• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Sikhi ੴ - Meaning And Pronunciation

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,384
5,689
I believe we need to step back. There is no question that Guru ji understood what he meant. To note that there are perhaps three to four different interpretations only speak to the fact how little we understand what Guru ji is telling us or teaching us. Lord behold we are trying to understand SGGSJ! We are all a joke ;) living the lives as jokers. I am below everyone so this is not addressed to any one in particular but to everyone particularly including myself.



Sat Sri Akal
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 9, 2011
1,053
553
66
London UK
I believe we need to step back. There is no question that Guru ji understood what he meant. To note that there are perhaps three to four different interpretations only speak to the fact how little we understand what Guru ji is telling us or teaching us. Lord behold we are trying to understand SGGSJ! We are all a joke ;) living the lives as jokers. I am below everyone so this is not addressed to any one in particular but to everyone particularly including myself.



Sat Sri Akal
Respected Ambarsaria Ji - good morning,

It is not only fundamental but precise and proper to be engaged in dialectical undertakings to distroy assumptions and test out theoretical reasoning for their worth. Moreover, it is important to philosophise and separate the wheat from the sheaf. For how can, "man tu jyot saroop ha apna mool pehchan" [p441 SGGSJ, meaning, seek out the truth O' mind and know thy self to be eternal] come to be known without rational thinking ? The seers of truth, including Baba Nanak Ji, knew the unreal has no existence and the real never ceases to be. And, that human intervention was therefore necessary for the realisation in the form of "vichar" [p1429 SGGSJ, meditate, contemplate, etc].

Indeed, I'm mindful of your observation and such, I attach value. But equally, am I obliged to follow a process of elimination in order to approximate to the nearest of probability and possibility in determining the "Sat Waheguru is" and abandon intelligentsia on account of having found such an existence.

Thank you !

Good day -
 
Last edited:

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,655
It's not Om-kar. The first letter in Gurmukhi is Oora, not Om. Tippi is needed.

Everybody knows ੴ is ਏਕ ਓਂ-ਕਾਰ , written as ਏਕ-ਓਅੰ-ਕਾਰ in accordance with Punjabi rules.

Why are you even debating this?

The fact that the phrase ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ never appears in Guru Granth Sahib and instead Guru Sahibs use ਓਅੰ and ਓਅੰਕਾਰ (without the ek) used synonymous with the idea of ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ, further strengthens this notion.

It also strengthens the notion that Guru Sahib didn't see ਓਅੰਕਾਰ and ਏਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ differently. To Guru Sahibs Onkar/EkOnkar is referring to that 'One Vibrating Aum'. They use Aum/Onkar/EkOnkar terms interchangeably.


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.
Lol what?!?

ਅਹੰ means 'I'

As in "ਅਹੰ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੰ ਆਸਿਮਤਿ", the 'I', self, in reality is the Brahmn, Supreme God.

ਅਹੰਕਾਰ is the "manifestation of self", the sense of self that sees itself as separate and from others and from Brahma.

ਬਲਾਤਕਾਰ
ਬਲਾਤ means force. Guess what ਬਲਾਤਕਾਰ means.

ਵਿਕਾਰ
ਵਿ - means bad. Guess what ਵਿਕਾਰ means.



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).
Thanks for making my point.

You are either pretending to disagree to play devil's advocate.
Or
You do not understand the very verses you are quoting.

Pick one.
 

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,655
@Original and @Sherdil and @QuantumPhantom
The Ek [1] was to effect it's indivisibility as opposed to the Hindu divisible trinity, namely, Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma
This is not the case.

1. Onkar mean - the one vibrating Aum.

That's it. It is already absolutely 1, even before you add another 1 to it.


2. Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma are the names of the Supreme Being in three different Philosophies - Shaivism, Vaishavism and lastly , "Brahmnism" (which is simply known as Vedant today).

Three separate monotheistic philosophies.

Similar to Allah, Yahweh, Waheguru, Vishnu, Shiv, Brahma, Indra etc. That's what they mean (or what they originally meant, it's a really long story)

In a nutshell -
The Supreme Being when described by different peoples in India was described in multiple ways. Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma were the three popular names (ways of describing) for the Supreme Being.

If you study these names (Naam Japna), you'll find that -

Shiva means "that which is not", ie nothingness, nirankar.

Vishnu means "that which resides everywhere", ie ghat ghat vasi hai sanga.

