the reason no one converted to Sikhi in Arabia and Middle East, because they were to busy killing the ones who did. There is a really good book I got from a sant in Moga written by a Muslim who converted to Sikhism in the 40s. He met a Muslim faqir who had darshan of Guru Nanak Dev jee 500 years ago. From hearing the Kautik of guru jee from the Faqqir the muslim became a Sikh.

The Devi/devti becoming pargat is normally in ithaas and gurbani. Gurar becoming pargat in Bhagat jees bani, Hanuman pargat in Sri Lanka when Guru Nanak Dev jee was there etc is all part of ithaas. Ive been taught and mahapursh of Jabbar, Harkowal always used to teach that Devi/Devti served the guru. They do what ever the guru told them. I dont know their position now. However obviously this is not everyones cup of tea. so until recently the idea of Devi becoming pargat was normal. Maybe the Nirmala belief is the same. But its a regular occurance in our ithasic granths.

Personally Im convinced from Sri Guru Khata. Even though no one seems to have seen Abul Turrani's account, at the moment im not willing to say it dont exist. But lets say it does exist...Sri Guru Khata and Abul Turrani will be two eye witness acounts which contradict each other.

Quite interesting ,so no other sikhs became shahhed at Delhi along with Guru tegh bahadur ji.What I don't understand is then why we need those fake saakhi's if they didn't become shaheed at Delhi.

Lol. Ithasic Granths might not mention it but the Sikhs of Jassa Singh Ahluwalia's time believed they became shahid. Otherwise why construct the places in memory of them in Delhi. I think things which have been passsed down Seena Baseena is important and can still be considered. Most of the historical granths were also written in accordance with seena baseena tradition anyway.

Well what can I say?

You want to talk disrespectfully throwing the word 'vidwaan' about sarcastically, is it worth it?

In the end you have to face the fact that historical sources themselves don't support the black and white interpretation of Sikh itihaas you are espousing.You can take that however you want.

So if I (or anyone else) don't share your perspective, it shouldn't really come as a big shock to you.

It isn't worth people here acting like they have some magic ability to time travel and talk with absolute authority on what happened in the past.

I was talking about the majaority vote and how this can be dangerous, however I was not directing the vidvaan thing to you. I was referring to people like Ghagga, Kala Afghana and Dilgeer who pick one story from a ithaasic granth and then use that udharan for their own agenda against roohani shakti. I was referring sarcastically to such people which ive misdirected. Like I was saying the example of Bhai Diyala, Bhai Sati Das and Mati Das will be used when they catch onto this. After all they believe guru jee had no roohani shakti, so how could their Sikhs have any? So Giani Gian Singh being a nirmala will be to blame for all this being apart of history. I did not mean to offend you. Nor was i intending to point this towards you. I apologise for the offence created.

In fact im saying that historical sources are not black and white. The Kalgi being given to either Sant Singh or Bhai Jeevan Singh jee is a good example. However I dont believe the majority vote is the right answer and surely contemporary sources have to be taken seriously. Kavi Kankan comments on Chamkaur Sahib and Bhai Jaita for example. But in relation 1699 I dont understand why it took so many years for any ithass to mention the goats.

Sri Guru Khata is an interesting read regadless. If this Abul Turrani account exists in India then its different from the account of Bhai Jaita which is quite intersting.

It is also worth looking at Bhai Nand lal jees bani and how different sections are written in different styles. You cant conclude that the Ghazaals and Rehitnama are written by different people because the style is different. You will find the same in Sri Guru Khata. For example Amrit Bidh which I assume is what was scanned online and you read is totally different to Ustat or the first Swayaai for that matter.