Sikhi ੴ - Meaning And Pronunciation

[Original]

Could you also say the same for the Tibetan version??

Harkiran, you're an asset to Sikhi, an expandable 1. These little {censored} bits you manage to find, help construct the ultimate reality. Your contribution is beyond measure.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Can you please elaborate on the design? I did notice similarity between the OM symbol before and Ik Onkar (well if I look sideways). But this is first time I heard anyone say there is a definite design aspect to it.

Sir, are you suggesting that Baba Nanak Ji wanted to mirror bit of the ॐ into his ੴ ? Don't get me wrong, there's no hard core evidence to rule that out, particularly from a graphic perspective.

To clarify, I am saying -

1. Both ॐ and ੴare Onkar symbols but in different languages and from different regions of India.

Harkiran posted the Tibetan Onkar symbol.

There is also Tamil Onkar symbol from South India -

There is also Kannada Onkar symbol, another one south Indian one -
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Kannada_OM.png

I mean you can just google how many Onkar symbols exist in India and one for each of the different languages that exists in India.

They all appropriated the Onkar symbol to their local language.

ੴ is from North India in the Gurmukhi script. The Gurus appropriated Onkar for the masses in North India.


2. All Onkar symbols including ੴ, all mean the same thing. That is One Continuous Vibratory Aum.

All Onkar symbols are inherently One Onkar, whether the symbol has 1 or not.

That Tibetan one? One Onkar
That one from Java? One Onkar
That one from South India? One Onkar


3. So if Onkar is always 1.
If there is only 1, absolutely 1 Onkar then naturally the question gets asked - why did Guru Nanak Dev ji add ੧ to the Onkar symbol ੴ?

This is not for any philosophical reason - because Onkar means One Onkar.

This is not for any mathematical reason - because Onkar means One Onkar.

The absolute One that vibrates and gives birth to all creation. This is Onkar.

People have given various reasons. However they never remember that Onkar is always 1. So when you place 1 next to Onkar, at a philosophical level or mathematical level or religious level, that 1 is redundant because Onkar is always 1.

Waheguru has blessed me with this understanding that - ੴ/ Onkar is written with a 1 because of reasons pertaining to Graphic Design. The reasons pertaining to the design of the symbol in Gurmukhi.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

What I was asking though, pertaining to the design element, can you describe why there are similarities between all of them design wise, even though the languages are different? I mean between Hindu OM and Tibetan OM and Ik Onkar I can easily see in the actual character design, similarities. If the languages are different then why are the symbols so eerily similar? Reason I was asking if there is anything deeper there (like pertaining to sacred geometry etc.)?

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Is it just me or does the Tamil one look like a skull?? And yes I can still see the common design elements.. just in a different configuration.

 

[BhagatSingh]

What I was asking though, pertaining to the design element, can you describe why there are similarities between all of them design wise, even though the languages are different? I mean between Hindu OM and Tibetan OM and Ik Onkar I can easily see in the actual character design, similarities. If the languages are different then why are the symbols so eerily similar? Reason I was asking if there is anything deeper there (like pertaining to sacred geometry etc.)?

The languages are not that different. In case of Gurmukhi and Sanskrit, they are very similar languages, similar grammar and stuff.

Remember, the Aum is a combination of two base vowels - A,U - and a nasal sound. In English, it would be pronounced as a nasal 'Awe'.

In Gurmukhi this syllable looks like this - ਓਂ

Sanskrit is the parent language of many Indian languages including Gurmukhi. So ਓਂ looks similar to ॐ . They both have that ' 3 ' element because that is the letter for the 'Au' vowel sound. And they both have a dot that represents the nasal sound.

ੴ and other popular Onkar symbols are stylized versions.


Now I am not a Tibetan expert but Tibetan Onkar appears to me to also have been inspired by Sanskrit alphabets. It has the ' 3 ' element, and it has the "chandr bindu" at the top. Chandra bindu is crescent moon with the dot ਁ It represents the nasal sound.
I dunno if you can see that chandra bindu. It's kinda small. Check this out - Chandrabindu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But yea that Tibetan Onkar also has elements similar to the sanskrit ॐ. This is most likely due to the widespread influence of Sanskrit.

 

[BhagatSingh]

Is it just me or does the Tamil one look like a skull?? And yes I can still see the common design elements.. just in a different configuration.

TIL Onkar is a skull smoking a pipe...

