Jump to content

Very Interesting Critique Of Sgpc Rehat Maryada By Taksaal


dalsingh101
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/13/2017 at 3:13 AM, paapiman said:

What do you mean by, his views are quite clear? Mahakavi Santokh Singh jee never said that Sri Raagmala Sahib jee is not Gurbani. He was not sure about it. He said it is either Guru-Krit or Sikh-Krit. He was misinformed by Sobha Singh (who in turn was also misguided by a British agent by the name of Chetan Das).

 

Bhul chuk maaf

He said it wasn't Guru-kit.

 

ਲਿਖੇ ਸਮਸਤ ਸਵੈਯੇ ਸੋਅੂ, ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕੇ ਮਾਂਹਿ ।
ਅੰਤ ਸਰਬ ਕੇ ਲਿਖਿ ਮੁੰਦਾਵਣੀ, ਮੁੰਦ੍ਰਿਤ ਮੁਹਰ ਲਗੀ ਜਨੁ ਵਾਹਿ ।
ਭੋਗ ਸਕਲ ਬਾਣੀ ਕੋ ਪਾਯਹੁ, ਮਹਿਮਾ ਜਿਸ ਕੀ ਕਹੀ ਨਾ ਜਾਇ ।
ਭਵਜਲ ਭੈਰਵ ਕੋ ਜਹਾਜ ਬਜ਼, ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਰ ਪਰਾਇ ॥੩੯॥

 

ਰਾਗਮਾਲ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਨਿਹਂ, ਹੈ ਮੁੰਦਾਵਣੀ ਲਗਿ ਗੁਰ ਬੈਨ ।
ਇਸ ਮਹਿਂ ਨਿਹਂ ਸੰਸੈ ਕੁਛ ਕਰੀਅਹਿ, ਜੇ ਸੰਸੈ ਅਵਿਲੋਕਹੁ ਨੈਨ ।
ਮਾਧਵ ਨਲ ਆਲਮ ਕਿਵ ਕੀਨਸਿ, ਤਿਸ ਮਹਿਂ ਨ੍ਰਿਤਕਾਰੀ ਕਹਿ ਤੈਨ ।
ਰਾਗ ਰਾਗਨੀ ਨਾਮ ਗਿਨੇ ਤਿਹਂ, ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਅਰਜਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਹੈਨ ॥੪੦॥

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

He said it wasn't Guru-kit.

 

ਲਿਖੇ ਸਮਸਤ ਸਵੈਯੇ ਸੋਅੂ, ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਕੇ ਮਾਂਹਿ ।
ਅੰਤ ਸਰਬ ਕੇ ਲਿਖਿ ਮੁੰਦਾਵਣੀ, ਮੁੰਦ੍ਰਿਤ ਮੁਹਰ ਲਗੀ ਜਨੁ ਵਾਹਿ ।
ਭੋਗ ਸਕਲ ਬਾਣੀ ਕੋ ਪਾਯਹੁ, ਮਹਿਮਾ ਜਿਸ ਕੀ ਕਹੀ ਨਾ ਜਾਇ ।
ਭਵਜਲ ਭੈਰਵ ਕੋ ਜਹਾਜ ਬਜ਼, ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਤੇ ਪਾਰ ਪਰਾਇ ॥੩੯॥

 

ਰਾਗਮਾਲ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਨਿਹਂ, ਹੈ ਮੁੰਦਾਵਣੀ ਲਗਿ ਗੁਰ ਬੈਨ ।
ਇਸ ਮਹਿਂ ਨਿਹਂ ਸੰਸੈ ਕੁਛ ਕਰੀਅਹਿ, ਜੇ ਸੰਸੈ ਅਵਿਲੋਕਹੁ ਨੈਨ ।
ਮਾਧਵ ਨਲ ਆਲਮ ਕਿਵ ਕੀਨਸਿ, ਤਿਸ ਮਹਿਂ ਨ੍ਰਿਤਕਾਰੀ ਕਹਿ ਤੈਨ ।
ਰਾਗ ਰਾਗਨੀ ਨਾਮ ਗਿਨੇ ਤਿਹਂ, ਯਾਂ ਤੇ ਸ਼੍ਰੀ ਅਰਜਨ ਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਹੈਨ ॥੪੦॥

 

 

If you read the next Pauri, it will prove that he had a doubt in his mind.

