Detailed Vichaar on Mangal Prabandh of Gurbani

ਸ੍ਰੀਅਕਾਲਸਹਾਇ॥


Definition of Problem: In current printed Saroops of Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee, there is no consistency as far as the headings (Sirlekhs) are concerned. In some places the Mangals appear first and at other places the Sirlekhs (e.g. Gauri Mahalla 5) appear first. In Shudh old handwritten Birs, the Mangals always appeared first. When SGPC first started printing Maharaj jee's Saroops, Mangals always appeared in the beginning. But in the mid of 20th century, under pressure, the SGPC started printing Saroops where Mangals neither consistently appear in the beginning nor after the Sirlekh. A scholar out of frustration wrote to SGPC to bring consistency in the name of God and asked them to either let Mangals always appear in the beginning or always after but the current position of having the Mangals sometimes in the beginning and at other times after, was unbearable. This article has been written to bring awareness about Mangal Prabandh in Gurbani and to educate the Sikhs to understand the problem regarding Mangals and to inspire and prompt them to do Paath in the correct way i.e. by pronouncing Mangals in the beginning.

It’s long been a tradition to write in praise of the Deity before beginning to write. In olden days, even before writing a letter, Gursikhs used to write Manglacharan like Akal Sahai, Vaheguru jee kee Fateh etc. Now a days, this tradition has been totally lost. We write so many posts and emails but hardly write any Mangal in the beginning. In a way, the Fateh of Khalsa can be classified as a Mangal because we invoke our Deity – Vaheguru – through it.

Mangal is also called Manglacharan, Mangalcharan and Manglachaar. Vedas have used the Mangal OM and Quran Shareef has used Bismillah-ur-Rehmaan-u-Raheem. Even Waris Shah before writing his epic composition – Heer – wrote a Mangal about Khuda and Mohammad Sahib – Pehla Aap Khuda ne Ishq keeta, tey Pyaar hai Nabi Rasool Miyaan.

Types of Mangals

Scholars have classified Mangals into three types:

Vastu-Nirdeshatmik – As the name implies this Manglacharan describes the qualities and nature of the Deity. IkOankaarSatgurprasaad|| is an example of this kind of Mangal. The Mool Mantra too is an example of this type of Mangal.

Asheervaadaatmik – As per the name, through this Manglacharan the seeker seeks blessings (Asheervaad) of the Deity. Vaheguru jee kee Fateh or Jai Teghan are example of this type of Mangal.

Namaskaaratmak – As the name implies, through this Mangal, the seeker does Namaskaar to his Deity e.g. Pranvo Aad Ikankaara etc.

Many times, a combination of Mangals is used but the Vastu-Nirdeshaatmak Mangal is always used first. In Siri Bavan Akhri, the starting Salok (Gurdev Maata, Gurdev Pita) is an example of Namaskaratmak Mangal but this Mangal appears after the Vastu-Nirdeshatmak Mangal – Ikoankaarsatgurprasaad.

In Zafarnama, Siri Guru Gobind Singh jee Maharaj used the Aad Mangal as – Ikoankaar, followed by Asheervaatkam Mangal – Hukam-Sat, Sri Vaheguru jee kee Fateh. After that, Siri Guru jee composed 12 Shayers (a salok-like poetic composition) as part of the Namaskaratmak Mangal. In the 13th Shayer, Siri Guru jee began the subject of his letter, with the heading “Dastaan”. Dastaan means story or subject matter.

In Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee, the Vastu-Nirdeshatmak Mangal has been used extensively.

The following 4 Vastu-Nirdeshatmak Mangals have been used in Gurbani:


ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾਪੁਰਖੁਨਿਰਭਉਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ
ਅਕਾਲਮੂਰਤਿਅਜੂਨੀਸੈਭੰਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥

ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾਪੁਰਖੁਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥

ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥


In Dasam Granth, the following 7 type of Mangals have been used:

ੴ

ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥

ੴਸ੍ਰੀਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤੇਹੈ॥

ੴਸ੍ਰੀਜੀਕੀਫਤਹੇ॥

ੴਹੁਕਮਸਤਿਸ੍ਰੀਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤੇਹ॥

ੴਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀ॥

ੴਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤੇ, ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਹ॥

Apart from this, there are other Mangals e.g. ਸ੍ਰੀਭਗਉਤੀਜੀਸਹਾਇ ।, ਸ੍ਰੀਅਕਾਲਸਹਾਇ ।


Place of Mangals - Aad Bir and other Birs of this style

As stated before, the Nirdeshaatmak Mangal or the basic Mangal which is also called Mool Mantra in Panth is always placed in the beginning of all.

In the Aad Bir (original Bir compiled by Siri Guru Arjun Dev jee) and other Birs of this order, the Mangals were always placed either on the top right side of the Ang (Panna) or on equal level with the Sirlekh, but again on the right hand side. The Mangals were kept on the right hand side out of respect. Below are some examples of how Mangals appeared in the Aad-Bir:

....................................................................................................ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾਪੁਰਖੁਨਿਰਭਉ
....................................................................................................ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁਅਕਾਲਮੂਰਤਿਅਜੂਨੀ
ਰਾਗਬਿਹਾਗੜਾਚਉਪਦੇਮਹਲਾ 5 ਘਰੁ 2...........................................................ਸੈਭੰਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥

Now a days, the above stated Mangal apears in the printed Saroops of Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee in correct way, i.e. the Mangal appears first and the Sirlekh appears afterwards, even though the last line is shared by both Sirlekh and the Mangal.

Let’s look at another example:


ਰਾਗੁਗਉੜੀਅਸਟਪਦੀਆ ..........................................ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾਪੁਰਖੁਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥
ਮਹਲਾ 1 ਗਉੜੀ ਗੁਆਰੇਰੇ॥

Here the Mangal appears on the right handside out of respect and as it can be seen, the Sirlekh starts in the same line but ends in the second line. The Sirlekh does not go to the right handside and stays on the left handside. If we were to read this without using Bibek-Budh, we would read it as follows:

ਰਾਗੁਗਉੜੀਅਸਟਪਦੀਆ ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾਪੁਰਖੁਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥ ਮਹਲਾ 1 ਗਉੜੀ ਗੁਆਰੇਰੇ॥

We know that no one reads it like that. The current printed Saroops have the above Sirlekh as follows:

ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ ਅਸਟਪਦੀਆ ਮਹਲਾ 1 ਗਉੜੀ ਗੁਆਰੇਰੀ ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

The question is, how did the Mangal come after the Sirlekh when clearly the second line of this Sirlekh is one line below the Mangal? This proves that in the current printed Saroops, the Mangals and Sirlekhs are all mixed up. Guru Sahib Kirpa Karan.