 

[Sherdil]

I think you are correct. However the word flows just fine and it is also present in the dictionary.
ਨਿਰਾਕਾਰ - Meaning in English - ਨਿਰਾਕਾਰ in English - Shabdkosh | ਸ਼ਬਦ-ਕੋਸ਼ : English Punjabi Dictionary and Translation

Why does it show up in the dictionary if it is grammatically inaccurate?

We ran into a similar issue with the word Bhagauti in another thread. There were two different spellings of the same word. One of them didn't appear in Gurbani, like Nirakar.

I would stick with the tippi as a rule of thumb. Without it, we are left with Ek-kar and O-kar instead of Ekankar and Onkar.

Nicely explained. Thanks. I stand corrected.

So ਓਅੰਕਾਰ would be the form of ਓਂ.

If you say that ਏਕੰਕਾਰ is the conjoining of ਏਕ ਆਕਾਰ then ਏਕੰਕਾਰ is referring to the holistic ਏਕ ਆਕਾਰ. That I understand.
It is an Advait Philoshopy concept.


However ੴ stands for ਏਕ + ਓਅੰਕਾਰ. Are you saying that ਏਕੰਕਾਰ is never referring to ੴ, ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ, the only Onkar?


Advait Philosophy.

However both form and vibration is reality to us in our daily life.


Nirankar and Nirgun Parm Ishwar is also present in all things manifest. That does not necessarily mean they are form.

Remember Onkar is vibratory, it is prior to form. Hence is it written prior to other things, it is written in the beginning of a granth or a writing or a poem.

Onkar is vibration.

When you say Onkar, your words are form, the sound you hear is form.

However as Guru Sahib says Onkar is present everywhere, even before you chanted Ong. It was there and that it was present before there was any form creation.
You may chant Ong, that is different from the Onkar that was there in the beggining.

There is only one Onkar, that means the one continuous vibratory Aum.

This has several implications.


You cannot say "Onkar is vibration so it's a form coming from Ek Onkar" or that "Ek Onkar is different from Onkar". Onkar/Ek Onkar is the same thing according to Guru Sahib. There is only one Onkar.

Furthermore -

If you say "Onkar comes from Ek Akar/Ekankar, so it is form" That would be incorrect as well because Onkar comes prior to form according to Guru Sahib.

Furthermore -
If you say "Onkar is not that one syllable that is ਓਂ, aum" That is also not correct according to the grammar rule you explained.

So what is your argument?

Symbolism is being used to represent concepts, so when I say "form of" I mean that the concept has been given a written form, i.e. made into a symbol by which it can be referred to.

The symbol ਓਂ is referred to as Onkar. It is the written form of the sound oooo.
The numeral 1 is referred to as Ekankar. It is the written form of the One, i.e. Brahman.

The vibration of Onkar came from the Ek and made all manifest, but all that is manifest is still Onkar. The Ek is the personality behind it all. In the beginning, the Ek created the word (Onkar) and that word is still vibrating as the Shabadh that is within us and around us.

 

[BhagatSingh]

@Sherdil

I am guessing you deleted that whole bit because it didn't seem relevant to the discussion? Is that correct?

 

[BhagatSingh]

We ran into a similar issue with the word Bhagauti in another thread. There were two different spellings of the same word. One of them didn't appear in Gurbani, like Nirakar.

Well Bhagauti, Bhagawati, etc all mean the same thing.

Khatri ਖਤ੍ਰੀ
Chhatri ਛਤ੍ਰੀ

Saimbhav ਸੈਭੰ
Suambhav ਸੁਯੰਭਵ

Etc etc. The list is very long.

They are all pronounced the same way. The letters are guidelines in how to pronounce accurately.

I would stick with the tippi as a rule of thumb. Without it, we are left with Ek-kar and O-kar instead of Ekankar and Onkar.

That's not right. Without the tippi we'd still have -
The syllable is ਓਂ +ਕਾਰ = ਓਂਕਾਰ
Due to punjabi rules it is written as ਓਅੰਕਾਰ

No tippi was added.
In addition to Onkar, there are also many other words where there is no tippi added -
ਅਹੰਕਾਰ (base - ਅਹੰ)
ਬਲਾਤਕਾਰ (base - ਬਲਾਤ)
ਵਿਕਾਰ (base - ਵੇ)


Anyways on a side note - Like ਨਿਰਾਕਾਰ, ਏਕ + ਆਕਾਰ could be ਏਕਾਕਾਰ, which flows just fine as well.

The symbol ਓਂ is referred to as Onkar. It is the written form of the sound oooo.

It is written in the form of the sound Aum, that is pronounced like a nasal "Awe".

