Kartarpuri Beerh

In Gurmat martand page 411 as mentioned by Bijla singh, Kahan singh Nabha does not endorse authenticity of kartarpuri beer. Under heading "Guru Granth sahib" he simply writes that there are three beers namely

1) Kartarpuri beer

2) damdami beer

3) Bhai Banno beer

Under kartarpuri beer he writes that it has 975 pages and its page borders are new.It has signature of Sri Hargobind sahiib on page
541.One shabad is written and then crossed over.There is a shabad of meera bai written and then crossed over.

There are some blank pages.

Rather than endorsing this beer he raises some points such as presence of extra shabads and blank pages.

Quote

Daljit Singh has not claimed that he has seen the beer. I know Daljit Singh from my sources. It is you who is stating that he has seen the beer. Burden of proving that falls on you. Do not run away by using harsh language.

If you could show me anywhere that I have claimed Daljit Singh personally examined the Birh Sahib, that’d prove that you are telling the truth. I have only asked you for proof and so far you have provided none. Nonetheless, here is a direct quote from the book and many more can be found throughout the book.

Our examination is based on the evidence collected in this book (which has also been referred to by us) and a personal study and verification of all the special and salient features of the Bir by an examination of the original Bir at Kartarpur. (Page 10)

So you are partially correct that Daljit Singh did use Jodh Singh’s book but he states in his own words that he personally examined the Birh Sahib. Here is another link to a summarized article in which he states the same thing.

It was, therefore, considered necessary to make a detailed study of the issue after a close examination of the Bir at Kartarpur. This article comprises the result of that examination.

[www.sikhcoalition.org]

Jasjit Singh Ji, here are pages 411 and 412.





My reasoning behind claiming that Bhai Kahan Singh did not refute authenticity of Kartarpuri Birh is as follows:

1) He states that this Birh is now at Kartarpur. Few lines down, he states that it has Mool Mantar written by Guru Arjan Dev Ji Himself and Ang 541 has the signature of the 6th Guru. This means Bhai Kahan Singh held it authentic otherwise he would’ve rejected it.
2) On page 412 in footnote he clearly states that the Shabad was hartaaled by Guru Sahib Himself. This again points to him admitting that the Birh Sahib was scribed by Bhai Gurdas Ji under the supervision of Guru Sahib. And this is that Birh.
3) My additional point would be that Bhai Sahib has written about his beliefs without any fear or hesitation. He has clearly stated his opinions on Dasam Granth i.e. contents reorganization etc. He would’ve written against authenticity of the Birh Sahib while commenting on it when he rejected Raag Maala..

He has written the same in Mahan Kosh, page 1561 of pdf file. Sorry for boring you with my long essay. Guru Rakha

As stated before, there is no doubt that as per our history, at one time the Aad Bir of Siri Guru Arjun Dev jee was residing at Kartarpur and most probably this is the Bir that Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha had Darshan of and examined but subsequently, the Bir that Bhai Jodh Singh and other scholars saw is different from the one that Nabha jee saw. No matter what the opinion of Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha or Bhai Jodh Singh, still we do believe in their integrity and honesty. Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha states that Mundavani is on Ang 973 and that Ang 974 is blank but later scholars state that there is Raagmala on Ang 974. This means that the Bir that is propagated as Aad Bir at Kartarpur is not the Bir that Nabha jee saw but either a different Bir or the altered Bir from the original.

There are far too many mistakes in the current Kartarpuri Bir for it to be the Aad Bir. Siri Guru Arjun Dev jee is the Perfect Master and His Bir could not have contained such mistakes as wrong Ang numbers in Tatkara, huge number of blank Angs, extra Baanis that were deleted later on e.g. Meerabai's Shabad and Soordaas' full Shabad etc.

Some people say that Bhai Gurdaas jee just copied blindly from Pothis e.g. Govindwal Pothis and Guru Sahib later on rejected some Shabads. This too does not make sense. Why would Bhai Gurdaas jee be allowed by Guru Sahib to write Shabads without his approval, only to be deleted later on? Such work could not have been allowed by the Perfect Master.