Brahma means "that which is the source of everything ie Upnishads say - Brahma is not that which you see, but that whereby you see.


3. Ergo Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are not a trinity, rather are names of One Supreme Being in different spiritual traditions.



What is the point of explaining all this?
Onkar means - the one vibrating Aum. It is absolutely one.
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 9, 2011
1,053
553
66
London UK

  1. Original said [OS]:Good morning Bhagat Singh - let us enjoy vichar dhara [chewing shabd for the juicy bits].

  1. Bhagat said [BS]: This is not the case.
OS..it never was cited as being the case. It is incidental amongst many others of the same that Baba Nanak was entertaining at the time when he put his pen to paper. The rationale behind it was to dismiss the inherent institutional separatism between the two giants, Hinduism and Islam.

BS; Onkar mean - the one vibrating Aum.

OS..agree

BS: That's it. It is already absolutely 1

OS..question ? Why did Baba Ji use figure one [1] and not the literal one [Ek] ?

BS: even before you add another 1 to it.

OS..from a metaphysical perspective, there is more. That is to say "what is reality and beyond"?
  1. Is it the table and chairs that are real, or is it the wood, the tree, the earth, the solar system, the cosmos, the universe [General theory of relativity] ?
2. Or indeed, is it the constituent parts which the naked eye cannot see that make up the table and chairs, namely, atoms, molecules, electrons, protons, neutrons .....all the way to gluons which holds them together [Quantum Mechanics] ?
"No", said Nanak [from an ideology perspective] ! There is more !

For Nanak to explain the "more" aspect of reality he used the "1" over the EK. Nanak's drive was towards the OM [Anhad Shabd, unstruck sound] which is behind the symbolic ॐ, and yes, you're probably right when you infer of it being graphically associated with ੴ [#12, above]

BS: Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma are the names of the Supreme Being in three different Philosophies - Shaivism, Vaishavism and lastly , "Brahmnism" (which is simply known as Vedant today

OS..confirmed !

BS: Three separate monotheistic philosophies.
Similar to Allah, Yahweh, Waheguru, Vishnu, Shiv, Brahma, Indra etc. That's what they mean (or what they originally meant, it's a really long storey

OS..allow me to shorten it a little ! India as you know is multi in everything, religion and dialect is no exception. You've got the Sanatan, idol worship [Hindu] and the Sami free of idol worship [Islam]. The latter dedicated to the spoken word, and Nanak of course, bang in the middle ! Hmm, what to do, thought Nanak ! "Eureka moment", Nanak comes up with a classic to establish an immutable unity between the two. On the one hand he introduces the without attributes, the formless God [Nirgun, 1] and on the other, with attributes and form God [Sargun, ੴ ]. This is confirmed on page 290 of SGGSJ, thus, ਸਰਗੁਨ ਨਿਰਗੁਨ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਸੁੰਨ ਸਮਾਧੀ ਆਪਿ ॥ ਆਪਨ ਕੀਆ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਫਿਰਿ ਜਾਪਿ ॥ The 1 before the onkar in this instance [*there are several] is to denote it "spirituality" for that is the foundation of Gurmat's spiritualism. Moreover, where Islam believes in the formless existence, Hinduism in that its form, Gurmat marries the two to effect, ਸਰਗੁਣ ਨਿਰਗੁਣ ਥਾਪੈ ਨਾਉ ॥ ਦੁਹ ਮਿਲਿ ਏਕੈ ਕੀਨੋ ਠਾਉ [p387SGGSJ, meaning, it is the name of the formless as well as the one with attributes, for they both reside at one place].

* for an in depth analysis we need to go far and wide, philosophically speaking !

BS: In a nutshell -
The Supreme Being when described by different peoples in India was described in multiple ways. Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma were the three popular names (ways of describing) for the Supreme Being.

OS..correct !

BS:. Ergo Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are not a trinity, rather are names of One Supreme Being in different spiritual traditions.

..OS...they are the off-spring of Shakti [energy]. Baba Nanak Ji in Jap Ji Sahib weaves it beautifully, ਏਕਾ ਮਾਈ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਵਿਆਈ ਤਿਨਿ ਚੇਲੇ ਪਰਵਾਣੁ ॥ ਇਕੁ ਸੰਸਾਰੀ ਇਕੁ ਭੰਡਾਰੀ ਇਕੁ ਲਾਏ ਦੀਬਾਣੁ ॥ p7 SGGSJ: mother miraculously brings forth 3 to perform distinct functions]. Labelling them trinity is definitely a cliché brought about by European theologians, I'm sorry.