ਓ is pronounced like Awe
ਓਂ is pronounced like a nasal Awe.

There is no oooo here lol. If you've been pronouncing that you've been doing it wrong.

The numeral 1 is referred to as Ekankar. It is the written form of the One, i.e. Brahman.

Advait Philosophy.

However my point remains - Onkar ਓਂਕਾਰ means one Onkar ਏਕ ਓਂਕਾਰ by definition.

The vibration of Onkar came from the Ek and made all manifest, but all that is manifest is still Onkar. The Ek is the personality behind it all. In the beginning, the Ek created the word (Onkar) and that word is still vibrating as the Shabadh that is within us and around us.

Ok

However Onkar is there prior to form, prior to Srishti. ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸਭ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਉਪਾਈ ॥ - 1061

You are saying Onkar is form, however Guru says Onkar is formless. Onkar is vibration that gave birth to forms.


ਓਅੰ ਸਾਧ ਸਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਨਮਸਕਾਰੰ ॥
I bow to that Aum (Onkar), and that perfect, true, teacher. What is Onkar?

ਆਦਿ ਮਧਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ ॥
Onkar is that (ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ) formlessness that is there in the beginning, middle and end.
-250

When you are looking around at the monitor, hitting your keyboard, etc you are striking form. Onkar cannot be struck. Onkar is unstruck sound current - ਅਨਾਹਤ ਨਾਦ Anahat naad.


ਏਕਮ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਨਿਰਾਲਾ ॥ ਅਮਰੁ ਅਜੋਨੀ ਜਾਤਿ ਨ ਜਾਲਾ ॥ ਅਗਮ ਅਗੋਚਰੁ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਰੇਖਿਆ ॥ Firstly, that Ekankar (one Onkar), that vibration, is unique. It is deathless, birthless, casteless, and detached. That vibration has no form or feature, it is beyond the scope of the mind (in its totality) and it is beyond the senses, (and can be seen by withdrawing the senses and getting absorbed into pure vibration, into Hari, into Onkar vibration) -838


Onkar is beyond the everyday senses. It is in the background.
That Onkar you hear in the ear during meditation is a representation of the Onkar that is beyond the ears.

 

[Admin]

@Sherdil

I am guessing you deleted that whole bit because it didn't seem relevant to the discussion? Is that correct?

@BhagatSingh ji

Posts irrelevant to this discussion were deleted by myself... At SPN, a mod/admin/forum leader actively participating in a discussion, does not perform moderation in that thread. You can read more about it here... Forum Etiquette | Sikh Philosophy Network - Think Discuss Share Explore Learn

Hope it clears any confusion.

Thank you.

 

[Sherdil]

That's not right. Without the tippi we'd still have -
The syllable is ਓਂ +ਕਾਰ = ਓਂਕਾਰ
Due to punjabi rules it is written as ਓਅੰਕਾਰ

ਓਂ is the symbol. When it is spelled phonetically, it is ਓਅੰਕਾਰ. The ਅੰ is inserted to hold the tippi, because it cannot be placed on ਓਂ.

In addition to Onkar, there are also many other words where there is no tippi added -
ਅਹੰਕਾਰ (base - ਅਹੰ)
ਬਲਾਤਕਾਰ (base - ਬਲਾਤ)
ਵਿਕਾਰ (base - ਵੇ)

The ਕਾਰ at the end of these words doesn't come from Akar (form).

Anyways on a side note - Like ਨਿਰਾਕਾਰ, ਏਕ + ਆਕਾਰ could be ਏਕਾਕਾਰ, which flows just fine as well.

Nir is a negation of Akar so you can combine the two, just like Nir + Gun = Nirgun

Ek Akar = 1 form

Ek + Akar = Ekankar (form of 1)

The tippi is needed to link the two words

It is written in the form of the sound Aum, that is pronounced like a nasal "Awe".

ਓ is pronounced like Awe
ਓਂ is pronounced like a nasal Awe.

There is no oooo here lol. If you've been pronouncing that you've been doing it wrong.

We are writing something phonetically using romanized script.

If I wrote ooooo instead of awwww, then please forgive me lol. You catch my drift.

Advait Philosophy.

However my point remains - Onkar ਓਂਕਾਰ means one Onkar ਏਕ ਓਂਕਾਰ by definition.

Sikh Philosophy.

Guru Nanak's Ek Onkar symbol is a more complete representation of the Divine than the Om symbol because it introduces the Ek before the Onkar. The Ek is the Karta Purakh. It is the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-doing cosmic Purusha. Even in Hindu Philosophy, Brahman is higher than Om.