Now let’s look at an example from Siri Sukhmani Sahib. In Aad-Bir, the beginning of Siri Sukhmani Sahib is written as follows:

ਗਉੜੀ ਸੁਖਮਨੀ ਮ: 5 ॥ ਸਲੋਕੁ ॥ ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

The Mangal was clearly on the right handside which meant that it should have been read first but now with the printed Gutka Sahibaan, it appears after the Salok, and everyone is reading it after the Salok, which is totally wrong. Here’s what it means, if we read the Mangal after the Salok:

• Since it appears after ‘Salok’ it means that the Manglacharan is part of the Salok.

• Since it appears after the ‘Mahalla’ heading, it means that it is baani of Guru Arjun Dev jee.

• Since it appears after the Raag heading it means that it is part of Raag Gauri.

None of the above statements is true.


Place of Mangals - Second Type

When some professional writers who were writing Maharaj jee's Saroops as a profession and did not have full knowledge of Gurmat traditions, started writing the Saroops of Maharaj, they started writing Mangals sometimes after and sometimes before the Sirlekh. They did not understand the style of Aad Bir and did not realize that the Mangals were appearing on the right hand side out of respect and they ought to be pronounced first. Such writers at many places clearly wrote Mangals afterwards and then whoever copied from their Birs, did the same thing. This way, this confusion about Mangals started.


Place of Mangals – Third Type

When Gurmukh writers saw the error of writing Mangals after the Sirlekh, they abandoned writing the Mangal on the right handside and clearly started writing the Mangals on top and in the beginning. They wanted to avoid people getting confused. Principal Harbhajan Singh jee has written that in the Sikh Reference Library, there were hundreds of such handwritten Birs that always had the Mangals in the beginning. Many of these Birs got lost or Shaheed during the 1984 Saka.


Bhai Hardas jee, the Hazoori Likhaari of Siri Guru Gobind Singh jee

Bhai Hardaas jee was one of the 4 main Hazoori Likhaaris of Siri Dasmesh jee and the Bir written by him, which was safe in the Sikh Reference Library up until 1984, is considered to be one of the most Shudh handwritten Saroop of Guru Sahib. This Bir not only contained all the Mangals in the beginning but also had all Baani of Siri Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib jee at the correct places in Raags. This proves that Siri Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib jee’s baani was added to the Bir, before Guru Sahib left Siri Anandpur Sahib. In any case, this is a separate subject that has no relevance here.

In the end of this Bir written by Bhai Hardaas jee, the following words appear, that show the Avastha and humility of Bhai Sahib:

ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸੰਪਰੂਨ ਹੋਆ, ਲਿਖਿਆ ਹਰਿਦਾਸ ਲਿਖਾਰੀ, ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਦੇ ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਲਿਖਿਆ। ਭੁਲ ਚੁਕ ਹੋਵੇ ਸੋ ਸੋਧਨਾ, ਗੁਲਾਮ, ਪਤਿਤੁ, ਅਘ ਪਤਿਤੁ ਮਹਾਂ, ਪਤਤ ਹਰਿਦਾਸ ਲਿਖਾਰੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਦਾ।

It bring tears to your eyes reading the above words of Bhai Hardaas jee. He did such great Sewa; he was the Hazoori Likhaari of Siri Guru Gobind Singh jee, and yet how humble he was. Such humility can be found only in Gursikhs. Another thing to note is that while he seems very humble but when he writes that he is the Hazoori Likhaari of Guru Gobind Singh jee (he writes this two times) one can feel the Gurmukhi pride in that. What a great title to have – Hazoori Likhaari of Siri Guru Gobind Singh jee. Vaah!! Vaah!!

Another one of Guru Sahib’s Hazoori Likhaari was Bhai Paakhar Mal Dhillon, who was the grandson of legendary Gursikh of Siri Guru Arjun Dev jee – Chaudhari Langah.


A Thought-Provoking Observation

In Kartarpuri Bir, at some places a very interesting observation has been brought up which proves that Mangals were written first on the right handside and then the Sirlekhs were written on the left handside.

............................................... ਆ
ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ 3 ਘਰੁ 1 ਅਸਟਪਦੀ ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥


The “ਆ“ had to be written above the line. Why? Because Mangal was written first and then when they started writing the Sirlekh from the left side, shortage of space was felt, and therefore, the “ਆ“ was written above the line. If the Sirlekh had been written first, then such problem would not have arised.

Have a look at another example:

ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ ਪੂਰਬੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
.................................. 5

In the above example, the number of Mahalla i.e. 5 is written below the line. Why? Because the Sirlekh was written afterwards and the Mangal was written first on the right handside. If the Sirlekh had been written first, then there would have been no problem of writing “ 5 “ in the same line.

Please ponder upon another example, that makes this concept of writing the Mangal on the right handside, first, even more clear:

ਗਉੜੀ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਮਹਲਾ 5 ਰਾਇ ਕਮਾਲਦੀ ਮੋਜ ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥
ਦੀ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਕੀ ਧੁਨਿ ਉਪਰਿ ਗਾਵਣੀ

mojdI above is one word but since the Manglacharan was written first on the right handside, there was no room to even accommodate “dI” and this resulted in moving the latter part to the next line. Now a days, the printed Saroops have placed the Mangal after the Sirlekh. This is so wrong. Maharaj Kirpa Karan.


In the light of the above three examples, it becomes abundantly clear that the Mangals were always written first and were written on the right hand side. Many times the Mangals were written on right hand side, a little above but many times they were written in the same line as the Sirlekh.

Manglacharan is Moolmantra

One of the names of Manglacharan is Mool Mantra. The meaning of Mool Mantra is – Root Mantra. Since Mangal is the Mool, it should always be written in the beginning, and never after. How can the Mool of Gurbani be written afterwards? Vaheguru is Sabh tau Pehla and therefore the Mangal or Mool Mantra defining Vaheguru has to be written in the beginning. How can it be written after the Raag or Mahalla? It is an insult to Mool Mantra and Vaheguru to write it after the Raag.


Is Moolmantra (or other Mangals) Baani of Bhagats?

It’s a universally accepted that the Mool Mantra or the Manglacharan was given to us by Siri Guru Nanak Dev jee. Also, this is universally accepted by all that the Sirlekh gives certain information that we are obligated as Sikhs of Guru Sahib, to believe and have faith in. If the Sirlekh says “ਗਉੜੀ ਪੂਰਬੀ ਮਹਲਾ 5”, then it clearly means that from hereon, the Baani is written in Raag Gauri-Poorbi and has been written by Mahalla 5 i.e. Siri Guru Arjun Dev jee. A Gursikh cannot question this Hukam of Guru Sahib and must obey it. Similarly, if the Sirlekh says Baani Bhagta kee, it means that the Baani after this Sirlekh is of Bhagat Sahibaan. In the light of this information, let’s look at this heading on Ang 93:

ਸ੍ਰੀਰਾਗ ਬਾਣੀ ਭਗਤ ਬੇਣੀ ਜੀਉ ਕੀ ॥ ਪਹਰਿਆ ਕੈ ਘਰਿ ਗਾਵਣਾ ॥ ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

Based on the above Hukam in the Sirlekh, the following information is derived:

1. The Baani appearing next is in Raag Sri Raag.

2. The author of the Baani is Bhagat Beni.

3. This Baani is to be sung in the same Ghar as the Pehre (name of a Baani).

4. The Mangal ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥ is the composition of Bhagat Beni.

The first 3 points listed above are just fine but the last point shows such a big blunder. We all know that the Mangal is not the composition of Bhagat Beni jee but we have to obey the Hukam given in the Sirlekh and believe that this Mangal is the composition of Bhagat jee. Please think rationally and not emotionally. When we think with Bibek Budh, we can’t help realizing that the Mangal here should have appeared in the beginning. It is certainly an error thanks to obliviousness of SGPC.