Bhai Gurdaas jee was just the writer or the scribe and the narrator was none other than Siri Guru Arjun Dev jee. Later on Guru Sahib used to re-read what Bhai Gurdaas jee would write, in order to ensure correct spellings and to do Sudhaaee. But this does not seem likely that Guru Sahib would let Bhai Gurdaas jee write Shabads like Meerabai's Shabad only to reject them later on. The presence of Meerabai's Shabad and Soordas' rejected Shabad alone prove that this Bir is not original. How could Guru Sahib allow such mess as first writing extra Shabads and then doing Hartaal on them. The original Bir was intended to be installed at Siri Darbar Sahib and would have been perfect as far as mistakes are concerned; furthermore it could not contain blank pages and extra Shabads with Hartaal as such mess cannot be allowed in the original and official Bir.

Kulbir Singh

In the reference provided by Bijla singh is written


[www.sikhcoalition.org]

After the study of this Bir by Dr Jodh Singh and the publication of his book, Kartarpuri Bir De Darshan, it was considered that the authenticity of the Bir had been firmly established; but some oblique and incorrect observations by McLeod tended to throw doubt on its authenticity. It was, therefore, considered necessary to make a detailed study of the issue after a close examination of the Bir at Kartarpur. This article comprises the result of that examination.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daljit Singh is known to make false statements. The fact is that he never saw the beer himself. His chelas like Jasbir Mann who owns
globalsikhstudies site also claims to have seen manuscripts of Dasam Granth sahib and i personally know that it all a lie.

Bhai Kulbir Singh ji

Sodhis of kartarpur are making a living from this beer.The fact is that they have so many beers with them
and almost every important visitor is shown a different one.

It is also a fact that they do not allow visitors to examine the beer at least for the last so many years.There is
a difference between cursory glance and detailed study of beer.

SGPC has requested them for restoration of beer to panth many times but they do not do that.The fact is they do not
have original beer with them.

Bhai Bijla Singh Jio,

Thanks for posting those pages: Here is my analysis based on letter and your images:

Quote

1) He states that this Birh is now at Kartarpur. Few lines down, he states that it has Mool Mantar written by Guru Arjan Dev Ji Himself and Ang 541 has the signature of the 6th Guru. This means Bhai Kahan Singh held it authentic otherwise he would’ve rejected it.

1) Beerh mentioned in letter is a COPY not original one as he explains this rule that “---ਐਸੇ ਹੀ, ਨੌਵੇ ਸਤਗੁਰੂ ਦੇ ਅਹਿਦ ਤੀਕ ਇਹ ਰੀਤੀ ਰਹੀ ਕਿ ਜੋ ਕਾਪੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਉਸਦੇ ਪਤ੍ਰਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਤਤਕਰੇ ਦੇ ਅੰਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਇਸ ਨਿਯਮ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਕਰਤਾਰਪੁਰ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਤਤਕਰੇ ਦੇ ਅੰਤ, ਇਹ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ-
“ਸੰਮਤ ੧੬੬੧ ਮਿਤੀ ਭਾਦੋਂ ਵਦੀ ੧ ਪੋਥੀ ਲਿਖ ਪਹੁੰਚੇ॥ ਸਾਰੇ ਪਤ੍ਰੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਬਾਬੇ ਜੀ ਦੇ ੯੭੪॥”
Which means whatever the copy is written at that time used above rule. Keep in mind this rule only implies to a copy Beerh. This fact alone is sufficent to tell that popular “Kartarpuri Beerh” is a copy not original beerh.

2) Furthermore his judgement about whole beerh is in “GuraGira Kasuati” not in Gurmat Martand. He clearly say this in here “ਪੋਥੀ ਲਿਖ ਪਹੁੰਚੇ”- ਇਸਦਾ ਨਿਰਣਾ ਤਾਂ “ਗੁਰਾਗਿਰਾ ਕਸੌਟੀ” ਵਿੱਚ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਯਾ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਇਸ ਥਾਂ ਪ੍ਰਕਰਣ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਦੱਸਦਾ ਹਾਂ” which means his decision about how this copy of granth was written is in “GuraGira Kasuati”.

