The Real Meaning of Ik Oankar?

WaheGuru ji ka Khalsa, WaheGuru ji ki Fateh. Greetings Sangat, its been a long time since I really logged onto SPN and even longer since I've posted anything on here do to my job. Recently I happened across an interesting essay writen by a Professor Devinder Singh Chahal ji PhD of the Institute for Understanding Sikhism, apparently based in Laval, Quebec, Canada. http://www.iuscanada.com/journal/articles/omkar.pdf This is the link. The basic summary is that Ek Oankar, as it is commonly pronounced, is a mistranlation that goes back as far as Bhai Gurdas, so says Mr. Singh, and that the correct pronounciation should be something along Ik Oh, or Ik Oh Ananat. It was a very interesting article and I'm not sure exactly how I should feel about this. I did some research and so far couldn't really find anyone else who was making the same claims that he was, not saying there aren't, just that I didn't find them. I have trouble taking information like this at face value. I don't want to assume he's a crock but, I'm also not to sure about believing him. The big problem for me is that I speak little to no Panjabi and no Hindi so I don't really have anything to go off of. Anyways I strongley encourage everyone to read this bit of information and please give me your opinion on the situation. The link again is http://www.iuscanada.com/journal/articles/omkar.pdf. Thank you for your time and patience. Peace, Love and Respect.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/31215-the-real-meaning-of-ik-oankar.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31215
Sat Naam
Sincerley Santokh daas

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

SantokhSingh1989ji

Thanks for this reference. I am familiar with much of the writing of Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal. Forgive me but I am not sure if I have read this article.The topic looks really interesting and should provoke some good discussion. These discussions are always engaging and uplifting.

Dr Chahal is one of the few Sikhs who knows what he is talking about

Dr. Chahal would love to know that you have said this. There is a contingent that argues with everything coming from his pen. In fact, it depresses me to read some of the rejoinders they write. Fortunately people who also know what they are talking about continue to invite him to give lectures and discuss matters with them.

Its a shame no one seems to be interested in this topic. I was hoping more people would read this and give me their opinion on it as this seems like somewhat of an important topic considering that the words Ik oankar or however it is they should be pronounced is something that every sikh says every day. God willing more people will read this article and tell me what they feel about it. Or at least drop a little knoledge for me regardless if they read it or not.

SSA,
First of all sorry that since several days I could not log on to SPN due to some personal issues.Surely the topic is very serious, should be adressed by all sikhs. I will read the link and come back today itself with my opinion.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31215
Roopsidhu

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31215
source: http://www.onlyonegod.ca/Ikooo.html

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh!

I am not a Scholar or a Giani of Sikh Studies but I try, in my own way, to read and understand the Jewels of Gurbani. Therefore, at the onset, please pardon me if you find my views not very much in conformity to the main stream thinking.

Before I dwell into "The Real Meaning of Ik Oankar?", let me ask one simple question to myself.

Who were those people Guru Nanak ji was preaching to when he began to preach? Majority of them were of Hindu background and some may have been Muslim once Guru Maharaj came to be accepted as a Divine Personality par excellence. The Hindus and the Muslims subsequently, became his Sikhs or his Followers only once they accepted his point of view and came back to him for more.

Since the first people he preached to were Hindus, they knew the classical mythology and description of God as many faceted being with many names as the 'Devtas' and 'Devies' went. They used to call God "Om". That is the invocation of all Hindus religious ceremonies where "Om" is recited first followed by the prayer going to some particular god or goddess. Even when a Hindu priest invokes a new Shloka, he starts with 'Om" like 'Om Bhagvati'.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31215

Now, take the case of semi-literate or uneducated Hindu masses having been used to calling God "Om". In the simplification or any spoken sound, there is always some corruption or deviation from the original pure sound which was refined in Sanskrit.

By the way, the word Sanskrit itself means, "something which can not be refined anymore'. Go back to the English meaning of the word 'Sans', which means 'without'. The second vowel of 'Krit' means to do or to make. And it sounds very akin to 'Create'. Therefore, Sanskrit became a language over a long times as something which could not be 'created or crafted any further' or 'which is perfect'. But it remained a classical language of the Brahmins only, unfortunately.

Going back to "Om". If you sit, close your eyes and recite the word "Om' in a low baritoned voice, you may experience a divine vibration in your chest which acts like a bellow, blowing out air through your throat in a controlled manner thus making the sound "Om" turn into "Ooooooooommmmmmmm", until you run out of breath and inhale again and start all over again. That is the practice which Hindu yogis indulge in, even when they do Yoga.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31215

Therefore, Guru Nanak Dev ji Maharaj spoke to the Hindus from simple backgrounds and not to the classical Sanskrit educated elite. In my perception, he spoke the word "Om' as was being spoken by the layman. The whole Gurbani is a layman's language or simple Sant or Sadhu basha. But the words of this simple language have Sanskrit origin going back to many centuries.

The word "Om" was being spoken as "Onnnnnmm' with a predominant nasal sound. Try it yourself.

Therefore, all that Guru Maharaj said to his congregation, "Ek Oan Kar" meaning that there is "One Om Who is the Doer or 'Karta' of everything". Its implied meaning is that there is not more than One God as the common people were made to believe until then.
My humble submission is that the meaning of "Ik Oankar" is "One Oan Who is the Karta or Doer of everything".

And as far as the written form is concerned, it's easy to put the Gurmukhi figure of '1' before 'Oan' rather than write Ek Oankar.

May Waheguru ji forgive me if I have written anything incorrect. He knows what we all are talking about with our limited understanding.

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh!
Tejwant Singh1

First of all whether it is the meaning as the title is, or the pronunciation Dr Chahal is disputing. Dr Chahal is a very dedicated and well informed scholars but it is my personal feeling he is creating more controversies than solution. I use to argue with him but than decided not to waste my time as most of time it used to come out unproductive. I remember a story, once man came home very excited and stated to his family that today he had a million dollar bet with someone that rabbit has three legs and he is sure he will win the bet. His family members one by one explained to him that he will lose the bet as rabbit has four legs and not three. Upon his reassurance, when the family enquired to explain how he will win, he said he will lose only if he admits.

Now coming to the pronunciation of opening verse ੴ he insists it should be pronouced as ek oh beant or anant due to open aura whereas everyone including myself pronouce it as ek aung kar, but he says it sound like ek Om whereas gurbani has clearly mentioned as ,’ eykm eykMkwru inrwlw ] Sri Guru Granth Sahib 838.19. Thus he feels insecured as the name is derived from Sanskrit or is based on vedanta thus there is nothing new or unique in Guru sahib philosohy unless we address it as ek oh beant. fficeffice" />
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31215

The word kar has been used in gurbani at many places like, ‘sweI kwr kmwvxI Duir CofI iqMnY pwie ] Sri Guru Granth Sahib.475.10 or guir kihAw sw kwr kmwvhu ]Sri Guru Granth Sahib.832.16. When we ponder over it, kar will give the meaning as His laws or Hukam also. Further, it is not M of Om but sound as ang or aungkar. So it makes the meaning clear that, 'There is One God and ang ang of my body is functioning under His Hukam'. In this way what have we taken from Hindus or Pandai. If we go by His argument then word satnaam, karta, purakh all these word are derived from sanskrit. Sanskrit was one of my subject which I studied. Have we started wearing the dhoti or started adopted Hindu rituals due to these words. Similarly there are many words in Guru Granths Sahib from Farsi. Did we started sunnat or adopted muslims way of life and so on?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=31215

Best regards
Mohinder Singh Sahni