Ek Onkar -Translation

findingmyway · #19 (**permalink**) 27-Oct-2010, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prakash.s.bagga

FINDING MYWAYS Ji,
Divine GReetings,
THE WORD GOD IS GRAMATICALLY SINGULAR{NOUN}.It automatically means ONE GOD.The word GOD need not to be mentioned as ONEGOD.Where is such need to say?
PL give a thaught to this aspect of the word GOD.
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

Hindus believed in several Gods so Guru Ji was making sure that we know that there is only one ultimate God. Muslims will also argue that their God is superior to any God other people believe in. Guru Ji was telling us that no matter what name you use, it is the same ONE GOD. Historically this was unique and very important for people to understand as then they could behave more like brothers and sisters as they are all children of the same God. It also is a way of stopping the idol worship that the Hindu faith follows as there is only one God, not a multitude of them.

spnadmin · #20 (**permalink**) 27-Oct-2010, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prakash.s.bagga

FINDING MYWAYS Ji,
Divine GReetings,
THE WORD GOD IS GRAMATICALLY SINGULAR{NOUN}.It automatically means ONE GOD.The word GOD need not to be mentioned as ONEGOD.Where is such need to say?
PL give a thaught to this aspect of the word GOD.
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

prakash s bagga ji

To tell the truth, it has been next to impossible to follow what you are saying. And I am not alone in this concern.

A few posts back it seemed you were advocating the view that there is a plurality of Gods. Now you are saying there is only one, and therefore there is no need to say ONE GOD.

If there is one god then why bother if a person says God or One God. In one instance it is a proper name, in another instance a core idea is mentioned with the word ONE. It is still one and only one.

You are not teaching. You are confusing people. Sometimes the issues you raise make no difference in the depth of devotion someone will reach. And devotion not grammatical propriety is what it is about. Not only that but the human mind is capable of scanning discrepancies, and also finding the ideas that span or bridge these differences.

We have covered the OOO//U matter more than is necessary on other threads. Some would say that the aunkar is not even pronounced so why make a big deal from this. Now we are on to Ik Oankaar versus Ekankaar versus some other versions of same - bad transliterations of the Gurmukhi characters. They are all lousy transliterations. Vichaar is not being helped along.

Now if someone wanted to get really technical then that person would say that ek ankaar, ek onkaar and ik oankaar are wrong. All completely wrong based on rules of phonetic transfer. It should be eik oan kaar (and it would sound in English, I don't know about another language, something like this, ehk ohahn kar) Grammar is only partially understood through pronunication. p/s "eik" represented by a number 1. And that gets us over a big hurdle.

Let's move on with clarity.

prakash.s.bagga · #21 (**permalink**) 27-Oct-2010, 03:58 AM

SPNADMIN
DIVINE GREETINGS,
I do feel people are not getting to my point of view for very simple reasons that my views are not being considered with the significance of grammer.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/discourses-in-english/8203-ek-onkar-translation.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8203
I never refered to the concept of GOD in Gurbaani. In fact I myself had questioned about the concept of GOD in Gurbaani reference.In stead of finding so people change their topic and present again the concept of GOD.
I have always been telling about the concept of SHABADu GUROO JOTi.All my references of SINGULAR or PLURAL are related to GUROO JOTi only. When people themselves relate the word GOD confusion is bound to be there.
As a matter of fact I am not getting the type of interaction as it should be.Sometimes I myself feel as to why this interaction should be done when people are not interested in Gurbaani Grammer at all'
I must give a serious thaught to this.I must interact only with those who firmly believe
that there is certainly a role of Grammer in Gurbaani understanding.Otherwise my whole exercise is just futile.
I must seek your advice on this .I look forward to it
Thanking you,
With regards to all
Prakash.s.Bagga

findingmyway · #22 (**permalink**) 27-Oct-2010, 04:20 AM

Prakash Ji,
You are right in that grammar is vital. I think there is a concern as without discussion of how the grammar changes our understanding, study of grammar is futile. We appreciate your knowledge. However, if you could relate your interpretation in understanding in addition to the rules we would be grateful.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8203
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8203

For example, you have said there is a difference in Ekaankar, Ikonkaar etc but have not explained how this affects the message that Guru Nanak Dev Ji is trying to impart. With each assertion of teh correct grammar, it is important to help the lay person understand why this is important with reference to understanding and just stating the differences does not do this.
Regards,
Jasleen

spnadmin · #23 (**permalink**) 28-Oct-2010, 01:45 AM

Paraksh S Baggu ji

I have moved some of your replies off forum to the Leaders section.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8203

With folded hands we have asked you in many different ways and on several different threads to move beyond a discussion of grammar.

Most who are following these threads including Japji translaiton, Ek Oankaar Translation, and the Meaning of Sat Nam, understand that grammar is important. But now it is time to return to the original purpose of the threads where you have been posting.

Beyond grammar means to proceed to gurmat vichaar. You are actually preventing threads from progressing and in some cases diverting the discussion from original reasons for the thread. It is essential that grammar be understood. No one is disputing that. It is also essential that threads become places where broader learning occurs .

Learning cannot be limited to the agenda of one member. Learning cannot be cut off from the interests and concerns of everyone else. Please do not thwart and frustrate the purpose of these threads.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8203

I have created one thread in Leaders where all your posts from now on will be moved until we can decide the best way to organize your message, and then publish it.

Thank you

prakash.s.bagga · #24 (**permalink**) 28-Oct-2010, 01:55 AM

SPNADMIN,
Divine Greetings
I have taken the note of your posting.I fully appreciate your views and I have also understood the purpose of different threads.
I assure you I will not make my postings unless I am asked for.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8203
With best wishes ,
Thanking you
Prakash.S.Bagga

prakash.s.bagga · #25 (**permalink**) 24-Nov-2010, 20:41 PM

Ref Pronunciation of the SYMBOL
If we give proper look into Gurbaani we would find that Nowhere the word ONKAAR has been reffered as EK or IK.We must look at actually has been reffered as IKu in Gurbaani this would help in correct understanding of the Pronunciation of the SYMBOL.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8203
We can look at the problem of Pronunciation of the SYMBOL from the fact that we have been considering NUMERICAL Number as SEPARATE and we have componded the words OUM and KAAR as ONKAAR so we prounounce as EK or IK ONKAAR. If this is So then there is no prblem with the pronunciation as IK or EK ONKAAR'
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=8203
But the fact from Gurbaani is quite different.So we must look into this.

Prakash.S.Bagga