Gurbani Grammar

[navjot2]

Hi

can someone clearly and simply elaborate on the Gurbani Grammar rules? what do the u, i etc mean?

please let me know hwo you know also.

[navjot2]

shall i take it that none of you know?

[shaheediyan]

Here you go - A-Z history of modern Viakaran.

The reason you have not received an enthusiastic response here is because this website is 'largely' made up of members who subscribe to puratan traditions i.e. Nihang, Nirmala, Taksali etc. None of the puratan sampryada agree with this new concept of a standardised Gurbani rules framework.

AKJ are the main takers - due to Bhasuria and later Bhai Randhir Singh promotion of this opinion. You are better off searching this topic on the Tapoban forum.

Hope this helps.

http://www.panthic.org/news/129/ARTICLE/1305/2005-05-08.html

Section 4 - Linguistic Studies

A - Gurbani Grammars

Introduction

From a linguistic perspective, Sri Guru Granth Sahib is an ocean of medieval Punjabi and Hindi dialect forms, and loanwords from Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit languages, as tadbhav (localized forms) and tatsam (original) terms. For a linguist who studies the history and origin of the Punjabi language, Sri Guru Granth Sahib is the primary resource. Meanwhile, our intentions are somewhat different. Being students of Gurbani, our main purpose of understanding the language is to comprehend, or at least try to comprehend Guru's Words and Teachings in a proper way.

In this part of the Bibliography, we will present works dealing with the language of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. In the past century, a great number of writings on the 'Sikh Sacred Language' have been prepared; however, as still is the situation, the Sikhs at large lack the understanding of this language.

Studies

Before we take a look at the serious studies in the field, we may mention the two special works written by Western scholars. Dr Ernest Trumpp, a German linguist who studied Indian languages and literature, tried to translate Sri Guru Granth Sahib, publishing the incomplete translation in 1877. According to Dr Harnam Singh Shan, the author of 'Guru Granth Sahib di Koshkari', Trumpp had prepared a grammar of the Gurbani before he started on the translation. However, no such work has yet been published and if the book does exist then it is the first attempt by any writer to construct a grammar of the 'Sikh Sacred Language'. Dr Shan located a manuscript titled 'Grammar to the Adi Granth', Dr Ernest Trumpp, 1873 at the State Library Munich, stored under the reference MSS.NO.Cod.Panj.3.

The second Western scholar who has written a work on what he calls the 'Sacred Language of the Sikhs' is Christopher Shackle, at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. His books is more like the modern language learning books and gives the reader tutorials and exercises in the Gurmukhi script, besides the grammar and includes selected readings. Along with 'A Guru Nanak glossary' (1981), Shackle's books are prescribed to western students of Sikhism, who have no initial knowledge of the Punjabi language and script. The book will also be helpful for some of our readers who do not understand the difficult Punjabi used in Punjabi Vyakarans, and in many ways this is the only alternative for understanding Gurbani language, without actually learning the special terminology of the Punjabi grammarians.

Among the Sikh scholars, Principal Teja Singh (1922) and Prof. Sahib Singh (1932) pioneered the field of Gurbani linguistics. The core of Principal Teja Singh's 'Shabadãtar Lagã-Matrã de Gujje Bhed' is that the importance of Gurmukhi vowels (sehari, behari, aunkar, etc) is as the tools for interpreting the Shabad-vaak. The work had immense popularity among Panthic scholars and had a great affect on the standardized printing of Sri Guru Granth Sahib by the SGPC, as the Shabadarth was normalized according to the rules found in this book. Thirty years after Teja Singh Ji, Bhai Randhir Singh Ji wrote a similar work that supported the view that vowels are in fact interpretive tools. However, there is a differentiation of thought between Bhai Randhir Singh and Principal Teja Singh. In the foreword of 'Gurbani dian Lagã-Matrã di Vilakhanta', the publisher, Giani Nahar Singh says: "The main purpose of this book is [to highlight] that Gurbani Shabads can have only one meaning. The functional placing of Lagã-Matrãs makes this clear."

