Is Larivaar Baani Saroop (where words are joined) of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji being made to disappear? Larivaar Baani was as the Guru's intended, why has it changed?.
The supporters of Padd-chhed (writing baani in non-joined form) use the following 3 arguments in favour of doing Padd-chhed of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji:
1) It is easier to do paath from Padd-chhed Saroop.
2) Paath done from Padd-chhed saroop is more correct and pure in terms of pronounciation (shudh paath).
3) By doing padd-chhed of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, it becomes easier to translate the baani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in other languages, thereby making it possible to spread the mission of Sri Guru Nanak Sahib Ji at a very large scale.
Answer to Question 1: If you are so worried about easiness and hardness of doing paath, then you might as well not do it. Why not do idol worshipping? The reality is that in love, there is no concept of easiness and hardness. Guru Ji warns the seekers of Waheguru in his baani saying that if you wish to play the game of love with Waheguru, then place your head on your palm and come the court of the true Guru. In ardaas, we remember those great pains and atrocities that our fellow gursikhs suffered for this game of love with Waheguru. At the least, can't we even spend some time and do some effort to learn paath from Larivaar saroop of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji?
Answer to Question 2: This argument that paath done from padd-chhed is clearer and correct does not have any weight. Check out the different padd-chhed saroops for yourself. Paath in one saroop does not match the paath in other saroop. Paath in one translation book does not match with the other translation book. Only one out of them can be correct. All cannot be correct. Others, except one are incorrect. Paath done from such incorrect saroops will always be incorrect because it is written incorrectly. Mistakes from reading incorrect versions of padd-chhed would be considered deliberate mistakes because we have deliberately done the padd-chhed of baani. Both the readers and ones who have done the padd-chhed will have to bear the weight of the sin of doing incorrect paath.
Let all the scholars of panth sit together but they still will not be able to do correct padd-chhed of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. There are hundreds of words that they will separate based on their own intelligence. Which one out of them is the correct one, only Satguru Ji knows or Waheguru Ji knows. What can we mortal beings know. We mortal beings can never claim that the padd-chhed paath that we have done is the correct one. Here are some such shabads which we cannot separate properly or unanimously:
1. ਸਗਲਤਜੀਨੁਗਗਨਦਉਰਾਵਉ ॥੧॥ (329)
2 ਬਿਰਖਇਕਤਰੀਆ ॥ (537)
3. ਅਨਕਉਮੇਰੀਆ ॥ (537)
4. ਏਤੇਕੂਕਰਹਉ ॥ (795)
5. ਪੰਚਾਹਰੁਨਿਦਲਿਅਉ (1408)
6. ਦੇਹੀਗਿਰਝਨਖਾਈ ॥੨॥ (693)
7. ਸਬਦਸੁਰਤਿਕੀਨੀਵਰਖਾਈ ॥ (1406)
8. ਮਾਨਵਹਿਲਹਿ ॥ (1395)
In the light of the above, it is proven beyond doubt that paath done from Larivaar saroop alone is the correct and pure paath. Paath should be done after getting santhiya from a good paathi. The supporters of padd-chhed raise a question at this, saying that if shabads in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji cannot be separated adequately, then how can paathi teaching new students teach correct paath. The answer to this question is that the one teaching paath does not lay any claim that the paath he is teaching is the correct one. Whatever he knew he taught. But when you print or write Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji's saroop with separated words, you are laying a sure claim that what you have done is the correct way. This way you also try to claim that you have therefore found the end of Guru Sahib i.e. you know everything. This in itself is a great crime.
Answer to Question 3: Gurbani is not a subject of intelligence alone. Gurbani is the support of our aatma (soul). Gurbani helps aatma to meet Parmaatma (Waheguru). By doing paath from Larivaar Baani, the mind comes under control. Paath from Padd-chhed baani leaves the mind open to wander out of baani. Mind does not have to worry about trying to separate the words as in the case of paath from Larivaar baani (where the words are not separated). So the mind finds escape and wanders out, resulting in less concentration of the mind. Our concentration (surtee) does not get the required focus and as a result it is unable to enter the Dasam Duaar. Unless our surtee, our mind, enters Dasam Duaar, we don't get free of the cycle of life and death. This is what the main mission of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji is i.e. to free us from the cycle of life and death. If we don't do paath from Larivaar baani, how can we free ourselves from the cycle of life and death? If you think deeply, this way we don't do proper preaching of the mission of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. Along with the paath of Larivaar baani it is also important to adopt the rehit (code of conduct) given to us by Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
The conclusion is that whatever the Perfect One (Waheguru) does is perfect. Whatever Guru does is complete and perfect. Guru Sahib in his first form to his tenth form, compiled and created baani in Larivaar form and finally in his tenth form, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, gave the guruship to Larivaar form of baani of Guru Granth Sahib Ji. It is pure Manmatt to publish padd-chhed saroop and do parkash of these padd-chhed saroops in place of Larivaar saroop of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
The way the trend of publishing and preaching the Padd-chhed saroop is going on, it is feared that in the coming future, the real Guru – Guru Granth Sahib Ji (Larivaar saroop), will be eliminated from this world and replaced with padd-chhed saroop.
