Response:

Most Punjabi writers begin their literary works with a mangal or invocation in praise of God. Similarly, when people wrote letters to loved ones, they would start the letter with writing “Ek Onkaar Satgur Prasaad” for example. Does this mean that if someones writes a letter or someone writes a literary work with a mangal from Gurbani, the whole text becomes Gurbani?

Below are examples of historic literary works of Punjabi writers that have used “Ek Onkaar Satgur Prasaad” before their writing.

Example 1: A manuscript on the life of Prophet Muhammad, titled ‘Masle Hazrat Rasul Ke’

Example 2: The first page of Bhai Garru’s translation of Rumi’s classic and poetic ‘Mathnavi’

Would you agree that the Sikhs during the times of Guru Nanak Dev Ji who read and followed Gurbani were saved?

If yes, then Raagmala did not exist then. So for argument sake, if Sikhs could be saved without Raagmala during the period of Guru Nanak Dev Ji to Guru Ramdas Ji, then why would they not be saved if they read Gurbani from “Ik Onkaar” to “Tan Man Theevai Hariaa”?

According to the supporters of Raagmala, it was incorporated into Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji during the guruship of Sri Arjan Dev Ji. To make absurd comments that without reading Raagmala one cannot be saved and will go to hell, undermines all of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, from “Ik Onkaar” to “Tan Man Theevai Hariaa.”

Is reading “Ik Onkar” complete in itself? Is reading ‘Ik Onkaar’ to ‘Gur Prasaad’ complete in itself? Is reading entire Japji Sahib complete in itself? Every line of Gurbani is complete and perfect. To argue that a reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is imperfect or incomplete due not reading Raagmala, is to implicate that all Gurbani from ‘Ik Onkaar’ to ‘Tan Man Theevai Hariaa ’is imperfect and incomplete.

Does it mean that those who do Naam Abhiaas and Nitnem only as they can’t read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji being illiterate are not saved? This is just undermining the power of Gurmantar ‘Vaheguru’ which Guru Ji says is ‘Gurmantar Nirodhra.”

Yes, it is right to read all Gurbani. But do you know that Guru Arjan Dev Ji sealed Gurbani at Mundavani, i.e. “Ik Oankar” to “Tan Man Theevai Hariaa”. This means no Gurbani will flow after Mundavani. Raagmala falls outside the seal. Thus, anything outside the start and end of Gurbani is not part of Gurbani.

A contents page, called Tatkraa, is written in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji – do you read that? Guru Sahib wrote numbers at the end of each stanza- do you read that? Guru Sahib wrote Ang numbers at the top of each Ang- do you read that?

Older hand written copies of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that did or do include Raagmala (like Bhai Banno Beerh) also included other compositions after Mundavani (but before Raagmala), such as:

(i) Jit Dar Lekh Mohammada,

(ii) Siahi Di Bidhi,

(iii) Ratanmala,

(iiii) Hakeekatrah mukam,

(v) Praan Sangli,

(vi) Rab Mukam Ki Sabk,

(vii) Baye Atisb (16 saloks) etc.

Do you read the above compositions?

Saroop found at Takhat Patna Sahib

It is noteworthy, that all seven of the above mentioned compositions that existed after Mundavani (but before Raagmala) were all unanimously discredited by the Panth and it was acknowledged that mischievous individuals had over time included these compositions at the end of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji but had no standing against Gurbani. This decision was unquestioned and accepted by all Sikhs, including supporters of Raagmala.

The Bhai Banno Bir having Raagmala is proof of nothing since it also has shabads by Mira Bai and Ratanmala, and a number of other compositions. That is why it is called Khari Beerh.

For 2 centuries Raagmala has been debated in the Panth. If someone can solve it by sitting in a cauldron of oil, then that saves the Panth a lot of time. In history, Bhai Mani Singh had solved Panthic issues by putting two slips of paper in the Holy Sarovar. This was also done in 1917 at Lahore and Guru Granth Sahib Ji indicated that Raagmala is not Gurbani. However, if someone is greater that Bhai Mani Singh and can solve the Panth’s issue by sitting in a cauldron of oil, then that’s fine. We need to remember that sitting in a claudron of hot oil does not indicate anybody’s spiritual strength or knowledge of the true Spiritual path. Even Baba Banda Singh Ji Bahadur had magical powers (Riddhis and Siddhis) before he became a Sikh. The Yogis who met Guru Nanak Dev Ji had magical powers (Riddhis and Siddhis) but did not know the spiritual path. Riddhis and Siddhis can be obtained by various methods like yoga and have nothing to do with Sikhism.