BS: What is the point of explaining all this?

OS: WOW - what a statement ! The time you spend exchanging information on gurmat sidhant [Sikh Philosophy] is a gift from the God's, not everyone is privy to it as much as others, only the chosen ones! Its an exclusive zone reserved for the journey home of the immortal soul. Besides, look here what Guru Ji is saying, ਆਖਾ ਜੀਵਾ ਵਿਸਰੈ ਮਰਿ ਜਾਉ ॥ ਆਖਣਿ ਅਉਖਾ ਸਾਚਾ ਨਾਉ ॥ ਸਾਚੇ ਨਾਮ ਕੀ ਲਾਗੈ ਭੂਖ ॥ ਉਤੁ ਭੂਖੈ ਖਾਇ ਚਲੀਅਹਿ ਦੂਖ II p9 SGGSJ [bold: when I speak of thee I'm alive n kicking, when I move away from thee O Lord, I surely die].

Here's another why, what's the point ! In a multiverse sense of the word Bhagat you are performing infinite number of roles all at the same time, that is to say, Nanak's spirit in Bhagat form [body].

Once upon a time there was this young girl who'd sit on the side of a busy road chanting the name of God, as she waited for her father to return from work. Passers by would see this on a regular basis, albeit, she'd oblivious to all, until one day when one of the pedestrian stopped and spoke thus, "hey girl, everyday you're calling Him, if He was there he would've answered you by now wouldn't He ?".Hmm thought the girl after the pedestrian had moved on ! The following day the girl sat quietly and waited for her father. She did not chant His name. Then after some considerable time had elapsed a wise man happened to pass by, as he got close to where the girl sat, he observed that the girl was not chanting as she otherwise did but sat quietly. This he thought was very unusual. Intrigued and ridiculed, the wise man spoke to the girl thus, "hey little princess, why are you sitting quietly and not chanting God's name ?"
The girl looked up at the man and replied, "if He was there He would've answered me by now"
Laughing out loud and moving a step closer to where the girl sat, the wise spoke the following words, " hey beautiful, know Him to be the chanting, your every call is His every response.
God wants you to know that every 'God' of yours is His 'Here I am" and that your prayer and grief and longing are His message to you. God is telling you:Your efforts to find a way to Me were My drawing you to Me.

Whatever you write or other members of the Senate write, consider it a calling from God and know you're drawing closer and closer.

Take care !
 
Last edited:

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,655
The rationale behind it was to dismiss the inherent institutional separatism between the two giants, Hinduism and Islam.
This is not the case.

Onkar has nothing to do with Islam. Onkar does not try to make a bridge between Indian thoughts and Western thoughts at all.

Onkar is purely an Indian thought.

One Onkar in Indian religions is used as an agreed-upon sacred syllable to begin the scriptures with. Even those contradictory (opposing) religions use the One Onkar syllable to start their scriptures.

This is not the case for Islamic writings.


BS; Onkar mean - the one vibrating Aum.

OS..agree

BS: That's it. It is already absolutely 1

OS..question ? Why did Baba Ji use figure one [1] and not the literal one [Ek] ?

/snip

For Nanak to explain the "more" aspect of reality he used the "1" over the EK.

You said you agree that Onkar is One Vibrating Aum. So I'll repeat Philosophically or Mathematically or ideologically, Onkar is already one. So saying One Onkar is a bit redundant.

Guru Sahibs in their bani make no distinctions between Om, Onkar and One Onkar. They use them interchangeably. Onkar inherently means One Onkar. There is no distinction hence none is made by the Gurus.




Nanak's drive was towards the OM [Anhad Shabd, unstruck sound] which is behind the symbolic ॐ, and yes, you're probably right when you infer of it being graphically associated with ੴ [#12, above]

I said two different things.

I'll clarify -
1. Similarity in Parent-Child Languages and Scripts
Gurmukhi and Devnagri come from the same Parent Script so the Onkar syllable in Devnagri - ॐ is similar looking to the Onkar syllable in Gurmukhi - ੴ. They look similar because both Devnagri and Gurmukhi scripts use that '3' looking bit when writing the O vowel -> Gurmukhi - ਓ, Devnagri - अ / औ

ਓਂ becomes ੴ
औं becomes ॐ


This was in response to Harkiran's comment.