 

598074ac4c77c_ragmalag.thumb.jpg.015c218a00b506299e252962f845428d.jpg

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2017 at 4:00 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

  It wasn't a coincidence that the many Puraatan birs and sarroops Shamsher Singh Ashok and Gyani Gurdit Singh recorded (that were missing Raagmala) became "too old to maintain" thus had to be cremated.  

Are you talking about Gyani Gurdit who wrote the book Mundavani? Do you know that he has made false assertions in his book?

Sant Gyani Mohan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindranwale sent a team of Singhs to investigate the claims of Gyani Gurdit SIngh. He was proven false on multiple occasions. For example, he claimed that

  • Saroop (which was given Gurgaddi by Tenth Master) at Sri Hazur Sahib jee did not contain Sri Raagmala Sahib jee
  • Saroop scribed by Amar Shaheed Baba Deep Singh jee did not contain Sri Raagmala Sahib jee

Both the above, were proven false. Pictures were taken by Gyani Harbhajan Singh jee as a proof.

Baba Mohan Singh jee had also stated that an article should be put in media regarding Gyani Gurdit and he should be punished.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chatanga1 said:

That video is quite shocking to listen to as well. Good share Pappiman. Sikhs even went as far as to stop Chaur over Guru Granth Sahib. So many today are calling Sachkhand Sri Hazur Sahib maryada manmat as well. (arti in front of Guru Sahib).

Wasn't there a Manmukh who said that there was no need for rumale on Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee? I think he was shot dead by Singhs some years ago.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/1/2017 at 10:39 AM, chatanga1 said:

I wonder where the story of Madhav Kaam Kandla came into this. It has been disproved by scholars.  Prof Anurag Singh has researched raag Mala for over 11 years and has shown a lot of evidence that the Kaam Kandla connection is false.

It came from Madhavnal Kaam Kandla. Shamsher Singh Ashok published the entire book. 

 

Prof. Anurag Singh took an interesting approach as a scholar. I have no respect for him, not because of his beliefs in Raagmala and Nanakshahi Calendar. He seems to profess anything that wins him his crowd, albeit within a certain boundary. 

He's now claiming the AKJ Bhai Randhir Singh's letter to Gyani Gurdit Singh was falsified and supports an assertion his own father bore testimony against.

His defense of Sri Dasam Granth Sahib is very appreciated, however. He's recieved a lot of popularity recently, and but has been restricted to a certain crowd for which he changed his previous opinions and ideas over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2017 at 6:07 PM, paapiman said:

Are you talking about Gyani Gurdit who wrote the book Mundavani? Do you know that he has made false assertions in his book?

Sant Gyani Mohan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindranwale sent a team of Singhs to investigate the claims of Gyani Gurdit SIngh. He was proven false on multiple occasions. For example, he claimed that

  • Saroop (which was given Gurgaddi by Tenth Master) at Sri Hazur Sahib jee did not contain Sri Raagmala Sahib jee
  • Saroop scribed by Amar Shaheed Baba Deep Singh jee did not contain Sri Raagmala Sahib jee

Both the above, were proven false. Pictures were taken by Gyani Harbhajan Singh jee as a proof.

Baba Mohan Singh jee had also stated that an article should be put in media regarding Gyani Gurdit and he should be punished.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Gyani Gurdit Singh didn't believe any of those Sarroops that you mentioned to be penned down by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji or Baba Deep Singh Ji. He believed both indivuduals did write Sarroops, but they ones being shown around today aren't their Sarroops. That was his assertion.

Joginder Singh Talwara and Jathedar Vedanti examined all these claimed Sarroops and found them inconsistent with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Gyani Gurdit Singh didn't believe any of those Sarroops that you mentioned to be penned down by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji or Baba Deep Singh Ji. He believed both indivuduals did write Sarroops, but they ones being shown around today aren't their Sarroops. That was his assertion.