Dasam Pita Ji put the Guru-Jyot in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the Jugat in the Khalsa Panth. The Guru gave guruship to Guru-Granth, and also the Guru-Khalsa to decide corporate matters in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and perform Amrit ceremony as ‘body-guru’.

How can one claim to accept the decision of the Guru, without accepting the Guru conferring Guruship to the Khalsa Panth on Vaisakhi 1699?

The Khalsa Panth asked Guru Gobind Singh Ji to leave Garhi of Chamkaur and Guru Gobind Singhji accepted the Hukam.

The Khalsa decided to punish Maharaja Ranjit Singh for issuing a coin in the name of dancing girl.

Now, if the same Khalsa, collectively decided and ordered the Panth that Raagmala is not Gurbani, and later gave Hukam that if someone wishes to read it they can to ensure the Panth doesn’t splinter into divisions, then how can any faithful Sikh of Guru Gobind Singh Ji challenge this?

The fact that someone doesn’t read Jit Dar Lekh Mohammada, Siahi Di Bidhi, Ratanmala, Hakeekat rah mukam, Praan Sangli, Rab Mukam Ki Sabk, and Baye Atisb (16 saloks) etc. which are contained in old handwritten copies of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, shows that they have accepted the decision of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib that these Banis are spurious. Now, when it comes to Raagmala, we decide not to follow the same Sri Akal Takhat Sahib. Isn’t this hypocrisy?

The Sikh Rehat Maryada clearly states that complete reading of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji can end at Mundavani or Raagmala in accordance to local practice.

How can you read the mind of the Guru? Every person has a personal relationship with the Guru. What gives any individual the right to give a certificate of who is and who isn’t a Sikh? We will all be judged by Dharam Rai. How can a Sikh became greater than the Guru to decide who will go to hell and who will go to Sachkhand?

This Hukamnama was much before the preparation of draft of Sikh Rehat Maryada. However, Raagmala supporters present it in a way that Babu Teja Singh influenced the decision of Sikh Rehat Maryada to exclude Raagmala. How he could when he had been excommunicated much before Sikh Rehat Maryada. Secondly, those who were most vocal for excommunication of Babu Teja Singh were opponents of Raagmala, and they had started a campaign against Raagmala since 1917. Sher Singh wrote ‘Raagmala Darpan’ and Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha also wrote books. As a consequence the bhog was said to be at Mundavani in Sikh Rehat Maryada.

In 1933 a draft of Sikh Rehat Maryada was made and passed in 1936 by the SGPC and then Jathedar of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib, which clearly stated to do Bhog of an Akhand or Sadharan Paath at Mundavani, as Sri Akal Takhat Sahib had not been presented enough proofs that Raagmala is Gurbani.

The claim made is not only a lie, but a flimsy lie which has been purposely designed by the lovers of Raagmala, and shows their ignorance of Sikh history and knowledge of Sikh Rehat Maryada. Bhai Randhir Singh, who openly didn’t accept Raagmala as Bani like many other Gurmukh scholars, was ironically honoured by Sri Akal Takhat on 15-9- 1931 for his service to the Panth. If not reading Raagmala makes one an apostate, then how did Bhai Sahib get honoured?

Not only this, but the false claim made that Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh accepted Raagmala on his deathbed, also doesn’t make sense, when all the Takhat Sahibs honoured him with a Siropa and clearly wrote, “Hukam Hoyaa Hai Ki Bhai Sahib Bhai Randhir Singh Ji Uthey Guru Ji De Kusheeaa Hon.”

Some more historical aspects that support Raagmala was discussed much before Sikh Rehat Maryada (see Mundavani by Gurdit Singh).