Which is a separate topic from the one we were discussing, which is about adding the ੧ -


2. The Design of ੴ Symbol
I said that adding a ੧ in front of ਓਂ to create ੴ was not about philosophy or ideology or mathematics or religions or bridging two religions.

I said that adding a ੧ in front of ਓਂ to create ੴ was about Graphic Design. It's more about designing the Onkar symbol in Gurmukhi Script in an aesthetically pleasing way. And ੧ addresses a design problem that arises when the Gurmukhi ਓ is stylized.

See if you can identify the design problem and its solution!


Now, why do I say that?

Why do I say that adding a ੧ in front of ਓਂ to create ੴ was a not about philosophy or ideology or mathematics or religions or bridging two religions?

Because Onkar inherently meant One Onkar/ 1Onkar before Guru Nanak ever came on the scene. So attributing a reason to do with philosophy or ideology or mathematics or religions or bridging two religions, etc is the wrong approach. Because the symbol was never changed, it remained the same philosophically, ideologically, mathematically, religiously, it was always One Onkar.


In Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Sahibs use Om, Onkar, Ik Onkar interchangeably. This means that Om, Onkar and Ik Onkar are all the same. There is no difference. And indeed when we study the Puran, the ancient scriptures describing Om/Aum, it is indeed One Absolute Aum vibration.

So there is no reason to think that ੧ has to do with philosophy or ideology or mathematics or religions or bridging two religions, etc. Imo anyone trying to explain the ੧ with this approach has not fully studied Onkar and its history.

When one studies Onkar they come to know that it was absolutely singular to begin with, and then they start to look for other explanations.





BS: Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma are the names of the Supreme Being in three different Philosophies - Shaivism, Vaishavism and lastly , "Brahmnism" (which is simply known as Vedant today

OS..confirmed !
You must understand the full implications of this fact. Because this will change how you view Gurbani completely!

And it will change your study of other Indian religions.

OS..allow me to shorten it a little ! India as you know is multi in everything, religion and dialect is no exception. You've got the Sanatan, idol worship [Hindu] and the Sami free of idol worship [Islam].
No there is no one religion here. Idol worship has been debated in India since forever.

India had many different religions-
  • some believed in idol worship
  • some did not, and criticized it
  • some thought it was fine at a lower stage
  • some thought that God himself was one big idol, Akal Murti
  • some combined the above in different ways
  • some did not care and went on with other practices


Nanak of course, bang in the middle !
This is not the case.

Guru Sahib's thought is not in between Indian and Islamic thought. No. Guru Sahib's thought is entirely Indian.

Yes they do bridge their ideas with Islam and Muslims. However the symbol Onkar is not where they do that.

On the one hand he introduces the without attributes, the formless God [Nirgun, 1] and on the other, with attributes and form God [Sargun, ੴ ].
Read my responses to Sherdill to understand why this is not the case.

Moreover, where Islam believes in the formless existence, Hinduism in that its form,
This is not the case.

Indian thought also believe in the formless.

All of the ones I described below are describing the formless.

2. Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma are the names of the Supreme Being in three different Philosophies - Shaivism, Vaishavism and lastly , "Brahmnism" (which is simply known as Vedant today).

Three separate monotheistic philosophies.

Similar to Allah, Yahweh, Waheguru, Vishnu, Shiv, Brahma, Indra etc. That's what they mean (or what they originally meant, it's a really long story)

In a nutshell -
The Supreme Being when described by different peoples in India was described in multiple ways. Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma were the three popular names (ways of describing) for the Supreme Being.

If you study these names (Naam Japna), you'll find that -

Shiva means "that which is not", ie nothingness, nirankar.

Vishnu means "that which resides everywhere", ie ghat ghat vasi hai sanga.

Brahma means "that which is the source of everything ie Upnishads say - Brahma is not that which you see, but that whereby you see.


What is that if not formless.

However if you notice these names of the Nameless Lord are also paired with images of the Imageless Lord. When you go to India you can see images of Shiva and Vishnu everywhere even though these are names and images of Formless Lord.