Meanwhile, Prof. Sahib Singh went on to produce a full-fledged grammar of Gurbani, published in 1932. Initially, sections of the Panth did not accept the Gurbani Vyakaran as an authentic grammar; however as linguistics and modern scholars saw the value of this work, Prof Sahib Singh started to be called the 'Panini of the Sikhs' (Panini being the first person to construct a Sanskrit grammar). It should be noted that the grammarians Sahib Singh and Teja Singh, and Bhai Randhir Singh agreed upon the 'one-meaning' interpretation of Gurbani. This front consisting of modern linguists and Panthic scholars stood against the traditional views that Gurbani was not written according to any grammatical rules, and that there were endless meanings that must remain oral and not be published as written commentaries.

Another work from this era is 'Sri Guru Vyakaran Panchain' by Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha, published in 1945. The book is no longer published, and old copies are only available at specific Sikh Sahit libraries.

The next period starts from after 1975, when new debates arise in the Panth, specially related to the correct pronunciation of Gurbani and the logical justification of the practise through the authentic grammar. The works produced in the debate would be presented in the next part of this Bibliography; however we must mention some authors who have given us new linguistic insights of Gurbani.

Dr Harkeerat Singh, a famous Punjabi linguist and student of Prof. Sahib Singh prepared a work titled 'Gurbani di Bhasha te Vyakaran', published by Punjabi University, Patiala in 1997. The author says that this book is meant as a supplement to the grammar written by Prof. Sahib Singh. New linguistic discoveries had appeared in the past forty-fifty years, and some of the assumptions made by the first grammarians of Gurbani were no longer relevant. Thus, Dr Harkeerat Singh presents us a highly linguistic view on the evolution of the Gurbani language from its roots in the Prakrit, to the development of Apabhrãsha. The main focus of the book is on the sound and pronunciation, and the discussion around the specimens of Punjabi dialects and tadbhav-tatsam forms. He has also given a linguistic understanding of the Gurmukhi vowels and moved away from the views of former grammarians that vowels only appear as interpretive tools. The evolutionary theory presented says that the existence of every vowel or sign in Gurbani is reasoned in the linguistic development in the Punjab.

Other scholars, such as Giani Harbans Singh 'Nirnaykar' still hold on to the grammarian thoughts of Prof. Sahib Singh, Teja Singh and Principal Harbhajan Singh, Sikh Missionary College, Amritsar. In his book 'Navin Gurbani Vyakaran' (2000), Giani Harbans Singh criticizes Harkeerat Singh, especially on his views regarding Gurbani pronunciation.

A short booklet titled 'Gurbani Vyakaran de Saral Nem', published by Sikh Missionary College (Ludhiana), presents an outline of various grammatical forms found in Gurbani.

Meanwhile, the greatest effort in the field of Gurbani grammar in recent years has been made by Bhai Joginder Singh Ji 'Talwara'. His 'Gurbani da Saral Vyakaran-Bodh' (two parts), published posthumously in April 2004 as volume three of 'Shri Guru Granth Sahib Bodh' forms more than 800 pages. The extensive study done by Bhai Sahib is nothing less than an encyclopedia of Gurbani language. Every thinkable aspect of the 'Sikh Sacred Language' has been commented. Gurbani language, script, sounds, morphology (as word formation), and other aspects of the grammar have been dealt with.

Bhai Joginder Singh Ji says that he is not a linguist, nor a grammarian, only a devoted student of Gurbani. However, this is also the strength of his work. Keeping in mind that his readers would be normal students of Gurbani who may not know grammatical and linguist terms, he gives clear definitions and formulations before the start of every new section of the book. Interestingly, the first part of the volume has three appendixes, where the first includes a list of 465 combined-terms found in Gurbani that scholars have not yet been able to separate. The author has given the Pad-Ched of such terms according to the grammar, with meanings of each related Shabad in one column. Another appendix has a glossary of Arabic and Persian terms found in Gurbani. All this makes Bhai Joginder Singh Ji's work the nearly perfect reference grammar of Gurbani. Its easy, yet beautiful and equally systematic design and layout brings out the best in Gurmukhi and Punjabi printing.