Another thing to note is that while the Baani was written by the Bhagat Sahibaan, but none of the Bhagat Sahibaan wrote any Mangals. The Mangals and the Sirlekhs were added by Guru Sahibaan. So how can the Mangals appear after the Sirlekhs declaring Bhagat Baani?


Brahmgyaani Shaheed Bhai Mani Singh jee’s views on Manglacharan


ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾਪੁਰਖੁਨਿਰਭਉਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ
ਅਕਾਲਮੂਰਤਿਅਜੂਨੀਸੈਭੰਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥
ਨਾਮ ਸਭ ਦੇਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਦੇਵ ਹੈ। ਕੋਈ ਦੇਵੀ ਨੂੰ ਮਨਾਵਦਾ ਹੈ। ਕੋਈ ਸ਼ਿਵ ਨੂੰ, ਕੋਈ ਗਣੇਸ਼ ਨੂੰ, ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਦੇਵਤਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ। ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਸਿਖ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁ ਨੂੰ ਅਰਾਧਤੇ ਹੈਂ ਜਿਸ ਕਰ ਸਭ ਵਿਘਨ ਨਾਸ ਹੋਂਦੇ ਹਨ। ਤਾਂ ਤੇ ਸਤਿਨਾਮ ਦਾ ਮੰਗਲਚਾਰ ਆਦਿ ਰਖਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ।

In the above writing of Bhai Mani Singh jee from Janamsakhi Bhai Mani Singh waali, clearly proves that Mangal should be kept in the beginning. Bhai Sahib gives the argument that since Satnam destroys all problems and since Gursikhs worship Satnam, for this reason the Mangalchar of this Satnam i.e. the Mool Mantra has been kept in the beginning.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the above Vichaar is that the Manglacharan should be pronounced before the Sirlekh. The purpose of this article is not to start an argument or an anti-Gurmat debate but the purpose is to inform Gursikhs about the correct way of pronouncing Mangals. Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee and numerous other Gurmukhs favoured the Mangals in the beginning. The Shiromini Committee published Birs in the beginning of the last century and all of them had Mangals in the beginning. Two such Birs published by SGPC are currently in Toronto and numerous others can be found in different parts of the world.

It’s quite unfortunate that some Premis don’t want to listen to anyone else but just insist that whatever their Mahapurakhs have said must be followed by all. All Gurmukhs Mahapurakhs are worthy of our utmost respect but we must not forget that Gurbani says that with the exception of Vaheguru and Satguru, everyone else makes mistakes. No one person, group, jatha is bigger than Gurmat. Gurmat must prevail, at all costs.

Guru Sahib knows better and may Guru Sahib enable us to follow Gurmat.

Bhul Chuk dee Maafi jee.

Daas,
Kulbir Singh

References: Books of Professor Sahib Singh, Giani Harbans Singh, Principal Harbhajan Singh, Mahankosh of Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha, Bhai Vir Singh and Vichaars with numerous Gursikhs.Gurbani Sampadan by Principal Harbhajan Singh provided the most information to complete this article.

Great writeup Veer Ji. The most important i think is the Conclusion.

========================================
All Gurmukhs Mahapurakhs are worthy of our utmost respect but we must not forget that Gurbani says that with the exception of Vaheguru and Satguru, everyone else makes mistakes. No one person, group, jatha is bigger than Gurmat. Gurmat must prevail, at all costs.
========================================

ਭੁਲਣ ਅੰਦਰ ਸਭ ਕੋ ਅਭੁਲ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਰਤਾਰ ||

If these above important lines are thought for a moment by all Gurmukhs, more than 80% issues in the Panth would be resolved.


Guru Sahib Kirpa Karan.

Bhul Chuk Maaf !!

Everyone has their own opinions on this matter, I say I'm right you say you're right, we all say we're all right based on our experiences, interactions, research, until we give up the ego we will not reach our destination and will continue to suffer in aavan jaan.

ਭੁਲਣ ਅੰਦਰ ਸਭ ਕੋ ਅਭੁਲ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਰਤਾਰ || Does sum it up.

Akaali ji, if you don't agree with the amazing article Bhai Kulbir Singh ji has written then please use your research and knowledge to present your case. You cannot simply excuse an amazing informative article on simply no base. Please don't take this personally.

Bhai Kulbir Singh ji, what a wonderful and informative article you have written. I now, feel even stronger about reading Mangals first after reading this article. Aap ji da boht dhanvadh for bringing such an important issue regarding Manglacharan to us on this forum.

Such a detailed write up. Thanks a lot for this. It just doesn't seem to make sense to have mangals first in some places and have it placed after in some places. I also have a lot of respect for Mahpurkhs of different jathas/sampardhahs. But we need to come to the realization that being a Mahpursh does not mean they are infallible. Everyone except for Vaheguru and the Gurus are infallible and the tukh ਭੁਲਣ ਅੰਦਰ ਸਭ ਕੋ ਅਭੁਲ ਗੁਰੂ ਕਰਤਾਰ || means exactly that.

"Another thing to note is that while the Baani was written by the Bhagat Sahibaan, but none of the Bhagat Sahibaan wrote any Mangals. The Mangals and the Sirlekhs were added by Guru Sahibaan."


This is very intriguing. If Mangals were added to Bhagat Bani by Guru Sahib then what else was added? How about Rahao, numbers etc.? And what about classifying Bhagat Bani in raags? Did Guru Sahib randomly pick out raags for Bhagat bani or there was a systematic approach or rational decision to justify its classification? Was Bhagat Ramanand Ji’s shabad included in Raag Basant because it was originally composed in this raag or was it Guru Sahib’s discretion and what was the reason behind it? Was Bhagat Bani also translated to Gurmukhi using gurbani grammar by Guru Sahib? Bhagats were influenced by Guru Sahib and their bani shows that. Why couldn’t they have used the same mangal if they could use same words and compose bani very similar to Guru Bani? All of this sounds like interpolation rather than proving authentication of bani.

Kulbir Singh Ji - What an eye opener!!!! I have always read the Manglacharan as written. It will be tricky to to remember from hereon but Guru Kirpa I will try to read the Mangals first from now on. The evidence provided looks irrefutable to me Akaali Jio.

The Nimarta of Bhai Hardas Ji and even more so how fortunate they were - Amazing!!!