Gurmat marries the two to effect, ਸਰਗੁਣ ਨਿਰਗੁਣ ਥਾਪੈ ਨਾਉ ॥ ਦੁਹ ਮਿਲਿ ਏਕੈ ਕੀਨੋ ਠਾਉ [p387SGGSJ, meaning, it is the name of the formless as well as the one with attributes, for they both reside at one place].
Yes that is entirely an Indian thought and not an Islamic One.

Guru Sahibs will say (page 1082) on one hand he is -
ਅਚੁਤ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰ ਅੰਤਰਜਾਮੀ ॥
Achyutya - Stable, Para Brahman - Beyond everything, transcendent, Param Ishwar - Supreme God, Antar-Yami - dwelling in all hearts.

And then in the same shabad, pg 1082, Guru Arjun Dev ji goes on to describe the formless Lord's Form-

ਨਿਰਾਹਾਰੀ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਸਮਾਇਆ ॥
Without need of sustenance, without enemity, dwelling everywhere.

ਧਾਰਿ ਖੇਲੁ ਚਤੁਰਭੁਜੁ ਕਹਾਇਆ ॥
Creating his play, he came to be known as the Four-Armed one, Chaturbhuj. (an image of four-arms)

ਸਾਵਲ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਰੂਪ ਬਣਾਵਹਿ ਬੇਣੁ ਸੁਨਤ ਸਭ ਮੋਹੈਗਾ ॥੯॥
He creates a dark-skinned form, and plays a flute and entices everyone.

ਬਨਮਾਲਾ ਬਿਭੂਖਨ ਕਮਲ ਨੈਨ ॥
He wears a garland of flowers, jewelry and has beautiful eyes.

ਸੁੰਦਰ ਕੁੰਡਲ ਮੁਕਟ ਬੈਨ ॥
His ear-rings, crown and flute are beautiful.

ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਧਾਰੀ ਮਹਾ ਸਾਰਥੀ ਸਤਸੰਗਾ ॥੧੦॥
Wielding the Conch Shell, Chakra disk, and Mace, he is the charioteer of his saints.


So on one hand, formless, on the other hand, he is creating a play of form and images.

Notice this is not Islamic thought. God does not have four arms in Islamic thought. God does not wear jewelry and conch, mace, chakra, etc in Islamic thought. This is purely an Indian thought.

This is purely Gurmat. It is an Indian Guru's teachings. It's not a mixing of Indian and Islamic.

I'll repeat -

The idea of God having certain sacred forms as described by Guru Arjun Dev ji above and the idea of the Sargun and Nirgun is purely an Indian thought, not an Islamic one.

BS:. Ergo Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma are not a trinity, rather are names of One Supreme Being in different spiritual traditions.

..OS...they are the off-spring of Shakti [energy].
This is the case in the Fourth Philosophical system known as Shaktism.

That is another topic because it is a fundamentally different type of belief system to the three I mentioned - Vaishnavism, Shaivism and "Brahmnism", which are also different to begin with

This post is getting really long so I am going to end it here. If you want to discuss these systems in more depth, these spiritual traditions in more depth, we can talk about them in more detail as we further this discussion. But that's all I am goan say in this post.
 
Last edited:

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 9, 2011
1,053
553
66
London UK
This is not the case.

Onkar has nothing to do with Islam. Onkar does not try to make a bridge between Indian thoughts and Western thoughts at all.

Onkar is purely an Indian thought.

One Onkar in Indian religions is used as an agreed-upon sacred syllable to begin the scriptures with. Even those contradictory (opposing) religions use the One Onkar syllable to start their scriptures.

This is not the case for Islamic writings.




You said you agree that Onkar is One Vibrating Aum. So I'll repeat Philosophically or Mathematically or ideologically, Onkar is already one. So saying One Onkar is a bit redundant.

Guru Sahibs in their bani make no distinctions between Om, Onkar and One Onkar. They use them interchangeably. Onkar inherently means One Onkar. There is no distinction hence none is made by the Gurus.






I said two different things.

I'll clarify -
1. Similarity in Parent-Child Languages and Scripts
Gurmukhi and Devnagri come from the same Parent Script so the Onkar syllable in Devnagri - ॐ is similar looking to the Onkar syllable in Gurmukhi - ੴ. They look similar because both Devnagri and Gurmukhi scripts use that '3' looking bit when writing the O vowel -> Gurmukhi - ਓ, Devnagri - अ / औ

ਓਂ becomes ੴ
औं becomes ॐ


This was in response to Harkiran's comment.