Works Cited

Gurbani Vyakaran de Saral Nem. Ludhiana: Sikh Missionary College.

Harbans Singh 'Nirnaykar', Giani. Navin Gurbani Vyakaran. Chandigarh: Gurmat Nirnay Bhavan, 2000.

Harkeerat Singh, Dr. Gurbani di Bhasha te Vyakaran. Patiala: Punjabi University, 1997.

Joginder Singh Talwara, Giani. Gurbani da Saral Vyakaran-Bodh. (2 vols). Amritsar: Singh Brothers, 2004.

Kartar Singh Dakha, Pandit. Sri Guru Vyakaran Panchain. Pub. author, 1945.

Randhir Singh, Bhai Sahib. Gurbani dian Lagã-Matrã di Vilakhanta. 3rd ed. Ludhiana: Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Trust, 2003.

Sahib Singh, Prof. Gurbani Vyakaran. Amritsar: Singh Brothers, 1932.

Shackle, Christopher. An introduction to the sacred language of the Sikhs. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1983.

Teja Singh, Principal. Shabadãtar Lagã-Matrã de Gujje Bhed. Amritsar: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandak Committee, 1922.

Trumpp, Dr Ernest. "Grammar to the Adi Granth" 1873. Manuscript located by Dr Harnam Singh Shan at State University Munich under reference number MSS.NO.Cod.Panj.3.

Next Week: Section 4 - Linguistic studies

B - Studies of Gurbani pronunciation (ucharan)

[SAadmin]

If you want to know about vikyaran rules, read - dr harkirat singh's book on vikayaran. But don't consider them as fool proof or gospel truth. Dr Harkirat singh being student of prof sahib singh himself found many faults in prof sahib singh vikayaran rules. He himself claims its hard to bind gurbani with vikayaran rules.

I actually came to conclusion with having vichar with many senior gurmukhs, even though bhramgyani does not need to have vikayaran in mind when explaining tat gyan of certain shabad, naturally it will not go against vikayaran rules created by guru maharaj themselves. It's true that gurbani meaning cannot be bound to just grammar because its dhur ki bani but it also true that dhur ki bani was expressed in form of grammar.

I don't think its right to say that you don't need vikayaran to understand basic teachings of gurbani, its like saying you don't need english grammar to understand poetry of english. It goes hand in hand, the main problem is not vikayaran/grammar but the main problem is in the past, scholars have to tried to bind gurbani with soo called vikayaran rules which were inconsistent with gurbani itself. These so called vikayaran/grammar rules were refuted by many mahapursh ie- sant gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale. The vikayaran set full proof rules are still yet to be discovered, can be only discovered by Guru's grace. In order to discover it, this jiv surti's have to reach the level of guru's state when dhur ki bani was expressed in form of grammar by guru's themselves. Frankly, no one has reached that level nor there is any need to reach that level, one cannot compare themselves with guru's state, that's why many mahapursh don't pay much need to do khoj of vikayaran rules or vikayaran modern rules but rather gives tat gyan of shabad(main thing) to jaigaso so they can reflect on the shabad. I mean main aim of life is to do abhyaas of gurbani. Whilst, we should encourage khoj of gurbani, there is certainly no need for everyone to start psycho analysis gurbani based on individual understanding of vikayaran. In the past people have tried to use vikayaran rules but failed and will continue to fail if they keep using their matt.

[Mithar]

Brother Navjot I would suggest you get Prof Sahib Singhs book about Gurbani Viakaran and read it's introduction for a better understanding on the topic because I'm afraid none of us know about this topic. All we can do is just present our opinions which would not do justice to the topic. If I get the time I will scan it for you and post it here with the mods permission.

[Mithar]

It seems when we want to destroy the reputation of anything or anyone we will attempt to link it or him with RSS or Bhasourias. Sadly this type of thinking is preventing us from thinking independently for fear of being labelled and thus closing our minds to potential truths.