1. Giani Sher Singh a respected member of Dharmik Salahkar Commottee of SGPC took stand against Raagmala in the first discussion in 1917. During these times he preached against Raagmala in Pothohar areas. Bhai Jodh Singh also joined him.
2. Chief Khalsa Diwan was officially against Raagmala. In 1917 when Raagmala was being discussed many controversies were settled with letters from Chief Khalsa Diwan that Raagmala is not Gurbani. In 1917, Kuala Lumper quarrel was settled by their letter which was published in Panth Sewak 17 Oct,1917. Also another such quarrel was settled at Nairobi Singh Sabha by the letter from Chief Khalsa Diwan.
3. In 1917 the Raagmala issue was very serious. A prayer was done in Bagwanpura Singh Sabha Lahore with chits. The chit that came out at random was ‘Raagmala Gurbani Nahi hai, kaci Bani hai’. This was published in Panth Sewak, 5 Sept 1917.
4. During 1917 the matter of Raagmala also went to Maharajas Patiala and Nabha. Both decided against Raagmala. A report of Maharja Patiala was published in Panth Sewak 10 April 1918.
5. Panth Sewak 3 July 1918 states that a Bhog at Mundavani was done in Nabha in the presence of Nabha Maharaja and many officials.
6. Akali Kaur Singh did Bhog at Mundavani in Calcutta on 1 Jan 1906 during Congress Samagam. Then Maharaj Nabha was also present. This report was published in Panth Sewak 13 Feb 1918. Bhai Vir Singh also published it in Khalsa Samachar.
7. At the time of birth of his son Bhai Jodh Singh, who was a Head Teacher at Lyallpur Khalsa High School, a bhog at Mundavani was perfomed at his house on 10 Feb 1918. Many bhogs at Mundavani were doe during this period (17 Feb 1918 Panth Sewak).
8. 12 Oct 1920 when Akaal Takhat was taken by Sangat and Teja Singh Bhucher became Jathedar he started the maryada of bhog at Mundavani at Akaal Takhat Sahib.
9. Jaito Morcha; 101 Akhand Path were done and bhog of all Akhand Paths on 6 August 1925 was done at Mundavani. Sant Attar Singh ji was present there (Gurdwara gazette 1965; pp 119).

Bhai Sahib in his entire life never believed in Raagmala to be Bani of Guru Sahib. Asking any of his companions or those that were present for Akhand Paat Sahibs conducted by the Jatha would know that Raagmala was never read. In his book Gurbani Dee Lagamatran Dee Vilakhantaa Bhai Sahib writes: “All Bani from Ek Onkaar to Mundavani is Gurbani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee“ (Gurbani Dee Lagamatran Dee Vilakhantaa, page 316)

Bhai Sahib also presents his views on Mundavani and Raagmala in this short article:

Mundavani Book

In this article Bhai Sahib says: “Those who have a strong belief in Raagmala in their minds do these incorrect arths of Gurbani (to prove Raagmala is Bani).” (Gurbani Dee Lagamatran Dee Vilakhantaa, page 433) Reading the entire article shows the reader that how strongly Bhai Sahib believed Mundavani to be the closing seal of Guru Granth Sahib, and how nothing after Mundavani is Gurbani. Many people have changed the meanings of Mundavani so they can include Raagmala as a part of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee which Bhai Sahib rejected.

One of the best books on Raagmala is Mundavni by Giani Gurditt Singh. This book leaves almost no doubt that Raagmala is not Bani. Giani Jee has done a lot of research and has provided a lot of pictures of Old Saroops to back up his argument. Giani Jee did research for nearly 50 years before publishing this book. Below is a picture of a letter Bhai Randhir Singh sent to Giani Gurditt Singh on October 24 1945 in which he says Giani Jee’s efforts on his Raagmala research (and other research related to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee) are very good. Bhai Sahib asks Giani Jee to come and visit him as he wants to do veechars with Giani Jee on Raagmala and many other things. He asks him to bring Giani Arjan Singh with him as well. Giani Arjan Singh was another author with a very good book on Raagmala.

This proves beyond any doubt that Bhai Sahib was staunchly against Raagmala.

If we accept the claim that Bhai Mani Singh Ji wrote the above lines about Raagmala, it then means that the debate whether Raagmala is Bani and therefore whether or not it should be read in an Akhand or Sadharan Paath was happening at the time of Bhai Mani Singh Ji. This would clearly indicate to us that Singhs at that time were not reading Raagmala, otherwise why would Bhai Mani Singh Ji have to write this? Such claims without historical support create more questions than answers.

So do you accept that Gursikhs at the time of Guru Sahib did not read Raagmala? What about the compositions before Raagmala, which Jatha Bhindran agreed with the Panth that three should be removed from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji?

Using the above logic, when you Matha Tekh to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, do you also Matha Tekh and accept as you Guru the Rumaale Sahib, the Takhat Sahib made of wood, the Golak containing the money, the contents page of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the title cover with the SGPC stamp?

If you do not accept the listed things as Dhur Kee Baanee, and claim that when you Matha Tekh you are only showing your reverence to Dhur Kee Baanee Gurbani, then why does the logic change when referring to Raagmala?