Which is a separate topic from the one we were discussing, which is about adding the ੧ -


2. The Design of ੴ Symbol
I said that adding a ੧ in front of ਓਂ to create ੴ was not about philosophy or ideology or mathematics or religions or bridging two religions.

I said that adding a ੧ in front of ਓਂ to create ੴ was about Graphic Design. It's more about designing the Onkar symbol in Gurmukhi Script in an aesthetically pleasing way. And ੧ addresses a design problem that arises when the Gurmukhi ਓ is stylized.

See if you can identify the design problem and its solution!


Now, why do I say that?

Why do I say that adding a ੧ in front of ਓਂ to create ੴ was a not about philosophy or ideology or mathematics or religions or bridging two religions?

Because Onkar inherently meant One Onkar/ 1Onkar before Guru Nanak ever came on the scene. So attributing a reason to do with philosophy or ideology or mathematics or religions or bridging two religions, etc is the wrong approach. Because the symbol was never changed, it remained the same philosophically, ideologically, mathematically, religiously, it was always One Onkar.


In Guru Granth Sahib, Guru Sahibs use Om, Onkar, Ik Onkar interchangeably. This means that Om, Onkar and Ik Onkar are all the same. There is no difference. And indeed when we study the Puran, the ancient scriptures describing Om/Aum, it is indeed One Absolute Aum vibration.

So there is no reason to think that ੧ has to do with philosophy or ideology or mathematics or religions or bridging two religions, etc. Imo anyone trying to explain the ੧ with this approach has not fully studied Onkar and its history.

When one studies Onkar they come to know that it was absolutely singular to begin with, and then they start to look for other explanations.






You must understand the full implications of this fact. Because this will change how you view Gurbani completely!

And it will change your study of other Indian religions.


No there is no one religion here. Idol worship has been debated in India since forever.

India had many different religions-
  • some believed in idol worship
  • some did not, and criticized it
  • some thought it was fine at a lower stage
  • some thought that God himself was one big idol, Akal Murti
  • some combined the above in different ways
  • some did not care and went on with other practices



This is not the case.

Guru Sahib's thought is not in between Indian and Islamic thought. No. Guru Sahib's thought is entirely Indian.

Yes they do bridge their ideas with Islam and Muslims. However the symbol Onkar is not where they do that.


Read my responses to Sherdill to understand why this is not the case.


This is not the case.

Indian thought also believe in the formless.

All of the ones I described below are describing the formless.

2. Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma are the names of the Supreme Being in three different Philosophies - Shaivism, Vaishavism and lastly , "Brahmnism" (which is simply known as Vedant today).

Three separate monotheistic philosophies.

Similar to Allah, Yahweh, Waheguru, Vishnu, Shiv, Brahma, Indra etc. That's what they mean (or what they originally meant, it's a really long story)

In a nutshell -
The Supreme Being when described by different peoples in India was described in multiple ways. Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma were the three popular names (ways of describing) for the Supreme Being.

If you study these names (Naam Japna), you'll find that -

Shiva means "that which is not", ie nothingness, nirankar.

Vishnu means "that which resides everywhere", ie ghat ghat vasi hai sanga.

Brahma means "that which is the source of everything ie Upnishads say - Brahma is not that which you see, but that whereby you see.


What is that if not formless.

However if you notice these names of the Nameless Lord are also paired with images of the Imageless Lord. When you go to India you can see images of Shiva and Vishnu everywhere even though these are names and images of Formless Lord.



Yes that is entirely an Indian thought and not an Islamic One.

Guru Sahibs will say (page 1082) on one hand he is -
ਅਚੁਤ ਪਾਰਬ੍ਰਹਮ ਪਰਮੇਸੁਰ ਅੰਤਰਜਾਮੀ ॥
Achyutya - Stable, Para Brahman - Beyond everything, transcendent, Param Ishwar - Supreme God, Antar-Yami - dwelling in all hearts.

And then in the same shabad, pg 1082, Guru Arjun Dev ji goes on to describe the formless Lord's Form-

ਨਿਰਾਹਾਰੀ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਸਮਾਇਆ ॥
Without need of sustenance, without enemity, dwelling everywhere.