FACT: Gurbani Viakaran has NOTHING to do with Bhasourias. Bhasourias have never done any arths in accordance to Viakaran (in their literature) nor have they ever claim to do so. Neither have they ever mentioned Viakaran in any of their books. Bhai Randhir Singh discovered viakaran independently while in jail as mentioned in his book about Gurbani Viakaran.

Harkirat Singh did not dispute Sahib Singh based on any Viakaran rules. He had a difference of opinion with Sahib Singh based on pronunciation of words. For example, Sahib Singh was of the opinion that Visheshdhuni should be pronounced where needed, where as Harkirat Singh disagrees based on his understanding of Saraiki and other dialects of Punjabi. This has nothing to do with Viakaran but ONLY pronunciation.

[SAadmin]

Mithar veer, i can get you the source if this is documented but according to singhs who are fond of dr harkirat singh, they said, dr harkirat singh didn't agree with prof sahib singh approach with vikayaran niyams. For eg: Vikaayaran niyam explained by prof sahib singh does not apply to some parts in bhagat bani because some parts in bhagata bani rachna is written in marathi basha in sri guru granth sahib ji, because each language has their own grammar, also sidhant of vikayaran prof sahib used in japj sahib, same sidhant of vikayaran couldn't apply in rehras sahib consistently. There are even diversity within vikayaran interpertation of gurbani as article suggests.

[Silence]

Here you go - A-Z history of modern Viakaran.

The reason you have not received an enthusiastic response here is because this website is 'largely' made up of members who subscribe to puratan traditions i.e. Nihang, Nirmala, Taksali etc. None of the puratan sampryada agree with this new concept of a standardised Gurbani rules framework.

AKJ are the main takers - due to Bhasuria and later Bhai Randhir Singh promotion of this opinion. You are better off searching this topic on the Tapoban forum.

I strongly object to your linking of Akhand Keertani Jatha beliefs and Bhasuria, Bhai Sahib quite clearly broke off from him once he was excommunicated.

[shaheediyan]

I apologise if you are offended. I have respect for Bhai Randhir Singh, he did eventually break off with Bhasuria but I do believe he was clearly influenced by him - which is evident in a number of AKJ practices and beliefs i.e. raagmala, keski, implanting gurmantar etc.

But to the main point, I have no conclusive evidence that Bhasuria inspired Bhai Randhir Singhs Gurbani Grammar theory, so I openly apologise for that.

Sorry.

[navjot2]

Hi, thank you all for your kind input.

i used to read tapoban but i couldnt see any *consistency* in their logic. now that it has been explained that Prof Sahib Singh couldnt find any consistent rules either i understand why. i know his 'darpan' text is online but couldnt find anywhere his viakaran essay. Is Randhir Singh's view/explanation similar to Prof Sahib or different? I take it that Prof Harkirat Singh also couldnt explain a consistent logic to this?

I just think that if there is a grammatical rule to these letters it should be wholly consistent to be accepted as underlying , therefore be explainable in one sentence. it should not take a whole book!

i have tried a few approaches, both others and my own ideas, but couldnt find any consistency in them. i do appreciate that we shouldnt be distracted/waylead and that a holy person may be able to explain a salok without understanding the rules either.

what incidenctally is the view of the purataan traditions on these suffixes like 'u' and 'i'? are they silent on the matter?

[SAadmin]

In the past, people have over-emphasized on vikayaran(grammar) of gurbani but clearly as soon as one surti start doing abhyaas in baikhari bani, madhma, pasanti and finally para bani and then anhad shabad. One start getting anubhavi gyan arths of gurbani because surti is directly in touch with the source - dhur ki bani which is anadi, agami, aad, bodh before dhur ki bani was expressed in grammar and after. Gurbani supports meta reality so those anubhavi arths one may get could be relative to each surti's. For eg- One may realize sachkhand being an place like baikhunt where all the gurmukhs meditate on his name more sargun based, or one may realize sachkhand being sarabvyapaki, sun smadhi state based on the surti attune more towards anubhavi agad bodh of nirgun.

[drawrof]

Hello Folks, I will contribute here by addressing some issues brought for by my younger brother N30.