A bibi once told a group of us in a Sikhi workhop many years ago that the Mangals should be read first, but we just ignored her as she did not spell out why...I so regret it now.


Correct me if I'm wrong but in Dasam Bani do all the Mangals appear first?

Akali ji karo kirpa , apne vichaar pesh karo ji sangat nooon.

Bhul Chuk Maaf !!

Bhai Bijla Singh jeeo,

Quote

This is very intriguing. If Mangals were added to Bhagat Bani by Guru Sahib then what else was added?

This is the whole idea of not reciting the Mangals after the Sirlekh. Guru Sahib did not add Mangals in the Bhagat Baani but they appear before Bhagat Baani and precisely for this reason, Mangals are not part of Bhagat Baani. Mangals are the composition of Guru Sahibaan and thus they should not appear after the Bhagat Baani Sirlekh and should always be before the Sirlekh.

Quote

How about Rahao, numbers etc.? And what about classifying Bhagat Bani in raags?

Rahao and numbers etc. were already there in Bhagat Baani. Bhagat Baani was already classified in Raags. If you look at the Bhagat Baani that does not appear in Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee, it has numbers, Rahao and is classified in Raags. Meera Bai was a contemporary of Bhagat Ravidaas jee and her Baani appears in Raags and has numbers. The only difference is that most Bhagats of that time, whose Baani does not appear in Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee, used "Tek" instead of "Rahao". Shah Hussain's Baani too is classified in Raags. I can't help writing that some compositions of Meera and Shah Hussain are absolutely amazing. They are full of love for their Deity.

Quote

Did Guru Sahib randomly pick out raags for Bhagat bani or there was a systematic approach or rational decision to justify its classification? Was Bhagat Ramanand Ji’s shabad included in Raag Basant because it was originally composed in this raag or was it Guru Sahib’s discretion and what was the reason behind it?

The Bhagat Baani was already classified in Raags. Guru Sahib did not change Raags of Bhagat Baani. The Baani of all Bhagats of that time had Baani classified as Raags. Please refer to Baani of Shah Hussain, Meerabai, Tulsidaas, Soordaas and all their Baani is classified in Raags. Swami Ramanand jee's Shabad was already in Basant and Guru Sahib did not change the Raag of the Shabad.

Quote

Was Bhagat Bani also translated to Gurmukhi using gurbani grammar by Guru Sahib?

It must have been. The presentation of Gurbani in Gurmukhi was finalized by Guru Sahibaan. Its not clear in which script the Bhagat Baani was appearing originally. More study is required in this area.

Quote

Bhagats were influenced by Guru Sahib and their bani shows that. Why couldn’t they have used the same mangal if they could use same words and compose bani very similar to Guru Bani? All of this sounds like interpolation rather than proving authentication of bani.

First thing is that even if they had used the same Mangals, it still would not make the Mangals Bhagat Baani. Many Gursikhs use some sort of Mangal when writing and most use Mangals used by Guru Sahib but this does not change the fact that the Mangals are composition of Guru Sahib.

Guru Sahib knows better.

Daas,
Kulbir Singh

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong but in Dasam Bani do all the Mangals appear first?

You are absolutely correct "Unjaan" jeeo. All Vastu-Nirdeshatmak Mangals appear in the beginning, in Dasam Baani. Guru Sahib has made extensive use of all 3 kinds of Mangals in Dasam Baani. Dhan Guru Sahib jee.

Kulbir Singh

Kulbir Singh Ji, contention I have is not where mangals should appear but with your statement that Guru Sahib himself added these mangals in the beginning of Bhagat Bani. It is a literary crime for one scholar to add something to another scholar’s work (beginning, middle or end) without making a note of it for the reader.

Guru Sahib clearly wrote where he added saloaks to Vaars or where he added his own shabads in Bhagat Bani. He could’ve written a note that mangal was his own addition in the beginning. If Bhagats wrote no mangal then there was no need for Guru Sahib to write mangals without mentioning it. Bhagat bani was perfect which is why it was accepted. There was no need to add mangals to make it more “suitable” and in line with Gurmat. It was neither perfected later nor translated because otherwise it would not be dhur ki bani or original. Anything translated is not original. Guru Sahib was the first one to compose bani in raags and he was the master of music who taught Bhai Mardana Ji. Who else could teach bhagats about raag other than Guru Sahib? If Guru Amardaas Ji could be blessed to compose bani in 17 raags after the age of 60 then there is no doubt that Guru Sahib could do kirpa on bhagats to compose bani according to raags. He could’ve easily taught them grammar also which is why Bhagat Kabir Ji uses words like Kakka..Gagga.. etc. This again shows Guru Ji’s influence which leads me to believe that Bhagats used Guru Sahib’s mangals on their own. I have not come across any evidence that bhagats learned raags from any musical school (I could be wrong).

As you stated, a mangal is used by the person to invoke his deity in the beginning of his work. Hindus use their own mangals and Muslims their own which tells us who they keep faith in and whom they worship. They can use any type of mangal they wish but someone else adding mangal in the beginning of their work resorts to distortion. Granted that mangals are composition of Guru Sahib but it does not mean Guru Sahib took the liberty of adding mangals to invoke his own deity under their names. It opens the door of questioning authenticity of Bhagat Bani. If they did not use mangals then there was no need for Guru Sahib to put them there in the beginning of Bhagat Bani. How would we feel if someone took Guru Sahib’s bani and added a Hindu mangal in the beginning to make it part of their own granth? Since bhagats took Naam from Guru Sahib, worshipped Nirgun Akal, believed in Satnaam and were blessed with “Gurparsaad” there was nothing preventing them to use the same mangal of Guru Sahib. Bhagats using the same mangal in my opinion is the most glaring proof of the influence of Guru Sahib on Bhagats otherwise if we go with the traditional belief it becomes a major distortion to history and one cannot but conclude that Guru Sahib enforced his mangal on Bhagats.

I am in no way questioning reading mangals in the beginning and you have written the article very well. I apologize for being too skeptical and changing the direction of the topic. My only intent is to learn. If I have misunderstood your post please clarify. Guru Rakha

Quote

Kulbir Singh Ji, contention I have is not where mangals should appear but with your statement that Guru Sahib himself added these mangals in the beginning of Bhagat Bani. It is a literary crime for one scholar to add something to another scholar’s work (beginning, middle or end) without making a note of it for the reader.