Mundavani M: 5 is shabad 1 of seal of Guru ji. Salok M: 5 is signature after the seal which also counts as 1. However, Salok M: has [1][1], i.e. 1 is twice. This shows that Mundavani M: 5 and Salok M: 5 have 1 shabad each and they are part of the same 1 theme of Bani.

The system of numbering in Raagmala does not fall in line with the Gurbani of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, as 1 appears after each Chaupayee and Dohra. And each Chaupayee and Dohra differ in length. The system is alien to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji’s style.

You will see below it is not an independent entity but relates to some story but not to previous Gurbani as explained below:

ਭਾਈ ਕਾਹਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਨਾਭਾ (ਗੁਰਮਤਿ ਸੁਧਾਕਰ, ਪੰਨਾ ੨੫੫-ਕਲਾ ੧) ਲਿਖਦੇ ਹਨ, ‘ਵਯਾਕਰਣ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਸਾਡੇ ਭਾਈ ਰਾਗਮਾਲਾ ਦੇ ਇਹ ਪਾਠ- ‘ਪ੍ਰਥਮ ਰਾਗ ਭੈਰਉ ਵੈ ਕਰਹੀ’ – ‘ਖਸਟ ਰਾਗ ਉਨ ਗਾਏ’- ਦੇਖ ਕੇ ਭੀ ਹਠ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਰਾਗਮਾਲਾ ਮਾਧਵਨਲ ਸੰਗੀਤ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਲਈ ਗਈ, ਉਹ ਇਤਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਮਝਦੇ ਕਿ ਰਾਗਮਾਲਾ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਕਿਸੇ ਉਪਰ ਚ੍ਨਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਸੰਗ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਧ ਰਖਦੀ ਹੈ ਔਰ ‘ਵੈ’ ਤਥਾ ‘ਉਨ’ ਉਪਨਾਮਾਂ ਦੇ ਨਾਮ ਚਲੇ ਹੋਏ ਪ੍ਰਕਰਣ ਵ੍ਨਿਚ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਆ ਚੁ੍ਨਕੇ ਹਨ |

It is clear that ‘Vai’ and ‘un’ show that Raagmala is not independent entity and is part of already described story. These words refer to the singer dancer girl, ‘ਗਾਵਹਿ ਗਾਇਨ ਪਾਤ੍ਰ’ | ‘ਗਾਵਹਿ ਗਾਇਨ ਪਾਤ੍ਰ’ ਦਾ ਮਤਲਬ ਹੈ ਰਾਜੇ ਦੇ ਦਰਬਾਰ ਵ੍ਨਿਚ ਨਿਰਤਕਾ ਨੇ ਹਨੁਮੰਤ ਮ੍ਨਤ ਦੇ ਰਾਗਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤਰਤੀਬ ਨਾਲ਼ ਗਾਇਨ ਕਰਾਇਆ | ਇਸ ਲਈ ਰਾਗਮਾਲਾ ਕੋਈ ਸੰਪੂਰਨ ਕਿਰਤ ਨਹੀਂ | ਪਾਤ੍ਰ = ਗਉਨ ਵਾਲਾ, ਭਾਗ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਸ਼ਖਸ਼ |

So Raagmala is a part of Maadhav Nal Kaam Kandla by Alam Kavi who wrote it in 991 Hijri (1640 samat; 1583 AD) (about 20-21 years before Aad Sri Guru Granth Sahib. This is a copy of Chaupayees and Dohras from 62-70 of the love story. The writer himself has written the year of writing this poem and was contemporary of Akbar and Todar Mal as mentioned by him.

ਅਦਲੀ ਕਰੋਂ ਬਖਾਨ, ਸੁਜਸ ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਚਹੁੰ ਖੰਡ ਮੇਂ |

ਵਿਦਾਂ ਅਰਥ ਨਿਧਾਨ, ਸ਼ਾਹ ਅਕਬਰ ਜਗਤ ਗੁਰੂ |

ਜਗਪਤ ਰਾਜ ਕੋਟ ਜੁਗ ਕੀਜੈ | ਸ਼ਾਹਿ ਜਲਾਲ ਛਤ੍ਰ ਪਤਿ ਜੀਜੈ |

ਦਿਲੀ ਪਤਿ ਅਕਬਰ ਸੁਲਤਾਨਾ | ਸਪਤ ਦੀਪ ਮਹਿ ਜਾਕੀ ਆਨਾ |

To hold the view that Sri Guru Granth Sahib has “some academia” is an insult to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Guru Arjan Dev Ji. On what basis is this statement made? Each line of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is an ocean of knowledge. Thousands of PhDs can be done each line of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Gurbani destroys the pride of those who claim to possess great knowledge and intellect. Which line in Sri Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t show intellect, wisdom, philosophy or deep knowledge?