I actually came to conclusion with having vichar with many senior gurmukhs, even though bhramgyani does not need to have vikayaran in mind when explaining tat gyan of certain shabad, naturally it will not go against vikayaran rules created by guru maharaj themselves.

There are 2 suppositions here that are brought forth. Firstly, There is a supposition that viakaran was created by the gurus. Secondly, It is assumed that a ‘brahm gyani’ would naturally not go against these rules……is the postulate being brought forth that viakaran is somehow ‘mystical’ or ‘sacred’?

It's true that gurbani meaning cannot be bound to just grammar because its dhur ki bani but it also true that dhur ki bani was expressed in form of grammar.

Again, dhur ki bani…..what is meant by this? Does bani mean gurbani? Does it mean a the primal sound and its emanation? Does it refer to the state/stature of braham (ie. Baan, where N is a naana)?

I don't think its right to say that you don't need vikayaran to understand basic teachings of gurbani, its like saying you don't need english grammar to understand poetry of english. It goes hand in hand, the main problem is not vikayaran/grammar but the main problem is in the past, scholars have to tried to bind gurbani with soo called vikayaran rules which were inconsistent with gurbani itself. These so called vikayaran/grammar rules were refuted by many mahapursh ie- sant gurbachan singh ji bhindranwale.

I see viakaran as a means to codify gurbani. For one to assume that one can understand or experience a sublime state via codified linguistics is a bit far fetched, but to say that a mahapurash (who we would not know is one or not unless we are ones ourself or have had experiences to make us believe so or have faith that they are or someone we have faith in believes that they are) also has its flaws. Kirpa/gurparsad is greater and beyond all means we use to try to connect with the higher source. Having kirpa in itself does not mean that the fine subtleties are mastered, although you are a walking-living example of the essence.

The vikayaran set full proof rules are still yet to be discovered, can be only discovered by Guru's grace.

Yes, if they need to be discovered and a great blanket statement that can be applied to everything

In order to discover it, this jiv surti's have to reach the level of guru's state when dhur ki bani was expressed in form of grammar by guru's themselves.

Again, there are pothi’s with gurbani that aren’t standard and can’t be used as a definitive standard because the grammar (per se) is not coherent with other such pothis. I also wonder at times whether bani is referring to the words of gurbani or whether it is referring to the state or experience of god/parmeshwar that is being experienced.

Frankly, no one has reached that level nor there is any need to reach that level, one cannot compare themselves with guru's state, that's why many mahapursh don't pay much need to do khoj of vikayaran rules or vikayaran modern rules but rather gives tat gyan of shabad(main thing) to jaigaso so they can reflect on the shabad. I mean main aim of life is to do abhyaas of gurbani. Whilst, we should encourage khoj of gurbani, there is certainly no need for everyone to start psycho analysis gurbani based on individual understanding of vikayaran. In the past people have tried to use vikayaran rules but failed and will continue to fail if they keep using their matt.

I know the essence of n30’s points come down to this last paragraph and I do agree with his main point

[shaheediyan]

Well the real question comes down to whether there should be a standardised understanding/translation of 'Gur-vaak'.

Personally, I don't see why people need to reinvent the wheel - and those that do (most), in my opinion, do so because they are seeking a means to reinterpret Sri Guru Granth Sahib because the puratan understanding conflicts with their reformist (modern) understanding.

The older educational granths like the Faridkot Teeka, represent the traditional interpretation - whilst the modern works presented above - represent brand new intrpretations using scientific technique (linguistic and language).

Both exist, it's for individuals to choose whether they follow established or reformist views - the key is to know that the two exist and not be under the impression that the new ideas are the old ones (as some would have us believe).

[drawrof]

I'd like to agreee with Shaheediyan here.

Although I am of the firm belief that words in themselves take on a different contextualised meaning depending on the receiver of the message. For instance, Maya and its form/nuances/ontological position will differ depending on whether you talk to a vaishnu or shaiv (these 2 being used to describe 2 polar generic stances in a larger spectrum).

Shaheediyan, I agree with you about faridkotee teeka, but I'm interested in why you chose that specific teeka to be a signifier of a traditional exegesis?