3) Even for Beerh mentioned in Gurmat Martand he raised the doubt that ‘ਬਹੁਤ ਸਿੱਖ ਆਖਿਆ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਦੇਵ ਨੇ ਨੌਵੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਲਈ ਖਾਲੀ ਪੱਤਰੇ ਛੱਡ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਸਨ, ਪਰ ਇਹ ਖਿਆਲ ਗਲਤ ਹੈ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਪੱਤਰੇ ਅਜੇਹੀ ਥਾਂ ਖਾਲੀ ਹਨ ਜਿਸ ਥਾਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦੁਰ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਦਰਜ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ, ਜੈਸੇ ਪੰਨਾ ੬੦ ਦਾ ਇਕ ਪਾਸਾ ਖਾਲੀ ਅਤੇ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਰਾਗ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੰਜਵੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚ ਤਿੰਨ ਪੱਤਰੇ ਖਾਲੀ ਹਨ, ਆਦਿ ਅਰ ਨੌਵੇ ਮਹਲ ਦੇ ਸਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਕੋਈ ਪੱਤ੍ਰਾ ਖਾਲੀ ਨਹੀਂ। ”
See he refutes the claim of leaving blank pages for Ninteh Satguru’s bani. Now question is why would Guru Sahib leave such blank pages if coming bani (Mahal 9th) would not fit? Does this make any sense to leave few pages blank for nothing in a Granth which going to lead the whole universe forever. This big loophole in this beerh itself challenges it's authority.

Quote

2) On page 412 in footnote he clearly states that the Shabad was hartaaled by Guru Sahib Himself. This again points to him admitting that the Birh Sahib was scribed by Bhai Gurdas Ji under the supervision of Guru Sahib. And this is that Birh.

I think the only place you are getting impression of authenticity is that he mentioned something in the footnote but Bhai Bijla Singh jio how come you forgot the word he used in the beginning of this note is‘ਮਾਲੂਮ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ’. Since when word ‘ਮਾਲੂਮ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ’ is considered to be a fact? This could be either way. There is a big difference in ‘ਮਾਲੂਮ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ’ and “to be granted”.

Just to mention that Bhai Sahib’s letter was printed while he was alive whereas ‘Gurmat Martand’ is published 24 years later after his death. Anyway all in all from above documents he did not authenticate the Kartarpuri Beerh as original one and it would be a Ninda of Bhai Kahan Singh to consider so. I hope Daas’s version of this essay is not long and boring either. Khima for any inconvenience.

Guru Sahib Kirpa Karan.

Dassin Daas,
Jasjit Singh

Quote

ਐਸੇ ਹੀ, ਨੌਵੇ ਸਤਗੁਰੂ ਦੇ ਅਹਿਦ ਤੀਕ ਇਹ ਰੀਤੀ ਰਹੀ ਕਿ ਜੋ ਕਾਪੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਉਸਦੇ ਪਤ੍ਰਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਤਤਕਰੇ ਦੇ ਅੰਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਇਸ ਨਿਯਮ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਕਰਤਾਰਪੁਰ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਤਤਕਰੇ ਦੇ ਅੰਤ, ਇਹ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ-
“ਸੰਮਤ ੧੬੬੧ ਮਿਤੀ ਭਾਦੋਂ ਵਦੀ ੧ ਪੋਥੀ ਲਿਖ ਪਹੁੰਚੇ॥ ਸਾਰੇ ਪਤ੍ਰੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਬਾਬੇ ਜੀ ਦੇ ੯੭੪॥”

If it was a copy then tell me which “copy” was prepared on Bhadon Vadi1, 1661? It was the original COPY. You are stretching the meaning of the word copy. If it was a copy of the original Birh then it would not have the same date and Bhai Sahib would’ve used the word ‘Nakal’. And the Birh would have the sentence that it was a Nakal of the original Birh.

Quote

Furthermore his judgement about whole beerh is in “GuraGira Kasuati” not in Gurmat Martand. He clearly say this in here “ਪੋਥੀ ਲਿਖ ਪਹੁੰਚੇ”- ਇਸਦਾ ਨਿਰਣਾ ਤਾਂ “ਗੁਰਾਗਿਰਾ ਕਸੌਟੀ” ਵਿੱਚ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਯਾ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਇਸ ਥਾਂ ਪ੍ਰਕਰਣ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਦੱਸਦਾ ਹਾਂ” which means his decision about how this copy of granth was written is in “GuraGira Kasuati”.