Ok

However Onkar is there prior to form, prior to Srishti. ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸਭ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਉਪਾਈ ॥ - 1061

You are saying Onkar is form, however Guru says Onkar is formless. Onkar is vibration that gave birth to forms.

Ji, I am not saying that Onkar is exclusively form. I am saying that since form arises from Onkar, it is a part of that vibration. This is why Onkar is sargun (with attributes). It is the part of the Divine that is manifested. I understand what you mean by background noise, but the keyboard I am typing on is still a part of that noise.

ਓਅੰ ਸਾਧ ਸਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਨਮਸਕਾਰੰ ॥
I bow to that Aum (Onkar), and that perfect, true, teacher. What is Onkar?

ਆਦਿ ਮਧਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ ॥
Onkar is that (ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ) formlessness that is there in the beginning, middle and end.
-250

ਓਅੰ ਸਾਧ ਸਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਨਮਸਕਾਰੰ ॥
I bow to Onkar the perfect, true, teacher.
Shabadh Guru = Onkar

ਆਦਿ ਮਧਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ ॥
Onkar is that (ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ) formlessness that is there in the beginning, middle and end.
Onkar creates, sustains, destroys

Sri Granth: Shabad/Paurhi/Salok SGGS Page 250

When you are looking around at the monitor, hitting your keyboard, etc you are striking form. Onkar cannot be struck. Onkar is unstruck sound current - ਅਨਾਹਤ ਨਾਦ Anahat naad.

Normally sound is created by striking two objects together.

Anahat Naad is unstruck because it is self-emanating. It comes from Ek and it is still a part of Ek. There are no two things that are struck together to make this sound. There is only the One.

It has nothing to do with our ability to physically strike it.

ਏਕਮ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਨਿਰਾਲਾ ॥ ਅਮਰੁ ਅਜੋਨੀ ਜਾਤਿ ਨ ਜਾਲਾ ॥ ਅਗਮ ਅਗੋਚਰੁ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਰੇਖਿਆ ॥ Firstly, that Ekankar (one Onkar), that vibration, is unique. It is deathless, birthless, casteless, and detached. That vibration has no form or feature, it is beyond the scope of the mind (in its totality) and it is beyond the senses, (and can be seen by withdrawing the senses and getting absorbed into pure vibration, into Hari, into Onkar vibration) -838

This is your translation, but I feel it is embellished. There is no indication in the gurmukhi provided that this is a discussion of Onkar / vibration. Only Ekankar is mention. Ekankar is the nirgun Akaal. It is beyond death, birth, social class or involvement. It is has no form or outline. It is unfathomable, yet it is present in all living things as the aatma (soul) which is part of the supreme-soul (param-aatma).

Sri Granth: Shabad/Paurhi/Salok SGGS Page 838

 

[BhagatSingh]

ਓਂ is the symbol. When it is spelled phonetically, it is ਓਅੰਕਾਰ. The ਅੰ is inserted to hold the tippi, because it cannot be placed on ਓਂ.

Those are the Punjabi rules I am talking about.

The tippi is needed to link the two words

You missed the point which was that the tippi was not necessary to link Om with Kar.

You said -Without it, we are left with Ek-kar and O-kar

It's not O-Kar.

It's Om-kar. The tippi is not necessary to link those words.

In addition to Onkar, there are also many other words where there is no tippi added -
ਅਹੰਕਾਰ (base - ਅਹੰ)
ਬਲਾਤਕਾਰ (base - ਬਲਾਤ)
ਵਿਕਾਰ (base - ਵੇ)

To which you respon

The ਕਾਰ at the end of these words doesn't come from Akar (form).

Then where does it come from?

Guru Nanak's Ek Onkar symbol is a more complete representation of the Divine than the Om symbol because it introduces the Ek before the Onkar. The Ek is the Karta Purakh. It is the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-doing cosmic Purusha.

However Onkar is already the Ek. Onkar is the already the One Onkar. You are introducing dichotomies where they don't exist. Ekonkar or Onkar are the same

Your words- Onkar creates, sustains, destroys
You are failing to register the connections that are already in your mind. If Onkar is creating, it is everywhere, everything comes from it... then it must be referring to Purusha.

Your words- Onkar creates, sustains, destroys
Thus Onkar must be - the Karta Purakh. It is the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-doing cosmic Purusha.



You are disagreeing even when you actually agree with me.
Or you just don't want to admit that Onkar is One Onkar, because it strips you of your previously created sense of identity.