Thanks in advance

[shaheediyan]

Purely because Faridkot teeka (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji steek) was the first complete commentry on Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. As far as I am aware, previous steeks existed only at individual bani level i.e. Japji Sahib. And this is the steek that many of the older academic/sant orders refer to, including many modern day Sants from established Sampryada. It was created with the input and agreement of many prominent members of the old Sikh orders and in my opinion, therefore relfects old thought. Revisionist interpretations were created (starting from Mr Trumpp) because they were not fans of Vedantic conceptus.

[Mithar]

Well the real question comes down to whether there should be a standardised understanding/translation of 'Gur-vaak'.

Personally, I don't see why people need to reinvent the wheel - and those that do (most), in my opinion, do so because they are seeking a means to reinterpret Sri Guru Granth Sahib because the puratan understanding conflicts with their reformist (modern) understanding.

The older educational granths like the Faridkot Teeka, represent the traditional interpretation - whilst the modern works presented above - represent brand new intrpretations using scientific technique (linguistic and language).

Both exist, it's for individuals to choose whether they follow established or reformist views - the key is to know that the two exist and not be under the impression that the new ideas are the old ones (as some would have us believe).

Your understanding of Gurbani Viakaran is incorrect. They are not reinventing anything neither are they reinterpreting anything because it supposedly conflicts with their "reformist" or "modern" understanding. Older does not equate to being better. This type of arguement is a common fallacy called argumentum ad antiquetatum where one appeals to tradition or history. Just because something is older does not mean it is more pure or better. argumentum ad antiquetatum seems to be the current trend going around on Sikh discussion forums.

Ironically Kala Afghanists never use Gurbani Viakaran since it conflicts with their interpretation. They use the same method of interpretation as the more "traditional" Sikhs where they interpret a tukh based solely on the meaning of the words rather than Grammer.

According to the view of people who beleive in Gurbani Viakaran is that Gurbani Viakaran was not invented but discovered. Just as serious students of the Quran are taught it's grammer amongst other things and Hindus are taught Sanskrit grammer, a Buddhist will learn Pali grammer, then why should be seem strange for Sikhs wanting to learn Gurbani grammer to understand it better? If Viakaran was discovered by a Singh with Sant infront of his name would it make it appear less "modern" looking to you?

[shaheediyan]

To discover something, it must have already existed. There is no proof that it did, hence in my opinion, it was invented.

Rest is matter of personal bias and opinion (I have mine).

And no, 'Sant' does not necessarily equal correct, not in my book anyway.

[Silence]

I apologise if you are offended. I have respect for Bhai Randhir Singh, he did eventually break off with Bhasuria but I do believe he was clearly influenced by him - which is evident in a number of AKJ practices and beliefs i.e. raagmala, keski, implanting gurmantar etc.

But to the main point, I have no conclusive evidence that Bhasuria inspired Bhai Randhir Singhs Gurbani Grammar theory, so I openly apologise for that.

Sorry.

[navjot2]

????

woah there! what planet are you lot on?

let me clarify I am not talking about interpretating the Gurbani, I am only talking about the grammar structures.

there is clearly something to these suffixes 'aunkar' 'siharee' and 'kanna'. so we have word vaiations like naamu naami, Nanaku, Nanaki, sachu. obviously there must be some kind of rationale behind them. why else would they be there? Why say 'Nanak' in one sentence and 'Nanaku' in another?

are you guys saying they are just random unexplainable occurances? why? it just seems like we are making excuses for not understanding it.

alot of Gurbani is about imparting knowledge/INSTRUCTION to the ignorant. we cant just say that it is all above understanding.

im baffled why only modern schools picked up on it. they would say perhaps the knowledge was lost at some point in history.

im sorry but if neither modern nor the known traditional schools can explain these rules then they are equally invalidated as ways of approaching SGGS. If such a basic structure has not even been understood then who would write a teeka? terrible.

its like saying dont bother to understand any of the vocabularly because you will only understand by Gurus Grace. although that is probably also true it is still wholly impractable. Next you will be saying dont bother learning Gurbani akhars (letters) !