In desperation to support Raagmala as Gurbani, the exponents of Raagmala have said that Guru Arjan Dev Ji wanted to please scholars and academics by including Raagmala to show that he had knowledge of other musical systems so that no one doubts he had worldly knowledge. Gurbani clearly states:

ਲੋਕ ਪਤੀਣੇ ਕਛੂ ਨ ਹੋਵੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਰਾਮੁ ਅਯਾਨਾ ||੧||

“Nothing is gained by trying to please others – the Lord cannot be fooled. ||1||” (Ang 484)

Sant Tehal Singh states that the Guru used Sri Raag as the main Raag in Gurbani but by writing Raagmala he proved to the musicians that he was not averse of the other system that starts with Bhairav Raag . According to him there are two systems of four Matt (ਮਤ, system) of Raagas. Shiv matt and Krishan matt start with Sri Raag and end with Parbhati Raag. On the other hand, Hanumant and Bharat Matt start with Bhairav Raag. He argues that by including Raagmala in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji the two systems of four Matt have been addressed. The Guru wrote the whole Granth to address the first system of Sri Raag but concluded with Raagmala to address the second system of Bhiarav Raag . Not all castes of Hindus were allowed to sing in the two systems and by incluing both in the Granth the Guru assured that all four castes were eligible to read and sing.

He draws another illogical parallel to prove that why the fifth Guru wrote Raagmala. He writes that Sri Raag is fifth Raag in the Raagmala and coincides with the fifth Guruship of Guru Arjan Dev ji. He pleads that, that is why, Guru Arjan Dev ji gave first position to Sri Raag in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

He also mentions that 31 Raags have been used in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji but there are 84 Raags and sub-Raags in the Raagmala. He pleads that by adding Raagmala at the end of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji the Guru proved to the musicians that Guru’s knowledge was beyond 31 Raags.

However, such statements are misleading and contrary to Gurbani. The true Guru is a tanscedental form of God (ਗੁਰੁ ਪਰਮੇਸਰੁ ਏਕੋ ਜਾਣੁ; ਗੋਂਡ ਮ: ੫; ਪੰਨਾਂ ੮੬੪; Consider Guru and God as one) and is perfect in all respects. The true Guru would never want to prove his knowledge to anybody.

Further, Sant Tehal Singh argues that in Sri Guru Granth Sahib although only Raags have been used in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji yet the Gurbani recognises the importance of Raagnia (sub-Raaga or wives and sub-Raagas or sons) and hence their occurrence in Raagmala is justified. He cites an example from Anand Sahib “ਰਾਗ ਰਤਨ ਪਰਵਾਰ ਪਰੀਆਂ ਸਬਦ ਗਾਵਣ ਆਈਆ ||” He pleads that thus the fifth Guru accomplished the task of describing the family trees of Raags in Raagmala. He also argues that if Raag and Raagnia mentioned in Anand Sahib are pious then what is the harm in reading Raagmala.

These arguments are unconvincing, trivial and illogical that mislead illiterate and un-informed masses with superstisious dictates. If we read Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji all music measures are much below Naam. They only become pious if mingled with Lord’s praise; they do not have their independent entity in divinity. “ਗੀਤ ਰਾਗ ਘਨ ਤਾਲ ਸਿ ਕੂਰੇ || ਤ੍ਰਿਹੁ ਗੁਣ ਉਪਜੈ ਬਿਨਸੈ ਦੂਰੇ || ਦੂਜੀ ਦੁਰਮਤਿ ਦਰਦੁ ਨ ਜਾਇ || ਛੂਟੈ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਦਾਰੂ ਗੁਣ ਗਾਇ || ੩ || ਪੰਨਾਂ ੮੩੨; ਬਿਲਾਵਲ ਮ: ੧” “The various songs, tunes and rhythms are false. Trapped by the three qualities, people come and go, far from the Lord. In duality, the pain of their evil-mindedness does not leave them. But the Gurmukh is emancipated by taking the medicine, and singing the Glorious Praises of the Lord. || 3 || Bilaval Mahala 1; page 832.”