To the best of my knowledge no scholar has ever contended that the Mangals were written by Bhagat Sahibaan. This is a general understanding that the Sirlekhs and Mangals on top of Bhagat Baani were added by Guru Sahibaan. Let's look at the example from Bhagat Baani from Raag Gauri, as it appears in printed Saroops now a days:

ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ ਭਗਤਾਂ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ

ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥

ਗਉੜੀ ਗੁਆਰੇਰੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ ਕੇ ਚਉਪਦੇ ੧੪ ॥

Thereafter, the Baani of Bhagat Kabir jee starts. The above two Sirlekhs and the Manglacharan both have been written by Siri Guru jee. Bhagat Kabir jee or other Bhagat did not write the Sirleks like "ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ ਭਗਤਾਂ ਕੀ ਬਾਣੀ" or " ਗਉੜੀ ਗੁਆਰੇਰੀ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਬੀਰ ਜੀਉ ਕੇ ਚਉਪਦੇ ੧੪ ॥ ". From the writing style of the Sirlekhs we can easily infer that these Sirlekhs are not written by Bhagat Kabir jee. Same way, the Bhagats did not write the Mangals either and this is in no way a literary crime. Guru Sahib compiled Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee and took Bhagat Baani as was, without changing the actual Bhagat Baani, and placed it in Siri Guru Granth Sahib jee, as Guru Sahib thought best. So long as the source is acknowledged, it can't be a literary crime. In today's world too, the compositions or works of other authors can be referenced in books so long as the source is acknowledged. Same way, since Guru Sahib has referenced the source in the Sirlekh, it can't be a literary crime and Mangals that appear before, could not have been written by Bhagat Sahibaan.

Now in the example above, if the Sirlekhs are not of Bhagat Sahibaan, how can the Mangals be theirs?

Quote

Granted that mangals are composition of Guru Sahib but it does not mean Guru Sahib took the liberty of adding mangals to invoke his own deity under their names.

This question would only arise in such case if the Mangals were actually added after the Sirlekh that declares that thereon anything that comes is Bhagat Baani. Since Guru Sahib placed the Mangals before the Sirlekh, the question of Guru Sahib adding Mangals in Bhagat Baani does not arise. Anything before the Sirlekh is just not Bhagat Baani and only after the Sirlekh Bhagat Baani starts.

Mangals are always added whenever new chapter of Gurbani opens up, and there is only one exception I can think of and that too is due to an error caused during printing of Saroops. As per the Maryada of writing the Mangal when a new chapter starts, Guru Sahib added the required Mangal, then wrote the Sirlekh that contained vital information about the subsequent Baani and then added the Bhagat Baani. There is no question of literary crime here, rather its quite the opposite. Guru Sahib blessed the Bhagats by adding their Baani and acknowledging the source i.e. the name of the Bhagat Sahibaan when adding their Baani.

Quote

I am in no way questioning reading mangals in the beginning and you have written the article very well. I apologize for being too skeptical and changing the direction of the topic. My only intent is to learn.

I have known you through forums for years and have no doubts about your intentions. We all are here to learn and are learning a lot by discussing Gurmat, Gurbani, our traditions and history. Guru Sahib kirpa karan.

Guru Sahib knows better.

Daas,
Kulbir Singh

I am sorry to enter the discussion between Veer Kulbir Singh and Bijla Singh Ji. The topic is about Mangal Parbandh and Veer Bijla Singh is well within it. There is lot to learn in this thread.

I have some feelings about Bhagat Bani and last post of Bijla Singh Ji discusses those points, which oppose my perceptions.

Bhagats wrote bani. And Guru Ji selected all or some of it to make it Gurbani. Not only their bani was made Gurbani, but their souls were also uplifted, to make them sikhs of the Guru. How that happened, I do not know. Guru talked to Bhagats, He talked with their souls. He blessed them with GURMANTAR. Guru Sahib, while collecting Bani of Bhagats, invited their presence at Gurdwara Ram Sar Sahib, where the holy job was accomplished. Physical theories will never explain these so called superstitions. But as a sikh, we are supposed to believe that those Bhagats were with the Guru during this KARAJ of the AKAL PURAKH. At the old building of the Gurdwara Sahib, there was a painting, which depicted a beautiful idea. The painting showed that while Guru Sahib was with Bhai Gurdaas Ji during writting of Sri Guru Granth Sahib; all the Bhagats were there in the sky, watching all that. Bhai Randhir Singh Ji has also written simliar ideas in some book, if Veer Kulbir Singh Ji or other Veer Ji can confirm it. I am also free to have a feeling that Guru Sahib even corrected or improved upon the writtings of the Bhagats, to make those, writtings of the GURU. If Bhagats did not use "grammer" at a point, Guru used it.

That was not a literary editing job. Moreover once the Bhagat bani was accepted and made Gurbani; it was job of the Guru to add mangals or not add at all.

Quote

Granted that mangals are composition of Guru Sahib but it does not mean Guru Sahib took the liberty of adding mangals to invoke his own deity under their names. It opens the door of questioning authenticity of Bhagat Bani.

When Veer Bijla Singh Ji says above lines, I am astonished to find very disturbing miscalculations in it. Is Diety of the Guru different than those of the Bhagats? Does Guru ji need permission from the Bhagats to bless them? Does adding frame to a picture, creates doubts about the originality of the picture?

Even if we want to explain the things on purely physical level and want to prove the GURU as an Editor; Mangals of the GURU followed by Bani of the Bhagats,blessed by the GURU; not at all contradicts any professional norm.

Just my feelings, no help of historical evidences.

Bhul Chuk Maaf Hove Ji.

NP

And if we are so worried about the patent rights of the Bhagats; we will also need to prove that Guru Ji, asked for the permission of the Bhagats or their descendents to include their Bani in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It is always improper to enter any writting in a book, without the permission of the author.

wah wah wah

kulbir singh has taken so much time to write this up


wheres the other side to this controversy?

oddslot

Truly a great article! The unfortunate thing is that people are so stuck on the "norm" that even if they are given a 1000 pieces of evidence they will still not change their opinion. I mean even i was a like this before about the Laridhar issue, when i read that people believed laridhar to be the only true jot of Dhan Dhan Guru Granth Sahib Ji, i was taken back and shocked. My whole life I had been mathateking to a pad-ched saroop, how could it not be the guru? And that's what the thinking of most of the panth is right now, soon as you mention something that is not in the "norm" they will get angered...

one thing that comes to mind to me is the concept of "joot."I remember doing seva at the gurduwara once and I told the sevadhar that I only eat from amritdharis, and he told me how silly I was. That has no place in Sikhi we are not hindu's etc..(He's a great Sikh btw).then I saw him on another day, a boy came to refill his glass of water without washing his hands. And he told the boy to wash his hands, because at the gurduwara we can't get anything joota. How is the concept of joot any different from Bibek? It is the same exact concept, but since over time, only one of these practices have been kept in Sikh tradition, believing in the one that is not the 'norm" makes me crazy. Just cause the concept of sarbloh and bibek are not mainstream, people will have a very hard time accepting it. Even if you give them as much proof as possible

People will just take Sikhi for what it is, and are afraid to go against the norm, afraid to change what already is. Afraid to say that what they are bowing to is not the true guru(pad-ched saroop), afraid to accept that parts of their guru have been altered over time(mangalcharans). Or they could just not have received information on the truth yet. At the end of the day, you can't blame the individuals for that, they have just been misinformed, uninformed or afraid to change their minds.