ਧਾਰਿ ਖੇਲੁ ਚਤੁਰਭੁਜੁ ਕਹਾਇਆ ॥
Creating his play, he came to be known as the Four-Armed one, Chaturbhuj. (an image of four-arms)

ਸਾਵਲ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਰੂਪ ਬਣਾਵਹਿ ਬੇਣੁ ਸੁਨਤ ਸਭ ਮੋਹੈਗਾ ॥੯॥
He creates a dark-skinned form, and plays a flute and entices everyone.

ਬਨਮਾਲਾ ਬਿਭੂਖਨ ਕਮਲ ਨੈਨ ॥
He wears a garland of flowers, jewelry and has beautiful eyes.

ਸੁੰਦਰ ਕੁੰਡਲ ਮੁਕਟ ਬੈਨ ॥
His ear-rings, crown and flute are beautiful.

ਸੰਖ ਚਕ੍ਰ ਗਦਾ ਹੈ ਧਾਰੀ ਮਹਾ ਸਾਰਥੀ ਸਤਸੰਗਾ ॥੧੦॥
Wielding the Conch Shell, Chakra disk, and Mace, he is the charioteer of his saints.


So on one hand, formless, on the other hand, he is creating a play of form and images.

Notice this is not Islamic thought. God does not have four arms in Islamic thought. God does not wear jewelry and conch, mace, chakra, etc in Islamic thought. This is purely an Indian thought.

This is purely Gurmat. It is an Indian Guru's teachings. It's not a mixing of Indian and Islamic.

I'll repeat -

The idea of God having certain sacred forms as described by Guru Arjun Dev ji above and the idea of the Sargun and Nirgun is purely an Indian thought, not an Islamic one.


This is the case in the Fourth Philosophical system known as Shaktism.

That is another topic because it is a fundamentally different type of belief system to the three I mentioned - Vaishnavism, Shaivism and "Brahmnism", which are also different to begin with

This post is getting really long so I am going to end it here. If you want to discuss these systems in more depth, these spiritual traditions in more depth, we can talk about them in more detail as we further this discussion. But that's all I am goan say in this post.
Hi Bhagat Singh

Thank you for the communication. Quite an extensive write up.
The point I was trying to make was that Sikhism doctrine has elements of both Hinduism and Islam. From Islam it derives its insistence upon the personality of Godhead, rejecting as it were, the Hindu doctrine of "avatars". From Hinduism it derives its belief in rebirth, karma, creation n dissolution of the cosmos. Simply put, from an emperical world view and the nature of man, Sikhism is pretty much Hindu, but from an ontological perspective, that is, nature of the divine being, it's pretty much Islam.

As regards figure 1 over literal one, it is on my part a proposition with which both consistency and compatibility seem to accord. And indeed, I'm conscious of all the scholarly and institutionally subscribed views so far, particularly yours, a perspective that in my opinion is art. And here, I'm inclined to add, if I may, that it's more of a symmetrical entity [1] than the aesthetic. This is purely a reflection from what you've said in one of your earlier post of it being "graphic".

The starting point for Sikhi was Baba Nanak Ji's experience at Sultanpur Lodhi. The question for Nanak was how to present his new find amid mega institutions, namely, Hindu n Islam. Here he rose above everything, but held on to "Brahm" [epitome of Gurbani] equating as it were with the formless Allah. Knowing what he knew [education] and having a spiritual experience out of time n space [meeting with Parmeshar], Nanak homed in on the philosophy of "truth" [sat] over the philosophy of "reality". And, it is in this regard, in my opinion, that he chose a "numerical" concept over the literal. Why ? Because he knew that the unreal has no existence and the real never ceases.to be. The "truth" was something else. And, it is this truth [Ekonkar] which he went to show that was absolute by using a "mathematical" concept. Why use mathematical concept is because of the probability of existence [Ekonkar] doesn't require proof. Let's take an example to make sense. Say you n I are out in the jungle looking for Tigers. We see 4 [counting, as it were], but there may have been 5. It is this probability which paved the way for Nanak to construct both the theoretical and ideological Sikhism that we have today. And, the proof is in the pudding. Nanak says, I can show you the 5th Tiger, come with me [nam simran], meaning, God exists and one can meet Him.

Modern science have concluded that the physical reality which we see as chairs n tables, protons, electrons, quarks, to the point where particle n wave seem to be interacting as 1, is in fact observale through mathematics, because at that level [quantum] the language required to interpret reality can only be numbers. Today's science have turned partly, to accept reality through the sophistications of mathematical arrangements.