So what is his theory? Who replaced those saroops? What was the motive behind it? Where are the original saroops? Did he provide details in his book?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, paapiman said:

So what is his theory? Who replaced those saroops? What was the motive behind it? Where are the original saroops? Did he provide details in his book?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

His book detailed only the Raagmala controversy, not the history of the Birs. 

Can't say what happened to the originals of Baba Deep Singh Ji or Bhai Mani Singh Ji. 

This isn't to say we don't have any Sarroop signed, checked, and/or stamped by our Guru Sahibans and Puraatan Hazoori Sikhs, we still have those, but the ones you guys mentioned were checked by Vedanti and Talwara (who's sole aim was to check, bring and into light some of the errors in SGPC's printed sarroops) and were found inconsistent with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, paapiman said:

Please have a look below. Due to the first line, it can never be asserted that Mahakavi jee had a firm belief that Sri Raagmala Sahib jee is not Gurbani.

59ab66bf0ae99_SriRaagmala-2.thumb.png.5552cf2a0d299e3fece17675b9589afa.png

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

That contradicts the statement he made in his previous paurdi. None the less, he had a doubt and expressed his uncertainty either way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/09/2017 at 4:28 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

It came from Madhavnal Kaam Kandla. Shamsher Singh Ashok published the entire book.

 

From what i have read, the raagmala are different. Easily seen as different. I had a copy of the raagmala was supposed to be from this book and it was very different to SGGS. Have you seen the actual text in Ashoks book?

Dr Anurag Singh who says he has been doing research of Raagmala for 11 years now, says that there was no such writer during Akbars times. This Kaam Kandal was written in 10th Guru's Darbar by Alam who copied the the raagmala (could have been the one I read) into his writing of the story.

 

Did this Madhavnal Kaam Kandla exist in a prior different form to Guru Sahibs Darbar?

 

On 02/09/2017 at 4:31 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Gyani Gurdit Singh didn't believe any of those Sarroops that you mentioned to be penned down by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji or Baba Deep Singh Ji. He believed both indivuduals did write Sarroops, but they ones being shown around today aren't their Sarroops. That was his assertion.

 

I dont think those saroops are identifiable anymore, but the one saroop we can't doubt is the Kartarpuri bir, which does include Raagmala.

 

On 02/09/2017 at 4:31 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

 

Joginder Singh Talwara and Jathedar Vedanti examined all these claimed Sarroops and found them inconsistent with one another.

 

Where the inconsistencies before Mundavni and/or after?

 

On 02/09/2017 at 4:35 PM, Kuttabanda2 said:

Could you provide examples of objectionable assertions within that book? Or what you found that showed this shallow intellect?

 

Please noooooooooo. I couldnt bring myslef to read that book again. It was years ago but basically al the things he wrote were refuted (I think) by Sant Kartar Singh Bhindranwale. I am a little ashamed to admit that when I read the book, I was convinced by the reasoning given (as someone who had no knowledge on the subject) and did at one poor moment in my life doubt Raagmala.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2017 at 10:10 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

From what i have read, the raagmala are different. Easily seen as different. I had a copy of the raagmala was supposed to be from this book and it was very different to SGGS. Have you seen the actual text in Ashoks book?

Dr Anurag Singh who says he has been doing research of Raagmala for 11 years now, says that there was no such writer during Akbars times. This Kaam Kandal was written in 10th Guru's Darbar by Alam who copied the the raagmala (could have been the one I read) into his writing of the story.

According to non-Sikh Historians and the book itself, apparently he did exist and he wrote this.

There were 2 Kavi Alams in history.

From what I see, the spelling is different, not numbered, etc. No major difference between the two texts.

IMG_4320.JPG

IMG_4321.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2017 at 10:10 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

Did this Madhavnal Kaam Kandla exist in a prior different form to Guru Sahibs Darbar?