I don't know what it is. But I do know that everything will be alright man. Just relax and be your true self.

Ji, I am not saying that Onkar is exclusively form. I am saying that since form arises from Onkar, it is a part of that vibration. This is why Onkar is sargun (with attributes). It is the part of the Divine that is manifested. I understand what you mean by background noise, but the keyboard I am typing on is still a part of that noise.

Exactly. However you've only looked at one side of Onkar.
Sargun emerges from Onkar because as you admitted Onkar creates everything.

And Guru Sahib tells us the other side -
Onkar is sargun. Onkar is also nirgun. Onkar is Nirankar. Sargun Nirgun Nirankar

Because

ਓਅੰ ਸਾਧ ਸਤਿ ਗੁਰ ਨਮਸਕਾਰੰ ॥
I bow to that Aum (Onkar), and that perfect, true, teacher. What is Onkar?

ਆਦਿ ਮਧਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ ॥
Onkar is that (ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ) formlessness that is there in the beginning, middle and end.
-250

The whole world came from Onkar. Onkar is that which you are calling Ekankar. however even though Guru Sahib clarifies it for you, you are not admitting it because you are afraid of losing something.

Again I don't know what it is man. All I can say is, again, do not be afraid. just be the Onkar that in you and is you.

Normally sound is created by striking two objects together.
Anahat Naad is unstruck because it is self-emanating. It comes from Ek and it is still a part of Ek. There are no two things that are struck together to make this sound. There is only the One.

It has nothing to do with our ability to physically strike it.

Lol jokes. You are pretending to disagree even when you actually agree with me.
I don't know why you are doing this to me! WHY YOU DO DEES? WHY!?@!?@

Lol

Back to serious-mode -

There is no indication in the gurmukhi provided that this is a discussion of Onkar / vibration.

If you notice the phrase - ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ - does not appear in bani.

It is either written as ਓਅੰ , ਓਅੰਕਾਰ and finally - ਏਕੰਕਾਰ which is ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ

Ek Onkar does not appear in bani. It is written as either Aum, Onkar, or Ekankar.

(That's a hint btw - Guru Sahib does not make a distinction between Om, Onkar and EkOnkar)

 

[Ambarsaria]

There is some fun and frolic in the following thread too,

Sri Guru Granth Sahib: Review of ੴ (Ik▫oaʼnkār)

Because of fonts evolution it may not show well with some browsers.

The following from Prof. Sahib Singh ji's Teeka,

ੴ ਉੱਚਾਰਨ ਵੇਲੇ ਇਸ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਹਿੱਸੇ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ: ੧, ਓ ਅਤੇ  ; ਇਸ ਦਾ ਪਾਠ ਹੈ 'ਇਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ'। ਤਿੰਨ ਹਿੱਸੇ ਵੱਖੋ ਵੱਖਰੇ ਉੱਚਾਰਿਆਂ ਇਉਂ ਬਣਦੇ ਹਨ: ੧ = ਇੱਕ। ਓ = ਓਅੰ।  = ਕਾਰ। 'ਓ' ਸੰਸਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਦਾ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਹੈ। ਅਮਰ ਕੋਸ਼ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਇਸ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਅਰਥ ਹਨ: (੧) ਵੇਦ ਆਦਿ ਧਰਮ = ਪੁਸਤਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਅਰੰਭ ਅਤੇ ਅਖ਼ੀਰ ਵਿਚ, ਅਰਦਾਸ ਜਾਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਪਵਿੱਤਰ ਧਰਮ-ਕਾਰਜ ਦੇ ਅਰੰਭ ਵਿਚ ਅੱਖਰ 'ਓਂ' ਪਵਿੱਤਰ ਅੱਖਰ ਜਾਣ ਕੇ ਵਰਤਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। (੨) ਕਿਸੇ ਹੁਕਮ ਜਾਂ ਪ੍ਰਸ਼ਨ ਆਦਿਕ ਦੇ ਉੱਤਰ ਵਿਚ ਆਦਰ ਅਤੇ ਸਤਿਕਾਰ ਨਾਲ 'ਜੀ ਹਾਂ' ਆਖਣਾ। ਸੋ, 'ਓਂ' ਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ 'ਜੀ ਹਾਂ'। (੩) ਓਂ = ਬ੍ਰਹਮ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਕਿਹੜਾ ਅਰਥ ਇਸ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਦਾ ਇੱਥੇ ਲਿਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਹੈ: ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਦ੍ਰਿੜ੍ਹ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸ਼ਬਦ 'ਓਂ' ਦੇ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ '੧' ਲਿਖ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਦਾ ਭਾਵ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਇੱਥੇ 'ਓਂ' ਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ 'ਉਹ ਹਸਤੀ ਜੋ ਇਕ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਵਰਗਾ ਹੋਰ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਇਹ ਸਾਰਾ ਜਗਤ ਸਮਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।' ਤੀਜਾ ਹਿੱਸਾ  ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਦਾ ਉੱਚਾਰਨ ਹੈ 'ਕਾਰ'। 'ਕਾਰ' ਸੰਸਕ੍ਰਿਤ ਦਾ ਇਕ ਪਿਛੇਤਰ ਹੈ। ਆਮ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਇਹ ਪਿਛੇਤਰ 'ਨਾਂਵ' ਦੇ ਅਖ਼ੀਰ ਵਿਚ ਵਰਤਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ 'ਇਕ-ਰਸ, ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਤਬਦੀਲੀ ਨਾ ਆਵੇ।' ਇਸ 'ਪਿਛੇਤਰ' ਦੇ ਲਾਣ ਨਾਲ 'ਨਾਂਵ' ਦੇ ਲਿੰਗ ਵਿਚ ਕੋਈ ਫ਼ਰਕ ਨਹੀਂ ਪੈਂਦਾ; ਭਾਵ, ਜੇ 'ਨਾਂਵ' ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਪੁਲਿੰਗ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਇਸ 'ਪਿਛੇਤਰ' ਦੇ ਲਗਾਇਆਂ ਭੀ ਪੁਲਿੰਗ ਹੀ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਜੇ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਲਿੰਗ ਹੋਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਇਸ ਪਿਛੇਤਰ ਦੇ ਸਮੇਤ ਭੀ ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਲਿੰਗ ਹੀ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ;

Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib
(select Teeka Prof. Sahib Singh ji and you can read the full with examples)

Sat Sri Akal

PS: Recognizing SGGSJ as poetic composition, I view it as ======> Letters create words ===> words create sentences/pangtis or collective cohesive expression ===> sentences joined create stanzas/poetice sub or complete parts ===> multiple or single stanzas create a poem/shabad with a relatively standalone conveyance but always to be related to the book of poetry and read in the overall context ===> SGGSJ

 

[Sherdil]

You missed the point which was that the tippi was not necessary to link Om with Kar.

You said -Without it, we are left with Ek-kar and O-kar

It's not O-Kar.

It's Om-kar. The tippi is not necessary to link those words.

It's not Om-kar. The first letter in Gurmukhi is Oora, not Om. Tippi is needed.

In addition to Onkar, there are also many other words where there is no tippi added -
ਅਹੰਕਾਰ (base - ਅਹੰ)
ਬਲਾਤਕਾਰ (base - ਬਲਾਤ)
ਵਿਕਾਰ (base - ਵੇ)

ਅਹੰਕਾਰ means pride. Every -Kar you see isn't a suffix. If it was derived from Akar, then it would translate to "form of pride". That doesn't make sense.

However Onkar is already the Ek. Onkar is the already the One Onkar. You are introducing dichotomies where they don't exist. Ekonkar or Onkar are the same

Bhai Gurdas ji - Vaar 3, Paurie 15

ਏਕਾ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਲਿਖਿ ਦੇਖਾਲਿਆ।
Aykaa Aykankaaru Likhi Daykhaaliaa.
एका एकंकारु लिखि देखालिआ ।
By writing 1 (One) in the beginning, it has been shown that Ekankar, God, who subsumes all forms

ਊੜਾ ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਪਾਸਿ ਬਹਾਲਿਆ।
Oorhaa Aoankaaru Paasi Bahaaliaa.
ऊड़ा ओअंकारु पासि बहालिआ ।
Ura, the first Gurmukhi letter, in the form of Oankar shows the world controlling power of that one Lord.

Your words- Onkar creates, sustains, destroys
You are failing to register the connections that are already in your mind. If Onkar is creating, it is everywhere, everything comes from it... then it must be referring to Purusha.

Your words- Onkar creates, sustains, destroys
Thus Onkar must be - the Karta Purakh. It is the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-doing cosmic Purusha.

You are disagreeing even when you actually agree with me.
Or you just don't want to admit that Onkar is One Onkar, because it strips you of your previously created sense of identity.