Another example is from ‘ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਮਹਲਾ ੪ ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੪ || ਹਰਿ ਉਤਮੁ ਹਰਿ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਗਾਵਿਆ ਕਰਿ ਨਾਦੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ ਰਾਗੁ ||……. ਮਃ ੩ || ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ ਤਬ ਹੀ ਕੀਜੀਐ ਜਬ ਮੁਖਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਨਾਮੁ || ਰਾਗ ਨਾਦ ਸਬਦਿ ਸੋਹਣੇ ਜਾ ਲਾਗੈ ਸਹਜਿ ਧਿਆਨੁ || ਰਾਗ ਨਾਦ ਛੋਡਿ ਹਰਿ ਸੇਵੀਐ ਤਾ ਦਰਗਹ ਪਾਈਐ ਮਾਨੁ || ਨਾਨਕ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੀਐ ਚੂਕੈ ਮਨਿ ਅਭਿਮਾਨੁ ||੨||’ ‘VAAR OF BILAAVAL, FOURTH MEHL: SHALOK, FOURTH MEHL: I sing of the sublime Lord, the Lord God, in the melody of Raag Bilaaval. ……THIRD MEHL: Be happy and sing in Bilaaval, when the Naam, the Name of the Lord, is in your mouth. The melody and music, and the Word are beautiful, when one focuses his meditation on the celestial Lord. So leave behind the melody and music, and serve the Lord; then, you shall obtain honor in the Court of the Lord. O Nanak, as Gurmukh, contemplate God, and rid your mind of egotistical pride. || 2 || page 849.’

In Vaar Maalar it is made clear that the lord is not pleased by Raags and sub-Raags except the Naam. ਵਾਰ ਮਲਾਰ ਕੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੧; ਪਉੜੀ || ਸਚਾ ਅਲਖ ਅਭੇਉ ਹਠਿ ਨ ਪਤੀਜਈ || ਇਕਿ ਗਾਵਹਿ ਰਾਗ ਪਰੀਆ ਰਾਗਿ ਨ ਭੀਜਈ || ਇਕਿ ਨਚਿ ਨਚਿ ਪੂਰਹਿ ਤਾਲ ਭਗਤਿ ਨ ਕੀਜਈ || ਇਕਿ ਅੰਨੁ ਨ ਖਾਹਿ ਮੂਰਖ ਤਿਨਾ ਕਿਆ ਕੀਜਈ || ਤ੍ਰਿਸਨਾ ਹੋਈ ਬਹੁਤੁ ਕਿਵੈ ਨ ਧੀਜਈ || ਕਰਮ ਵਧਹਿ ਕੈ ਲੋਅ ਖਪਿ ਮਰੀਜਈ || ਲਾਹਾ ਨਾਮੁ ਸੰਸਾਰਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਪੀਜਈ || ਹਰਿ ਭਗਤੀ ਅਸਨੇਹਿ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਘੀਜਈ || ੧੭ || ਪੰਨਾਂ ੧੨੮੫. VAAR OF MAALAAR, FIRST MEHL, PAUREE:The True, Unseen, Mysterious Lord is not won over by stubbornness. Some sing according to traditional Raag as, but the Lord is not pleased by these Raagas. Some dance and dance and keep the beat, but they do not worship Him with devotion. Some refuse to eat; what can be done with these fools? Thirst and desire have greatly increased; nothing brings satisfaction. Some are tied down by rituals; they hassle themselves to death. In this world, profit comes by drinking in the Ambrosial Nectar of the Naam. The Gurmukhs gather in loving devotional worship of the Lord. || 17 || Page 1285

Bhagat Kabir Ji also emphasises that music devoid of Naam is not divine, e.g., ‘ਭਗਤਿ ਨਾਰਦੀ ਰਿਦੈ ਨ ਆਈ ਕਾਛਿ ਕੂਛਿ ਤਨੁ ਦੀਨਾ || ਰਾਗ ਰਾਗਨੀ ਡਿੰਭ ਹੋਇ ਬੈਠਾ ਉਨਿ ਹਰਿ ਪਹਿ ਕਿਆ ਲੀਨਾ || ੩ || ਪੰਨਾਂ ੬੫੪’ Loving devotional worship does not enter into your heart; pampering and adorning your body, you must still give it up. You sit and play music, but you are still a hypocrite; what do you expect to receive from the Lord? || 3 ||; page 654

It is clear that without the divine praise no Raag is pious in itself and has no importance in the Sikh theme unless it is engrossed with divine hymns. Raagmala does not meet these criteria.