Then go ahead provide the evidence. The letter you posted mentions nothing about the authenticity of the Birh Sahib.

Quote

Even for Beerh mentioned in Gurmat Martand he raised the doubt that ‘ਬਹੁਤ ਸਿੱਖ ਆਖਿਆ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਅਰਜਨ ਦੇਵ ਨੇ ਨੌਵੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਲਈ ਖਾਲੀ ਪੱਤਰੇ ਛੱਡ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਸਨ, ਪਰ ਇਹ ਖਿਆਲ ਗਲਤ ਹੈ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਪੱਤਰੇ ਅਜੇਹੀ ਥਾਂ ਖਾਲੀ ਹਨ ਜਿਸ ਥਾਂ ਗੁਰੂ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦੁਰ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਦਰਜ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦੀ, ਜੈਸੇ ਪੰਨਾ ੬੦ ਦਾ ਇਕ ਪਾਸਾ ਖਾਲੀ ਅਤੇ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਰਾਗ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੰਜਵੇ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚ ਤਿੰਨ ਪੱਤਰੇ ਖਾਲੀ ਹਨ, ਆਦਿ ਅਰ ਨੌਵੇ ਮਹਲ ਦੇ ਸਲੋਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਕੋਈ ਪੱਤ੍ਰਾ ਖਾਲੀ ਨਹੀਂ। ”
See he refutes the claim of leaving blank pages for Ninteh Satguru’s bani. Now question is why would Guru Sahib leave such blank pages if coming bani (Mahal 9th) would not fit? Does this make any sense to leave few pages blank for nothing in a Granth which going to lead the whole universe forever. This big loophole in this beerh itself challenges it's authority.

He simply addresses the misconception but does not negate the authenticity. One doesn’t support the other. There are many misconceptions related to scriptures but answering them does not amount to rejecting authority of the scriptures. He refutes that Guru Sahib did not leave blank spaces for 9th Guru’s bani but it does not prove that blank spaces were never left. He would’ve clearly stated that this saroop is not the original one which he did not.

Quote

I think the only place you are getting impression of authenticity is that he mentioned something in the footnote but Bhai Bijla Singh jio how come you forgot the word he used in the beginning of this note is‘ਮਾਲੂਮ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ’. Since when word ‘ਮਾਲੂਮ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ’ is considered to be a fact? This could be either way. There is a big difference in ‘ਮਾਲੂਮ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ’ and “to be granted”.

And how do you derive from this that he did not consider it the authentic Birh? Points 1 and 2 in my last post are my reasons for believing that Bhai Kahan Singh accepted Birh’s authenticity. He wrote that the Birh is in Kartarpur and it is the one scribed by Bhai Gurdas Ji. How do you refute this?

Quote

Just to mention that Bhai Sahib’s letter was printed while he was alive whereas ‘Gurmat Martand’ is published 24 years later after his death. Anyway all in all from above documents he did not authenticate the Kartarpuri Beerh as original one and it would be a Ninda of Bhai Kahan Singh to consider so.

Gurmat Maartand was written by him and if you have any reason to believe that it was altered later then present some evidence. By your logic all books of Bhai Randhir Singh and Bhai Vir Singh published after their deaths would not be much credible. And please keep the “ninda” card out of it. I can equally say you are stretching words of Bhai Kahan Singh and resorting to ninda by claiming something he never endorsed. Guru Rakha

Quote

If it was a copy then tell me which “copy” was prepared on Bhadon Vadi1, 1661? It was the original COPY. You are stretching the meaning of the word copy. If it was a copy of the original Birh then it would not have the same date and Bhai Sahib would’ve used the word ‘Nakal’. And the Birh would have the sentence that it was a Nakal of the original Birh.

Don't fool yourself. Do you mean that until Ninth Guru Sahib only a Single Beerh is scribed that is why it is called copy. He used the word 'ਜੋ ਕਾਪੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ' clearly means whatever copy of Guru Granth Sahib Jee is made. For date why not it is possible that this copy is not made of date as mentioned?