Is the aim of Panth today, to eliminate the Larivaar Saroop that is the real Guru on the throne of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji? The answer is no, as it is evident from the following resolutions passed by Panthik organizations:
1) Gurmata (holy resolution) Number 7, Date – 1-5-1950; Dharmik Committee, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee: So long as a unanimous consensus is reached at the Panthik level, no person or organization should publish the Bir (Saroop, copy) by doing Padd-chhed (separating words) and neither should anyone install Padd-chhed Bir in the congregation.
2) Karaj Sadhak Committee's (Chief Khalsa Diwan) resolution number 2682, dated 21-1-1945: The issue of doing Akhand Paath from the padd-chhed Bir of Sirui Guru Granth Sahib Ji was brought to the attention of the advisory committee. It was concluded that no such Bir (padd-chhed) should be installed in the congregation and Akhand Paath should not be done from such bir either. It is inappropriate to publish the padd-chhed Bir of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and is detrimental for the Panth. Let Shiromini Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee receive a copy of this resolution and a copy should be released to the press.
In the light of the above two resolutions, it can be rightly concluded that Panth as a whole is not in favour of publishing Padd-chhed and eliminating Larivaar Saroop. Later when the committee members got replaced, Shiromini Committee, without any input from the panth, started publishing padd-chhed saroops. Who could have then stopped the booksellers and private publishers? Now Shiromini Committee has started publishing their name on each ang of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The private publishers too will start doing this. Then Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji will look more like a book than our Guru.
Sri Guru Arjun Dev Ji had to sacrifice his life and attain martyrdom to preserve the sanctity of Dhur kee Baani – Gurbani. Famous Historian Professor Satbir Singh, writes about the main reasons for the shahidi of Guru Arjun Dev Ji and writes that Emperor Jahangir had asked Guru Sahib to write in Gurbani something in praise of Islam and Guru Sahib's refusal became the reason of his martyrdom. It seems that Jahangir too had asked Guru Sahib to take out baani like "Mittee Mussalmaan kee" and add something in praise of Islam. Ram Rai had changed the word "Mussalmaan" to "Beyeemaan".
Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Ji the leader of Akhand Kirtani Jatha confirms the above stated reason for shahidi of Sri Guru Arjun Dev Ji, in his great book Jot Vigaas, Para 183:
Sri GURU ARJUN SAHIB DEH TIYAAGI, SAKA VARTIYA BIKAT KASHTOLIYAAN DA||
IK AKHAR BHEE BADALDAY KADHIYA NA, KEETA ADAB BAANI AKHAROLIYAAN DA||
Sri GURU DEE DEH DEY ANG AKHAR, KEETA ANG NA BHANG DEHOLIYAAN DA||
NIJ DEH DE ANG SARBANG HAVNAY, BHANA MANN SACHAY BHAAVNOLIYAAN DA||
Giani Gurbachan Singh Ji Khalsa, chief of Damdami Taksal, practically served as a guard in favour of Larivaar saroop. While teaching students paath, he would give santhiya, only from Larivaar pothis. Whenever he used to meet Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh Ji, he used to hug him and embrace him. Both leaders were followers of same rehit of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaaj.
At this time too, both organizations (Taksal and Akhand Kirtani Jatha) should work on this very important project as a team. They should help pass resolutions in favour of Larivaar saroop and then send copies to the jathedar of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib. This is the biggest issue for Panth today and we should raise our voice in form of sangat.
If no result comes out of our efforts, then we should be willing and ready to take other measures e.g. when the British Government had demolished the wall of Gurdwara Rakabganj and had tried to take out the road to the Secretariat, the Singhs from all over, placed their heads on their palms and were ready to do anything to protect the sanctity of the Gurdwara Sahib.
When Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar along with his jatha had moved forward in full force, ready to die, the British had backed off and handed over the keys of Gurdwara Nanakana Sahib to the Panth.
Please remember that in the above stated two instances, the aggressors were trying to insult the house of Guru (Gurdwara) but in the case of Larivaar saroop, THEY ARE INSULTING OUR GURU . What are we going to do about it?
Published by: Tatt Gurmat Literature Trust
Bhai Kaur Singh
541 East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar.
Please treat these files with respect.