Ji, where does Onkar come from? Onkar is referred to as the Shabadh / Kavaao (utterance). It is the Akhar (word) that manifests all and is all things manifest. Then who is the speaker of this word? It is the Ek. Hindus refer to it as Brahman. You have called it Hari in your previous posts. The Ek is acting through Onkar.

The whole world came from Onkar. Onkar is that which you are calling Ekankar. however even though Guru Sahib clarifies it for you, you are not admitting it because you are afraid of losing something.

Again I don't know what it is man. All I can say is, again, do not be afraid. just be the Onkar that in you and is you.

Lol. I am not sure what has prompted this unsolicited psychoanalysis. I can assure you that I am fine. It seems you are the one who is becoming frustrated.

Oankar comes from Ekankar.

Bhai Gurdas ji vaar 39, paurie 4:

ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਆਕਾਰ ਕਰਿ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਅਕਾਰੁ ਪਛੋਆ।
Nirankaar Aakaaru Kari Aykankaaru Akaaru Paloaa.
निरंकार आकारु करि एकंकारु अकारु पलोआ ।
First, the formless Lord assumed the form of the Ekankar and later he created all the forms (i.e. universe).

ਓਅੰਕਾਰ ਅਕਾਰੁ ਲਖ ਲਖ ਦਰੀਯਾਉ ਕਰੇਂਦੇ ਢੋਆ।
Aoankaari Akaari Lakh Lakh Dareeaau Karaynday Ddhoaa.
ओअंकारि अकारि लख लख दरीआउ करेंदे ढोआ ।
In the form of Oankar lacs of streams of life take shelter.

ਲਖ ਦਰੀਆਉ ਸਮੁੰਦ੍ਰ ਵਿਚਿ ਸਤ ਸਮੁੰਦ੍ਰ ਗੜਾੜ ਸਮੋਆ।
Lakh Dareeaau Samoundr Vichi Sat Samoundr Garhaarhi Samoaa.
लख दरीआउ समुंद्र विचि सत समुंद्र गड़ाड़ि समोआ ।
Lacs of rivers flow into seas, and all the seven seas merge in the oceans.

If you notice the phrase - ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ - does not appear in bani.

It is either written as ਓਅੰ , ਓਅੰਕਾਰ and finally - ਏਕੰਕਾਰ which is ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ

Ek Onkar does not appear in bani. It is written as either Aum, Onkar, or Ekankar.

(That's a hint btw - Guru Sahib does not make a distinction between Om, Onkar and EkOnkar)

Bhai Gurdas ji - Vaar 3, Paurie 15

ਏਕਾ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਲਿਖਿ ਦੇਖਾਲਿਆ।
Aykaa Aykankaaru Likhi Daykhaaliaa.
एका एकंकारु लिखि देखालिआ ।
By writing 1 (One) in the beginning, it has been shown that Ekankar, God, who subsumes all forms

ਊੜਾ ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਪਾਸਿ ਬਹਾਲਿਆ।
Oorhaa Aoankaaru Paasi Bahaaliaa.
ऊड़ा ओअंकारु पासि बहालिआ ।
Ura, the first Gurmukhi letter, in the form of Oankar shows the world controlling power of that one Lord.

 

[QuantumPhantom]

The "Onkar" in ੴ is derived from the Sanskrit word ओङ्कार (oṃkāra) and the word "oṃkāra" is ultimately synonymous with ॐ. The word "oṃkāra" is a fusion between the words "om" (ओम् [which is stylistically represented as ॐ]) and "kāra" (कार [sound]) due to Sanskrit's rules of joining words (which is called "sandhi" सन्धि), so "oṃkāra" literally means "Om sound", therefore "oṃkāra" is just another way of expressing the syllable "om". Ultimately, the original syllable that everything came from is "om" (ओम्). Punjabi (like other Indo-Aryan languages) does not have the same "sandhi" word formation system like Sanskrit even though it is a direct descendant of Sanskrit. Therefore, words like ओङ्कार become separate words themselves in Punjabi instead of words formed through sandhi. This prevents the Punjabi word ਓਅੰਕਾਰ from being broken up into its original Sanskrit constituents, causing many Sikhs to incorrectly pronounce the primal sound the universe emanated from as "oang" or "ong", etc...