Dass would sincerely like to know the case for the other side, why are mangalcharans sometimes after sirlekhs and sometimes before? I have not asked anyone about this in person, and the only responses I've read online message boards were that Sant so and so must have had a good reason to make the mangalcharans after. Which is justified, all great Gurmukhs should be respected and I don't blame people for taking these sants words, but what is the justification? I am eager to hear the other side to this. If someone could provide a link or book, or write an article of their own please do so.

A much needed discussion. Thanks to Veer Kulbir Singh for taking the time to gift us the research around this topic.

Just an observation about MB Singh jee' post: I believe it is incorrect, Gurbani-vise, to say that Bhagats wrote Bani and Guru Sahib made it Gurbani. The Bani in Shree Guru Granth Sahib is all 'Mahapurakh Kee' whether written by Mahalaa 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 or by any of the Bhagats. No conversion could have been required. Ofcourse, Guru Sahib had to pick it out of other Bani that was not directly 'Mahapurakh kee', and only Guru Sahib could do that.

Thanks once again for sending me the link to this post, jee.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖ਼ਾਲਸਾਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫ਼ਤਹਿ

In Raag Gauri following mangal is used when bhagat bani starts.

ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾਪੁਰਖੁਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥

In same Raag, Kabir Ji’s bani is divided in different chapters but no mangal is used again. Even when Dupday or Tipday are put in a separate category no mangal appears. In Guru Sahib’s Bani when Astpadis, Chants, Chaupaday etc. start, mangal is written. When Kabir Ji’s Astpadis start in Guari Guareri, mangal is used but a different one. (ੴ ਸਤਿਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥)
Look at Ang 331 where Gauri Cheti starts. There should be a mangal here if we go by your logic since a new chapter starts here after Guari Guareri. But mangal appears on the second shabad of Gauri Cheti. This to me is clear enough that bhagat Kabir Ji used the mangal on second shabad of Gauri Cheti and not on the first one which is why it appears there. Then no mangal when Tipday or Panchpaday start. Then no mangal when Gauri Poorbi starts. Since Poorbi is a separate chapter there should be a mangal here. When Bavan Akhri starts ੴ ਸਤਿਨਾਮੁਕਰਤਾਪੁਰਖੁਗੁਰਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ॥ mangal is used. Different mangals in same bhagat’s bani and not appearing at the start of every new chapter show that these mangals were used by bhagat ji himself otherwise Guru Sahib would’ve simply written the same mangal consistently.

In Raag Aasa Bhagat Kabir Ji’s bani has dupday, titukay but sometimes there is a mangal and sometimes there isn’t one. Whenever mangal appears in bhagat ji’s subsequent bani (in Raag Aasa) it is a shorter version. This is from a cursory look at Kabir Ji’s bani and I am sure if much more time is devoted a definite conclusion can be drawn. I think serious study needs to be done in this area. I am not aware of any scholar who has done study on mangals in bhagat bani but to me it makes sense that the mangal is used by the bhagats themselves since mangals appear in their bani (multiple times in bhagat kabir ji’s bani in the same raag). Mangal is used to invoke the deity and since deity of bhagats is the same as Guru Sahib’s they used the same mangal. If they did not invoke any deity and never used any mangal then Guru Sahib would’ve simply used one mangal in the beginning of kabir ji’s bani and not in the middle. Is mangal used by Guru Sahib in Zafarnama not part of Zafarnama? Is mangal used by Kavi Santokh Singh not part of Sooraj Parkash? Granted mangals have nothing to do with lives of the Gurus but nonetheless he used it and hence it becomes part of his work. Same goes with bhagat bani.

MB Singh Ji, please study bhagat bani first and their history. It was a common belief that bhagats lived before the advent of Guru Nanak Sahib and 5th Guru Ji called them from Sachkhand. Bhai Randhir Singh Ji believed that since no one can go to Sachkhand without kirpa of Guru Nanak Sahib, they had to be in Karam Khand (one lower). Then they were called and sent to Sachkhand. Both theories are not too different but wrong. Many bhagats met Guru Nanak Sahib and were blessed while in physical form otherwise it makes no sense why selected bhagats were called from above and not others and why no bhagat among Semitic religions was selected and why only certain bani was selected. If certain bhagat bani did not fit the framework of Gurmat then the conclusion drawn is that dwellers of Sachkhand can have difference of opinion and some may have opinions contrary to Gurmat. I know Kulbir Singh Ji knows that bhagats met Guru Nanak Sahib in physical form. Guru Rakha

I assume that Veer Harpreet Singh Ji is inspired by Some Gurbani Pankiti. Is it the following one? Veer Ji, incidently ਮਹਾ ਪੁਰਖ is translated as Singular here. Do you have some other Gurbani Pankities in mind ? Plesae share. Just to explore THE SEA.

ਇਹ ਬਾਣੀ ਮਹਾ ਪੁਰਖ ਕੀ ਨਿਜ ਘਰਿ ਵਾਸਾ ਹੋਇ ॥੪੦॥
This is the Bani of the Supreme Being; through it, one dwells within the home of his inner being. ||40||

I agree with Veer Harpreet Singh Ji. It is simply use of different words. Earlier or afterwards, it is GURBANI. Dhur Ki Bani.

Veer Bijla Singh jeeo,

Quote

Look at Ang 331 where Gauri Cheti starts. There should be a mangal here if we go by your logic since a new chapter starts here after Guari Guareri. But mangal appears on the second shabad of Gauri Cheti. This to me is clear enough that bhagat Kabir Ji used the mangal on second shabad of Gauri Cheti and not on the first one which is why it appears there.

First of all, as per many old Saroops, the Mangal should appear on the first Shabad of Gauri Cheti and in the Bir of Bhai Hardaas jee, this is how it appears. in any case, this is a separate issue but I don't understand how do you derive from this issue, that the Mangals are written by Bhagat Kabir jee? Please think of it: If the Sirlekh is not of Bhagat Kabir then how can something written even before the Sirlekh be of Bhagat Kabir jee?

Quote

Different mangals in same bhagat’s bani and not appearing at the start of every new chapter show that these mangals were used by bhagat ji himself otherwise Guru Sahib would’ve simply written the same mangal consistently.

Again, how can Bhagat Kabir jee's consistency be different from Guru Sahib's? Would Bhagat jee do something different from Guru Sahib? Gurmat is to use Mangal at the beginning of each chapter; would Bhagat jee do something contrary to this? My humble submission is that this argument cannot be used to derive that Bhagat Sahibaan wrote Mangals themselves. Also, I should mention that in the printed Saroops, Mangals are not consistently used before every Chapter, even if the Baani is written by Guru Sahibaan. Please refer to Pehre in Siri Raag. In many old Saroops, Mangals are used after each Mahalla in Pehre but not in printed Saroops. In any case, this is not the issue here. The issue is that if the Sirlekhs are not written by Bhagat Sahibaan, then how can the Mangals that are written before the Sirlekh, be of Bhagats?