Quote

Then go ahead provide the evidence. The letter you posted mentions nothing about the authenticity of the Birh Sahib.

I wish I had the copy of GurGira Kasauti then let it speak for itself. Cause of writing this letter itself is challeging what believed to be authentic of this Beerh.

Quote

He simply addresses the misconception but does not negate the authenticity. One doesn’t support the other. There are many misconceptions related to scriptures but answering them does not amount to rejecting authority of the scriptures. He refutes that Guru Sahib did not leave blank spaces for 9th Guru’s bani but it does not prove that blank spaces were never left. He would’ve clearly stated that this saroop is not the original one which he did not.

If leaving blank pages were authentic then why Panth did not copy in present saroop as such? Present saroop has no such PARNAALI of leaving blank pages. Whole panth accepted this fact. Do you think blank pages are for someone to fill in the blanks for essay writing? Bhai Kahan Singh refuted this boldly and good enough to counter modren scholars.

Quote

And how do you derive from this that he did not consider it the authentic Birh? Points 1 and 2 in my last post are my reasons for believing that Bhai Kahan Singh accepted Birh’s authenticity. He wrote that the Birh is in Kartarpur and it is the one scribed by Bhai Gurdas Ji. How do you refute this?

As I stated before he considered this as a copy not original one. Guru Sahib dictated and Bhai Gurdaas is scribed only one Beerh not many copies as you are deriving the meaning of copy like publisher do for distribution.

Quote

Gurmat Maartand was written by him and if you have any reason to believe that it was altered later then present some evidence. By your logic all books of Bhai Randhir Singh and Bhai Vir Singh published after their deaths would not be much credible.

I presented a fact it's upto one's capability how to translate it.

Quote

And please keep the “ninda” card out of it. I can equally say you are stretching words of Bhai Kahan Singh and resorting to ninda by claiming something he never endorsed.

Yes it is ninda of Bhai Kahan Singh because he did not say the Beerh is original one instead he stated in his letter it is a copy and some portion is refutable.

With Regards,
Jasjit Singh

Oner thing we need to keep in mind that Gurmat martand is like a dictionary where meanings of various terms asscoiated with sikhi, its maryada and history are given.It is too brief to present a considered opinion of Bhai sahib on any sikh scripture.

Quote

Don't fool yourself. Do you mean that until Ninth Guru Sahib only a Single Beerh is scribed that is why it is called copy. He used the word 'ਜੋ ਕਾਪੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ' clearly means whatever copy of Guru Granth Sahib Jee is made. For date why not it is possible that this copy is not made of date as mentioned?

I think you are misunderstanding or desperately attempting to disprove Kartarpuri Birh. Bhai Kahan Singh writes “'ਜੋ ਕਾਪੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ” which means that the rule of writing total Angs and writing the completion date was followed until the 9th Guru but it does not prove that the Kartarpuri Birh is the copy of the original. In fact, any copy of the original Birh clearly states that it is “Nakal” of the original one. If a Birh is copied from a copy of the original then it says “Nakal Ka Nakal”. But in case of Kartarpuri Birh it does not state anything like it.

Quote

Cause of writing this letter itself is challeging what believed to be authentic of this Beerh.

Purpose of the letter was to state his opinion about Raag Maala not Kartarpuri Birh. Its authenticity is nowhere questioned. I have asked many times, point to me where he is rejecting the authenticity.

Quote

If leaving blank pages were authentic then why Panth did not copy in present saroop as such? Present saroop has no such PARNAALI of leaving blank pages.

The point has already been addressed before. Gurbani was scribed as it was procured and spaces were left in the anticipation of procuring more Bani. Once completed, all copies made did not have any spaces.

Quote

Do you think blank pages are for someone to fill in the blanks for essay writing?

According to anti-Raag Maala scholar Shamsher Singh Ashok, it is. Such a shameful thought.

Quote

As I stated before he considered this as a copy not original one

But you never proved it. The facts speak for themselves. He says “The Birh is now in Kartarpur”. Further, if it was a copy then it would not have Mool Mantar written by the 5th Guru. Additionally, if it was not authentic, it would not have signature of the 6th Guru. Along with Raag Maala, he would’ve rejected the whole Birh Sahib by stating that “this is not the one scribed by Bhai Gurdas JI” but he never wrote such. Too bad if it bursts your bubble,

Quote

I presented a fact it's upto one's capability how to translate it.