​

 

[QuantumPhantom]

The "Onkar" in ੴ is derived from the Sanskrit word ओङ्कार (oṃkāra) and the word "oṃkāra" is ultimately synonymous with ॐ. The word "oṃkāra" is a fusion between the words "om" (ओम् [which is stylistically represented as ॐ]) and "kāra" (कार [sound]) due to Sanskrit's rules of joining words (which is called "sandhi" सन्धि), so "oṃkāra" literally means "Om sound", therefore "oṃkāra" is just another way of expressing the syllable "om". Ultimately, the original syllable that everything came from is "om" (ओम्). Punjabi (like other Indo-Aryan languages) does not have the same "sandhi" word formation system like Sanskrit even though it is a direct descendant of Sanskrit. Therefore, words like ओङ्कार become separate words themselves in Punjabi instead of words formed through sandhi. This prevents the Punjabi word ਓਅੰਕਾਰ from being broken up into its original Sanskrit constituents, causing many Sikhs to incorrectly pronounce the primal sound the universe emanated from as "oang" or "ong", etc...

​

I also think that Guruji used ੧ in ੴ in order to stress the oneness of the supreme reality because many Hindus at the time were not stressing the significance of the oneness of God and instead worshipped his various representations in a mindless, ritualistic manner.

 

[Harkiran Kaur]

Also numeric 1 is clear. It means only 1. While as 'one' can be used in context of 'one of many'

Example:

1 day - clear it means only 1 day and no others.
One day - referencing one of many days? Any one of many days?

And

1 Creator = 1 and only 1
One Creator, can mean One Creator with these attributes and another with these attributes...

So I agree with the last poster that 1 in numeric form makes it perfectly clear on the fact that there is only 1.

 

[Harry Haller]

highlander..!

 

[Sherdil]

The "Onkar" in ੴ is derived from the Sanskrit word ओङ्कार (oṃkāra) and the word "oṃkāra" is ultimately synonymous with ॐ. The word "oṃkāra" is a fusion between the words "om" (ओम् [which is stylistically represented as ॐ]) and "kāra" (कार [sound]) due to Sanskrit's rules of joining words (which is called "sandhi" सन्धि), so "oṃkāra" literally means "Om sound", therefore "oṃkāra" is just another way of expressing the syllable "om

I agree.

Punjabi (like other Indo-Aryan languages) does not have the same "sandhi" word formation system like Sanskrit even though it is a direct descendant of Sanskrit. Therefore, words like ओङ्कार become separate words themselves in Punjabi instead of words formed through sandhi.

This is why the Punjabi words provided by Bhagat ji, ending in -kar, do not follow the rule.

This prevents the Punjabi word ਓਅੰਕਾਰ from being broken up into its original Sanskrit constituents, causing many Sikhs to incorrectly pronounce the primal sound the universe emanated from as "oang" or "ong", etc...

As you said, Onkar is derived from the Sanskrit word Omkara which translates to sound of Om or form of Om.

Onkar likewise means sound of ਓ or form of ਓ. In Gurmukhi, ਓ makes the sound oooo (some people prefer awww). It represents the primordial sound.

I also think that Guruji used ੧ in ੴ in order to stress the oneness of the supreme reality because many Hindus at the time were not stressing the significance of the oneness of God and instead worshipped his various representations in a mindless, ritualistic manner.

I agree.

Om is taken by some Hindus to represent the Trinity (creator, sustainer, destroyer). The numeral 1 indicates that there is only one who creates, sustains and destroys.

 

[Original]

...scholars at work pls allow me a squeeze, thank you ! Interesting in all aspects is the discussion so far. Appears to be a joint consultative with promising results, save in places where proper considerations may tip the balance towards favourable conclusion . Take for example the history of the symbol OM. Ancient thinkers held it to be the sound produced by the sleeping cosmos. Nanak's Ekonkar enters the theological lexicon under the same guise, but with three constituent parts, Ek, Om and Kar. Both Om n Kar died a good death above, Ek as a numerical concept I discuss below.

The Ek [1] was to effect it's indivisibility as opposed to the Hindu divisible trinity, namely, Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma [affirming Sherdil's conclusion, above]. Why numerical concept over literal is because "reality" at core level is a composite of consciousness, substance and mathematical arrangements [modern day Quantum Mechanics]. The numerical concept held true for Nanak to prove Ekonkar as having a non attributive existence. How ? Where consciousness requires the presence of an agent [say, human] to confirm existence and substance requires verifiable properties [things] to confirm existence, mathematics requires none to prove existence because it is purely a concept which can have an existence without quality or attributes. In other words, 8x3=24, which has an undeniable existence indefinitely true.

The bottom line in all I said above is subject to "belief", because the Ekonkar Nanak speaks about is the unstruck sound, Anhad Shabd which is beyond time and space. For Nanak that is the ultimate reality-absolute truth.

Good night All