Quote

I am not aware of any scholar who has done study on mangals in bhagat bani but to me it makes sense that the mangal is used by the bhagats themselves since mangals appear in their bani (multiple times in bhagat kabir ji’s bani in the same raag). Mangal is used to invoke the deity and since deity of bhagats is the same as Guru Sahib’s they used the same mangal. If they did not invoke any deity and never used any mangal then Guru Sahib would’ve simply used one mangal in the beginning of kabir ji’s bani and not in the middle

Guru Sahib has used the Mangals only at the beginning of each Chapter. Another thing to consider is that when a new chapter should start, has been decided by Guru Sahib and unless it's a typo mistake, we must accept the chapters as they are. There is no such condition for Guru Sahib to use Mangal only once at the beginning of Bhagat Baani. Where ever Guru Sahib saw new chapters in Bhagat Baani, He added Mangals there. I don't see a problem in this. None of this proves that Mangals were written by Bhagat Sahibaan. Again I repeat that if the Sirlekhs have been added by Guru Sahib then surely, the Mangals that appear before the Sirlekhs too have been added by Guru Sahib. Also think, if Mangals had been part of Bhagat Baani, then the Sirlekhs would have appeared before the Mangals which is clearly not the case.

There is no controversy in Panth with respect to the authorship of Mangals. It's not wise to create one by insisting that Bhagat Sahibaan wrote the Mangals.

Daas,
Kulbir Singh

No doubt this is a well-written article but can it be backed up by proof?

In Shudh old handwritten Birs, the Mangals always appeared first. When SGPC first started printing Maharaj jee's Saroops, Mangals always appeared in the beginning.

Veerji, you're saying, shudh old handwritten birs, which birs? There are many shudh old handwritten birs. Can we make our decision based on one bir? Or do we only consult the bir that proves our point? Where do we draw the line? What's next? Are we going to change the mangal to be one only? I hope that one day we stop trying to standardize gurbani to suit our beleifs. Have you read the book "Mundavani" written by Giani Gurdit Singh? There are photos of praatan birs where mangals infact come after.

I don't think we will TRULY understand the message of Gurbani until we fully understand/instill the message instead of question the way its composed. We all as gursikhs agree that the message of gurbani is most important, the sole purpose of Guru Nanak Sahib's existence is to bring this message to the world through Gurbani, why are a select few bent on creating dubidha in the mind of other gursikhs by questioning it so much? Everything that is happening and has happened is under hukam. I feel that one should read bani as it becomes pargat in front a gurbani abhilakhi. To conclude on this topic I think its best we do our own research instead of rely on one person's research on the topic. Khima karyo.

Quote

Veerji, you're saying, shudh old handwritten birs, which birs?

Akali jeeo, please read the article carefully. It talks about proofs from the Kartarpuri Bir which contains Mangals always on the right hand side. Furthermore it talks about Bir of Bhai Hardaas jee which is considered quite Shudh by scholars.

As for some old Saroops have Mangals after Sirlekh, this too has been discussed in the original article. Please refer to it.

As stated before, the idea of this article was to bring awareness about the status of Mangals in Gurbani not to stir a controversy.

Kulbir Singh

great post BHai Kulbir Singh Jeeo! amazing article! wah!
thanks for clearing my thoughts/doubts it answered a lot of my questions
thanks again bhai sahib

ੴਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਹ॥

ਸਤਿਕਾਰਯੋਗ ਭਾਈ ਕੁਲਬੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀਉ, ਗੁਰੂ ਫ਼ਤਿਹ ਪਰਵਾਨ ਕਰਨੀ ਜੀ।

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ। ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫ਼ਤਿਹ॥

ਸਿਆਣਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਇਹ ਕਥਨ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਪਿਆਸੇ ਨੂੰ ਪਾਣੀ ਪਿਆਉਣਾ ਤੇ ਭੁੱਲੇ ਨੂੰ ਰਾਹੇ ਪਾਉਣਾ, ਦੋਵੇਂ ਪੁੰਨ ਦਾ ਕੰਮ ਹਨ ਆਪ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਅਣਥੱਕ ਮੱਸ਼ਕਤ ਕਰ ਸ਼ੁੱਧ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਉਚਾਰਨਾ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਪਹਿਲੋਂ ਹੋ ਗੁਜ਼ਰੇ ਗੁਰਸਿੱਖਾਂ, ਪੰਥ ਦਰਦੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਹੋਕੇ ਦੀ ਅਵਾਜ਼ ਨੂੰ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਬੁਲੰਦ ਕਰ ਪੰਥ ਦੀ ਇਥੋਂ ਦੀ ਛੋਟੀ ਜਿਹੀ ਹੀ ਸਹੀ ਪਰ ਬਹੁਤ ਹੀ ਪਿਆਰ ਵਾਲੀ ਸੰਗਤ ਤਾਂਈ ਪਹੁੰਚਾਇਆ ਹੈ। ਅੱਜ ਦੀ ਨਵ-ਪਨੀਰੀ ਜੇਕਰ ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਉਚਾਰਨਾ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਹੋ ਗਈ ਤਾਂ ਇਹ ਕਹਿਣ ਵਿਚ ਕੋਈ ਅਤਿ ਕਥਨੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ ਕਿ ਜਿਥੇ ਅੱਜ ਪੰਥ ਦੀਆਂ ਵਿਰਾਸਤਾਂ ਤੇ ਜੱਫੇ ਮਾਰੀ ਸੁਆਰਥੀ ਲੋਕ ਜੋਕਾਂ ਵਾਂਗ ਚਿੰਬੜ ਗਏ ਅਤੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਮਾੜੀਆਂ ਹਸਤੀਆ ਵਲੋਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਉਸਾਰੂ ਯਤਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਆਸ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ਤਾਂ ਉਥੇ ਆਪ ਜੀ ਵਾਂਗ ਕੀਤੇ ਇਸ ਤਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਉਪਰਾਲੇ ਭਾਵੇਂ ਕਿ ਛੋਟੀ ਪੱਧਰ ਤੇ ਹੀ ਹਨ ਇਕ ਨਾ ਇਕ ਦਿਨ ਜਰੂਰ ਰੰਗ ਲਿਆਉਣਗੇ। ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਆਪ ਜੀ ਤੇ ਨਦਰੋਂ ਕਰਮ ਬਣਾਈ ਰੱਖਣ ਤਾਂ ਕਿ ਆਪ ਜੀ ਨਿਮਰ ਭਾਉ ਵਿਚ ਰਹਿੰਦੇ ਹੋਏ ਬੇਖੌਫ਼ ਪੰਥ ਦੀ ਸੇਵਾ ਵਿਚ ਜੁਟੇ ਰਹੋ। ਸਾਡੀਆਂ ਸ਼ੁਭ ਇਛਾਵਾਂ ਆਪ ਜੀ ਸੰਗ ਹਨ।