But the fact that it was published later does not prove it is not what he wrote. How would you refute the same written in Mahan Kosh?

Quote

Yes it is ninda of Bhai Kahan Singh because he did not say the Beerh is original one

Difference of opinion is not equivalent to ninda. Perhaps you should review the basic rules of argumentation. Bhai Kahan Singh never rejected Kartarpuri Birh and you are doing ninda by claiming otherwise for some personal reasons. Guru Rakha

Bhai Bijla Singh Jio,

Quote

I think you are misunderstanding or desperately attempting to disprove Kartarpuri Birh. Bhai Kahan Singh writes “'ਜੋ ਕਾਪੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ” which means that the rule of writing total Angs and writing the completion date was followed until the 9th Guru but it does not prove that the Kartarpuri Birh is the copy of the original. In fact, any copy of the original Birh clearly states that it is “Nakal” of the original one. If a Birh is copied from a copy of the original then it says “Nakal Ka Nakal”. But in case of Kartarpuri Birh it does not state anything like it.

It shameful to see how a simple meaning is twisted. It is in simple Punjabi that 'ਜੋ ਕਾਪੀ(ਨਕਲ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ” follow the rule and same rule was applied in Kartarpuri Beerh. Either way every beerh is Nakal whatever you name it copy or nakal and he clearly says Nakal (copies) follow the rule as mentioned.

Quote

Purpose of the letter was to state his opinion about Raag Maala not Kartarpuri Birh. Its authenticity is nowhere questioned. I have asked many times, point to me where he is rejecting the authenticity.

It's simple understanding that when he refute one section(s) then it means that he did not accepted beerh in the condition it is said to be authentic.

Quote

The point has already been addressed before. Gurbani was scribed as it was procured and spaces were left in the anticipation of procuring more Bani. Once completed, all copies made did not have any spaces.

This is your loose understanding and opinion. Guru Sahib is doer of Gurbani and they knew precisely what is coming and how much is coming there was no room for speculations. Having such a thought you are bringing Guru Sahib at an ordinary human level and it is Mubarak to you.

Quote

But you never proved it. The facts speak for themselves. He says “The Birh is now in Kartarpur”. Further, if it was a copy then it would not have Mool Mantar written by the 5th Guru. Additionally, if it was not authentic, it would not have signature of the 6th Guru. Along with Raag Maala, he would’ve rejected the whole Birh Sahib by stating that “this is not the one scribed by Bhai Gurdas JI” but he never wrote such. Too bad if it bursts your bubble,

Your opinion is based on brief info presented in Gurmat Martand even in which he questioned some of the internal facts. Whereas letter which rejects its entity as is, is a solid proof of rejection.

Quote

Difference of opinion is not equivalent to Ninda. Perhaps you should review the basic rules of argumentation. Bhai Kahan Singh never rejected Kartarpuri Birh and you are doing Ninda by claiming otherwise for some personal reasons.

Looks like you have nothing else to prove the authenticity and coming with name callings now. Again according to his letter Bhai Kahan Singh never accepted the kartarpuri Beerh in its whole entity.

Guru Mehar Karan,

With Regards,
Jasjit Singh

Quote

It shameful to see how a simple meaning is twisted. It is in simple Punjabi that 'ਜੋ ਕਾਪੀ(ਨਕਲ) ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਹੁੰਦੀ” follow the rule and same rule was applied in Kartarpuri Beerh.

But the rule is simply to write total Angs in the end and then date it. If it is a copy then name of the source is written but in case of Kartarpuri Birh, the source is not mentioned. How do you explain the blank spaces if it is a copy? Besides, the date written at the end points to the fact that it is the original one. A copy wouldn’t have this date.

Quote

Guru Sahib is doer of Gurbani and they knew precisely what is coming and how much is coming there was no room for speculations. Having such a thought you are bringing Guru Sahib at an ordinary human level and it is Mubarak to you.