 

I dont think those saroops are identifiable anymore, but the one saroop we can't doubt is the Kartarpuri bir, which does include Raagmala.

 

Madhavnal Kaam Kandla existed prior to Dasmesh Pita Ji. 

 

We can't doubt the Original Kartarpuri Bir, of course. Only problem is....we don't have it. 

Sant Gyani Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa Bhinderawale, Bhai Jodh Singh, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Gyani Ishar Singh & Gyani Narain Singh (as a team), Bhai Mana Singh, Swami Harnam Das Udasin, and Bhai Randhir Singh Research Scholar each did Darshan of the Bir that the Kartar Sodhis have/had. They didn't believe that the Birs (note plural) that are with the Kartarpuri Sodhis aren't authentic. Gyani Gurbachan Singh Ji himself said there were at least 1,000 differences between the Kartarpuri Bir and the DamDami Bir. 

Another interesting thing is that there was only one of 4 different types of Birs being shown to each Scholar by the Kartarpuri Sodhis, thus each of the scholar's observations were vastly different. This raises some suspicion on the Kartarpuri Sodhis who claim to have his Bir. It seems they were circulating which Bir to show to the Scholars each time they come. 

Not to say the Kartarpuri Bir written by Panchmesh Pita Ji didn't exist, it did. But it's not what these Kartarpuri Sodhis are showing. 

It's very likely that the original Kartarpuri Bir became Shaheed in the fire during the attack at Gurdwara Thamb Sahib, as it was claimed by historians. Or that the kartarpuri Sodhis are doing something mischievous. 

This isn't to say we don't have copies from that time. There are still Pothis out there that are copies of the Kartarpuri Bir written by and/or signed by the Guru Sahibans themselves, from 6th to 10th Patshah. We still have those, luckily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2017 at 10:10 AM, chatanga1 said:

 

Where the inconsistencies before Mundavni and/or after?

 

 

Please noooooooooo. I couldnt bring myslef to read that book again. It was years ago but basically al the things he wrote were refuted (I think) by Sant Kartar Singh Bhindranwale. I am a little ashamed to admit that when I read the book, I was convinced by the reasoning given (as someone who had no knowledge on the subject) and did at one poor moment in my life doubt Raagmala.

The inconsistencies were throughout the sarroop. Talwara and Vedanti checked all these Sarroops to do Shudhai of the mistakes made by the SGPC in their printed Sarroops. 

 

And there's no harm in reading a book for research.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

According to non-Sikh Historians and the book itself, apparently he did exist and he wrote this.

 

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.

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

There were 2 Kavi Alams in history.

 

Who is the other one you know about?

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

From what I see, the spelling is different, not numbered, etc. No major difference between the two texts.

 

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?

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Madhavnal Kaam Kandla existed prior to Dasmesh Pita Ji. 

 

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

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

We can't doubt the Original Kartarpuri Bir, of course. Only problem is....we don't have it. 

 

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?

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Gyani Gurbachan Singh Ji himself said there were at least 1,000 differences between the Kartarpuri Bir and the DamDami 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.

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Another interesting thing is that there was only one of 4 different types of Birs being shown to each Scholar by the Kartarpuri Sodhis, thus each of the scholar's observations were vastly different.

 

Any idea on what the observations differed over?

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

Not to say the Kartarpuri Bir written by Panchmesh Pita Ji didn't exist, it did. But it's not what these Kartarpuri Sodhis are showing. 

 

"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.

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

It's very likely that the original Kartarpuri Bir became Shaheed in the fire during the attack at Gurdwara Thamb Sahib, as it was claimed by historians.

 

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

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

This isn't to say we don't have copies from that time. There are still Pothis out there that are copies of the Kartarpuri Bir written by and/or signed by the Guru Sahibans themselves, from 6th to 10th Patshah. We still have those, luckily.

 

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

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

The inconsistencies were throughout the sarroop. Talwara and Vedanti checked all these Sarroops to do Shudhai of the mistakes made by the SGPC in their printed Sarroops. 

 

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.

 

18 hours ago, Kuttabanda2 said:

And there's no harm in reading a book for 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...