ਇਕ ਸਤਿਕਾਰ ਯੋਗ ਵੀਰ ਭਾਈ ਬਿਜਲਾ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ (ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਨੇ ਕਿੰਨਾ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਨਾਂਉ ਬਖਸ਼ਿਆ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਨਾਂ ਸੁਣ ਕੇ ਪੁਰਾਤਨ ਸਿੰਘਾ ਦੀ ਯਾਦ ਤਾਜ਼ਾ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ) ਨੇ ਥੋੜਾ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਤੋਂ ਹਟਵਾਂ ਭਗਤ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚਲੇ ਮੰਗਲ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਲਿਖੇ ਹਨ ਜਾਂ ਨਹੀ ਬਾਰੇ ਸ਼ੰਕਾਵਾਦੀ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਰੱਖੇ ਹਨ। ਹਾਲਾਂ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਕੋਈ ਵੱਡਾ ਵਿਸ਼ਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਔਰ ਨਾ ਹੀ ਇਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਪੰਥ ਵਿਚ ਕਿਧਰੇ ਕੋਈ ਵਿਵਾਦ ਸੁਨਣ ਵਿਚ ਆਇਆ ਹੈ ਇਸ ਕਰਕੇ ਦਾਸ ਵੀ ਇਸ ਦੀ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਤੋਂ ਸੰਕੋਚ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ਇਹੀ ਆਖੇਗਾ ਕਿ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੂ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਅਤੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਸਭੇ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਜਾਮੇ ਅਤੇ ਹੁਣ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਸਰਬ ਕਲਾਂ ਸਮਰੱਥ ਹਨ:

ਭੰਨਣ ਘੜਣ ਸਮਰਥੁ ਹੈ ਓਪਤਿ ਸਭ ਪਰਲੈ ॥ (ਪੰਨਾ 1102)

ਜੇਕਰ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਬੀੜ ਦੀ ਸੰਪਾਦਨਾ ਵਖਤ ਭਗਤ ਬਾਣੀ ਦੇ ਉੱਪਰ ਸਿਰਲੇਖ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਲਿਖ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਨ ਤਾਂ ਇਹ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਕਿ ਮੰਗਲ ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜੀ ਨਾ ਹੋਵਣ? ਖੈਰ ਦਾਸ ਸਮਝਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਕੋਈ ਵਿਸ਼ਾ ਬਨਾਉਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਗੱਲ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਔਰ ਇਸਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਮੰਗਲਾਂ ਦਾ ਉਚਾਰਨ ਪਹਿਲੋਂ ਨਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਿਚ ਕੋਈ ਸਾਰਥਕ ਦਲੀਲ ਭੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣਦੀ।

ਅੰਤ ਵਿਚ, ਭਾਈ ਕੁਲਬੀਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਵਲੋਂ ਵਿਸ਼ੇ ਤੇ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਸਾਂਭਣਯੋਗ ਅਤੇ ਅਪਨਾਉਣਯੋਗ ਹੈ।

ਗੁਰੂ ਚਰਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਭੌਰਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਦਾਸ,
ਜਸਜੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ

Kulbir Singh Ji, I am not starting a controversy but Guru Sahib writing sirlekh is different than writing mangals. Sirlekh is basically a chapter heading telling us who's bani is coming next but mangals are used by the person who composes bani. If bhagats never used the mangals they would not appear in the beginning of bhagat bani. Not only that different versions of mangals appear. If gauri Cheti does not have mangal in the beginning and it does appear in old saroops then there are numerous saroops that must be compared to reach a definite decision on mangals. Anyways, I will end it here. Hopefully, Guru Sahib will do kirpa to bless me with bibek vichaar. Guru Rakha

Agree with Bijla Singh Veerji.

dont know why bijla singh ji not grasping simple concept. if sirlaeks are not written by bhagats, why manglacharan written before sirlaekh are written by bhagats. this is the first time i hear that mool mantar and other manglacharan are baani of bhagats. there is no historical basis for this mis statement. totally useless issue.

Veer Bijla Singh Ji writes following lines for me.

Quote

If certain bhagat bani did not fit the framework of Gurmat then the conclusion drawn is that dwellers of Sachkhand can have difference of opinion and some may have opinions contrary to Gurmat.

Why? How come? Why we want to be so mathematical and mechanical in exploring our history and faith. (Recently a Veer Ji gave me an argument of the type similar as given by you. He said, there was something less-Gurmat in the writtings of Bhai Gurdass Ji, which made his writtings unworthy of Guru Granth Sahib.) There are no answers to such arguments.

Three Guru Sahibaan did not write Gurbani. Should we must conclude something from that?

I have already asked you to study our history first. Gurmat doesn’t stand on flimsy mythological stories such as calling bhagats from some khand. Many bhagats met Guru Nanak Sahib while they were physically alive and there is more than enough evidence to prove that. Bani that bhagats composed after obtaining naam from Satguru was added to Guru Granth Sahib. Bhagats used many similar words, composed some banis that are similar to that of the Gurus (like Aarti, Bavan Akhri etc), composied bani in Gurmukhi and used same mangals (in my opinion) and rahao which proves that bhagats had not only met but were greatly influenced by Guru Sahib. Guru Sahib picking out some sections of bhagat bani and rejecting other does not make sense. Bhagats were completely in line with Gurmat which is why their bani was accepted while many other bhagats were rejected. It is not I who is calling bhagat bani “less Gurmat” but you are the one who is claiming that bhagats recited bani after being called from a khand and Guru Sahib picked only section of it which leads one to conclude that bhagats had difference of opinion with Guru Sahib. Also, if certain sections of bhagat bani were rejected then it means bhagats (who had reached Sachkhand) held different beliefs than Guru Sahib. Clearly it is not so. Again, read Bhagat Bani Itihaas by Giani Gurdit Singh and works of Prof. Sahib Singh for better understanding of bhagat bani.

Vaars are explanation of Gurbani. Hence Vaars are not an independent rachna or from dhur. Vaars (most of them) are derived from Gurbani. Had Guru Sahib picked some Vaars to be included in Guru Granth Sahib and left out other Vaars only then could we call the rejected ones “less-Gurmat” but since Guru Sahib gave Vaars the status of key to Gurbani it is enough for me to believe that all Vaars are Gurmat oriented and completely in line with it. Similarly, work of Bhai Nand Laal Ji was approved by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Hence, Gurmat oriented. But there is no evidence to prove that bhagat bani that was not included is also Gurmat oriented and Guru Sahib approved of it.

Only Guru Sahib knows best but we can at least get some insight into it. There is something significant about it but I will leave you to find out from history why Guru Sahib did not compose bani in 6, 7 and 8th form. It is fine if you disagree with me but I am not up for arguing over this. Since it is a separate topic consider it my last post on it under this topic. Guru Rakha

Thank you, Veer Bijla Singh Ji, for being very patient and cool, with my irrational school of thought. I think, we differ on our perceptions about permited level of irrationality in Sikhism. I feel I can digest a bit higher level of that. You talk wisdom and logic. That is desired. We may have a separate thread for Logic vs Religion. The main topic here is already over. Thank God, that did not get locked.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh. Bhul Chuk Maaf Hove Ji.