Guru Sahib knows everything but He never used His powers to gain any means. He set an example for the Sikhs by practicing what He preached. Why did He send Sikhs to Sri Lanka to procure Pran Sangali if He already knew it would be rejected? Why did He give the Birh Sahib to Bhai Banno for binding if He already knew he would copy it and add additional composition? Living in Bhanna is the most fundamental principle of Gurmat and Guru Sahib never interfered with it.

Quote

Whereas letter which rejects its entity as is, is a solid proof of rejection.

The letter rejects Raag Maala not the fact that the Birh is the original one.

Quote

Looks like you have nothing else to prove the authenticity and coming with name callings now.

Bhai Sahib, kindly explain to me which name did I call you by? You are the one who implied that I was a “nindak” yet you are accusing me of name calling. If you really wanted to end the discussion, you could say that directly rather than accusing me of ninda.

Quote

Again according to his letter Bhai Kahan Singh never accepted the kartarpuri Beerh in its whole entity.

Again, he rejected Raag Maala and other compositions which he believed were added later. He wrote nothing against the Birh Sahib’s originality.

Bhai Sahib, you asked for the proof and I provided it with my reasoning. You are entitled to your opinion but it does not prove that I made baseless statements. Guru Rakha

Even if scholars such as Nabha ji and Ashok ji accepted this Bir as authentic one still we cannot be sure . We need to examine this Bir further for spellings also to see if it is the one scribed by bhai Gurdas ji and narrated ny sri Guru Arjan Dev ji.

It seems as if the Sodhi parwar have more than one saroop in their possession, the one Bhai Kahn Singh ji describes is different to the one bhai Jodh Singh ji has written about.

Until the parwar who have possession of this Bir stop hiding it and give it to the Sikh Panth we cannot make any definitive statements. There is a website regarding the Kartarpuri Bir:

[www.deragurubhadbhagsinghji.com]

On the website they refer to Vadbhag Singh ji as Guru which is wrong.

If we can read what Giani Gurdit Singh ji had written we could get some answers. There is a contact page on Giani ji's website:

[www.gianigurditsingh.com]

Does anyone know Giani ji's son personally. If so could they ask him if they have any plans on releasing or finishing Giani Gurdit Singh ji's book?

I don’t know about multiple Birhs since there is no evidence provided by any scholar I know. But if what Giani Gurdit Singh has written is correct then Bhai Kahan Singh and Bhai Jodh Singh both examined the same Birh Sahib which was tampered with in 1924 by a group which Pandit Kartar Singh was also a part of. It created more problems than solving anything. Giani Gurdit Singh has written on Kartarpuri Birh in his “Aad Birh Da Rachan Kal” in 1952. Maybe he collected more material but could never compile it in a book. Guru Rakha

as for spellings if you look at sources like har sahae valian pothian youll see spellings are really different in there too - i dont think spellings can be used to judge authenticity w/o a doubt

as for the issue of blank pages that is b/c of how binding is done if you look at a book you'll see that it is usually comprised of packets in which pages are nested within each other. think of it this way - get 10 sheets of paper and put them on top of each other and then fold all of them together. you now have 40 "pages" in this packet you'll notice that the first page is also the last etc. if you take a bunch of these packets and put them on top of eachother and bind that's how many books are bound and that could explain the blank pages b/c the blanks are coming at the end of packets b/c bani could have been written in multiple packets simultaneously.

just a thought

Giani Gurdit singh was a guest at my son's marriage in Chandigarh in 2005. Unfortunately he is no more.
I will explore if my relatives know his son on my next visit to India.

Thought not related to the topic, it is important that some facts about black deeds of Daljit singh are brought
to attention of sangat. We had held an International seminar on Dasam Granth sahib in California in 2008.
One of the resolutions pertained to removal of mischievous writings of Daljit Singh from IOSS website as these
were nothing but a gargage of misinformation.

[www.sridasamgranth.com]

In another resolution Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh was reminded that their website and books contain anti-Dasam Granth writings from Principal Harbhjan Singh, Dr. Daljeet Singh, Dr. Jasbir Singh Mann etc. In view of the Akal Takhat's diktat, these be removed and withdrawn immediately.
 

Quote

I don’t know about multiple Birhs since there is no evidence provided by any scholar I know.