I recently saw a debate about Larivaar Saroop vs. Pad Chhed Saroop. A number of points were raised which I wanted to answer here.
1) There are several printing mistakes in both Larivaar and Pad Chhed Saroops
- yes, this is true. But to equate unintentional printing errors with the intentional manmat of changing Guru Sahib's saroop and deciding what the correct pad chhed is for all words and forcing that on the reader (whether it is correct or incorrect), is ridiculous. Yes, the unintentional printing errors should be corrected but they should not be used to justify pad-chhed.
2) Guru Sahib used different kannas than present saroops and the manglacharans were in different places.
-I have seen numerous puratan saroops and the kannas are not different than what we see in printed saroops today. In the very early Gurmukhi, the kanna was often just a dot. The oldest saroop I have seen is from 1644 and even that uses a line.
-Manglacharans: there are some printed saroops with all manglacharans first. I have seen numerous handwritten puratan saroops though with the manglacharans ahead and behind. I have only seen one puratan saroop with all the manglacharans first. I suspect and it makes logical sense that this is the way it should be and was originally though.
But once again, these issues are not one of intention. If there are errors, they are unintentional. No one has attempted to change Guru Sahib's doing.
3) Larreevaar Saroops break words in "inappropriate ways" than Pad-Chhed. Often, words in Larreevaar Saroops are broken at the end of the line and continued on the next line.
-This argument is born from complete ignorance. This is not pad-chhed at all. Where the line ends, the word must be carried on to the next line. All puratan saroops are like this. The intention is not to break the word and the paathi understands that what appears at the end of a line is not necessarily an entire word.
4) Baba Deep Singh prepared saroops in Farsi and Arabic. These were altering the original form of the Guru Sahib's Saroop.
-Do you know that these saroops were meant to be parkash and treated as Guru Granth Sahib? Can you provide any historical reference to suggest they were treated the same as Guru Granth Sahib in Gurmukhi?
In summary, where there are unintentional errors in Larivaar, they are due to human imperfection which is forgiveable. Where someone has used their own mat (intellect) to break Guru Sahib's saroop into pad chhed and impose their own mat on the reader (often incorrectly breaking words), accepting pad-chhed amounts to accepting manmat.
Pad-chhed saroops should not be parkaash and Gursikhs should not accept them (except for learning purposes). Larivaar is the Saroop of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and no one has the authority to change that.
Let us look at at one pankiti...
ਸੁੰਦਰਬਚਨਤੁਮਸੁਣਹੁਛਬੀਲੀਪਿਰੁਤੈਡਾਮਨਸਾਧਾਰਣੁ (ਪੰਨਾ 959, ਸਤਰ 11)
3 different padchheds to this tukh as follows...
1) ਸੁੰਦਰ ਬਚਨ ਤੁਮ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਛਬੀਲੀ ਪਿਰੁ ਤੈਡਾ ਮਨ ਸਾਧਾਰਣੁ
2) ਸੁੰਦਰ ਬਚਨ ਤੁਮ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਛਬੀਲੀ ਪਿਰੁ ਤੈਡਾ ਮਨਸਾ ਧਾਰਣੁ
3) ਸੁੰ ਦਰਬਚ ਨ ਤੁਮ ਸੁਣ ਹੁਛਬੀਲੀ ਪਿਰੁਤੈਡਾਮ ਨ ਸਾ ਧਾਰਣੁ
Now, most saroop's have it written as number 1), Bhai Sahib has written the correct pad-chhed should be ਮਨਸਾ ਧਾਰਣੁ instead of ਮਨ ਸਾਧਾਰਣੁ as shown in number 2)
Number 3 is just a random pad-chhed making no sense. Now, if you saw the pad-chhed written as it was in number 3, you would obviously could not consider that bani, since it makes no sense, it cannot be considered dhur kee bani . Now if Bhai Sahib is correct, and the pad-chhed is actually ਮਨਸਾ ਧਾਰਣੁ Then that means number 1 is incorrect. Only one of these can be correct, only one of these can be considered dhur darghaiee bani, which means only number 2 would be correct. Now if only number 2 is correct, that makes all the current pad-chhed saroops incorrect. Is there a difference between the incorrect form presented in number 1 and number 3? Since they are both incorrect, they both are not Gurbani. But only if you saw number 3, you would not consider it bani since it has no meaning at all, when in reality both are not Gurbani.
Now since all current saroops have it written as number one, anytime we read from a pad-chhed saroop we are forced to read the wrong meaning. But we accept this because when we read it, it still has some sort of meaning to it, when in reality, there is no difference between reading that and reading the pad chhed that it is in number 3, since both are giving the wrong hukam.