Evidence is clear - the description of the Bir that Bhai Kahn Singh gave is different from the one that Bhai Jodh Singh wrote. Bhai Kahn Singh saw the Bir much earlier than Bhai Jodh Singh saw it. Bhai Kahn Singh writes that there is no Raagmala on Ang 974 and this Ang is blank but Jodh Singh writes that Raagmala is right after Mundavani and there are no extra Baanis between Mundavani and Raagmala. Bhai Kahn Singh has written that Raagmala is there much later, and is there after many extra Baanis. What does this tell you? Either one of the two scholars are lying which is definitely not an option. So the only other logical explanation is that they saw two different Birs or the Bir was altered after Bhai Kahn Singh's demise.

Furthermore, no one has answered the reason for presence of non-Baani Shabads e.g. Mirabai's and Soordaas' Shabads on which later on Hartaal has been applied. How could these Shabads even got written in the original Bir? Sure these Shabads are there in Bhai Banno's Bir but we all know that, this Bir had been declared as Khaari Bir by Guru Sahib.

And there has been no response to the mistakes e.g. wrong Ang information in the Tatkara. How could such reckless mistakes exist in the original Bir.

Sant Gurbachan Singh has written that there are more than 1500 Paath-Bheds (Paath differences) between Damdami Bir and Kartarpuri Bir. How do you explain this? Giani Gurdit Singh in person told us, when we met him before his death, that there are many Shabads in Kartarpuri Bir that are not considered Baani and are not in the Damdami Bir. On some Shabads Hartaal has been applied and on some not. This proves that this Bir is not the Aad Bir.

It does not matter whether Kahn Singh Nabha jee considered this Bir as Aad Bir or not but we cannot accept such Bir that has such obvious and huge number of mistakes as the Aad Bir of Siri Guru Arjun Dev jee.

Kulbir Singh

Furthermore, no one has answered the reason for presence of non-Baani Shabads e.g. Mirabai's and Soordaas' Shabads on which later on Hartaal has been applied. How could these Shabads even got written in the original Bir? Sure these Shabads are there in Bhai Banno's Bir but we all know that, this Bir had been declared as Khaari Bir by Guru Sahib.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. If you read prof sahib Singh's book "Aad beer bare" it makes clear that one of the glaring differences between aad beer
and Bhai Banno's beer is presence of these two shabads in Bhai Banno's beer. It is also a common knowledge among sikhs of past that Bhai banno's
beer was present in Punjab at many places till present beer of SGGS sahib was standardized. In all possibility sodhis are presenting Bhai Banno's beer in altered form to visitors.

There was an american Dr CH LOehlin who lived in India for many years and had master's degree in Punjabi. I recollect having read
that he had a look at kartarpuri beer as well sometime in 1950s and his opinion was negative due to poor condition of beer.It seems he
might have been shown another beer. With sodhis of kartarpur, right hand does not know what left hand is holding.

Quote

Bhai Sahib, you asked for the proof and I provided
it with my reasoning. You are entitled to your
opinion but it does not prove that I made baseless
statements. Guru Rakha

Bhai Bijla Singh Jio,

Again thanks for providing this source of Bhai Kahan Singh. Having two sources (letter and Martand pages) with different impressions about this beerh might have left some general readers in confusion Bhai Kahan Singh's stand. Which I think can be cleared out if we have his third source 'GurGira Kausati' before us. Since 'GurGira Kausti' is not easily available till then I would leave his stand on reader's discretion to decide themselves.

Now moving forward from last few posts as discussion entered into general zone again so I would like to bring Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha's viewpoint. His one of the biggest reason for doubt of authenticity on this beerh is absence of "SO PURAKH" wala Shabad. As bhai Kulbir Singh jee pointed how presence of extra shabads like meera bhai shabad can be justified and I would like to add further that how one would justify missing "SO Purakh" shabad. Based on many of these loop holes which are coming forward one by one leaves no doubt that this beerh can not be accepted and original beerh.

With Regards,
Jasjit Singh

Sadh sangat jio, guru fateh, I would appreiciate if someone can tell them how many total hymns are there in kartarpur wali beerh. I have read some where that it cpntains 7000 hymns, Can anyone confirm it . If someone can give the details of its contents it will be the best.