I'd like to call it day with Ekonkar the discussion for these are "ontological" propositions academically debateable. And, since my knowledge of Hinduism and Islam is not in depth, I remain a spectator. Thank you for the information shared.

Much obliged !
 
Last edited:

BhagatSingh

SPNer
Apr 24, 2006
2,921
1,655
Hi Bhagat Singh

Thank you for the communication. Quite an extensive write up.
The point I was trying to make was that Sikhism doctrine has elements of both Hinduism and Islam.
I understood the point you were trying to make but it is simply not the case.

From Islam it derives its insistence upon the personality of Godhead, rejecting as it were, the Hindu doctrine of "avatars". From Hinduism it derives its belief in rebirth, karma, creation n dissolution of the cosmos. Simply put, from an emperical world view and the nature of man, Sikhism is pretty much Hindu, but from an ontological perspective, that is, nature of the divine being, it's pretty much Islam.
Avtars are a big part of Guru Granth Sahib.

Carefully read the shabad by Guru Arjun Dev ji on 1082, I posted in my last post.

Can you figure out which avtar Guru Arjun Dev ji is talking about in this line of the shabad?
ਸਾਵਲ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਰੂਪ ਬਣਾਵਹਿ ਬੇਣੁ ਸੁਨਤ ਸਭ ਮੋਹੈਗਾ ॥੯॥
He creates a dark-skinned form, and plays a flute and entices everyone.


Also read this one on 1105 by Bhagt Nam Dev ji, he mentions the avtars and their stories. Here's one Avtar he mentions in the shabad -
ਭਗਤ ਹੇਤਿ ਮਾਰਿਓ ਹਰਨਾਖਸੁ ਨਰਸਿੰਘ ਰੂਪ ਹੋਇ ਦੇਹ ਧਰਿਓ ॥
For the sake of his Devotee (Prahlaad), he incarnated in the form of Narsingh (avtar) and killed Hiranyakashap.
ਦੇਹ ਧਰਿਓ - He assumed a frightening ਦੇਹ, body.


From Islam it derives its insistence upon the personality of Godhead

that is, nature of the divine being, it's pretty much Islam.
I'll tell you. The theology (the nature of divine) in Guru Granth Sahib is not Islamic thought, it is entirely Indian thought. Avtars are not part of Islamic thinking are they?

And furthermore, if you put aside the avtars for a moment, even then it is not Islamic thought. Rather it is Indian thought that is being proposed to the Muslims.

Bhagat Kabir ji says -

ਬੇਦ ਕਤੇਬ ਕਹਹੁ ਮਤ ਝੂਠੇ ਝੂਠਾ ਜੋ ਨ ਬਿਚਾਰੈ ॥
Do not call the Vedas or Quran false. False are those who do not contemplate them.

ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮੁਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥
When they say that there is the one Khuda/God in all beings then why do you kill the chicken?

ਮੁਲਾਂ ਕਹਹੁ ਨਿਆਉ ਖੁਦਾਈ ॥ ਤੇਰੇ ਮਨ ਕਾ ਭਰਮੁ ਨ ਜਾਈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
Mullah you are the representative of God's justice. However, you do not follow what he says.


Page 1350

The thing to look for in this shabad is not that Kabir ji is criticizing a Muslim. Kabir ji criticizes even his own people. So that's not what is relevant.

What is relevant is what Kabir ji says -
ਜਉ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਏਕੁ ਖੁਦਾਇ ਕਹਤ ਹਉ ਤਉ ਕਿਉ ਮੁਰਗੀ ਮਾਰੈ ॥੧॥
When they say that there is the one Khuda/God in all beings then why do you kill the chicken?


This is not an Islamic belief. This is Vedic belief.

Muslims do not believe that God resides in all beings. This is purely Indian thought. And Kabir ji is teaching this to a Muslim. He is not preaching Islamic theology. He is preaching Indian theology to everyone including Muslims, and he explains Indian theology in their language.

He says Khuda resides in all beings. This is the age-old Atma-Parmatma belief system in action, entirely Indian system.

Aside from that Kabir ji is vegetarian so he is also saying that it is wrong to kill animals. But that's another topic for another day.


As regards figure 1 over literal one, it is on my part a proposition with which both consistency and compatibility seem to accord. And indeed, I'm conscious of all the scholarly and institutionally subscribed views so far, particularly yours, a perspective that in my opinion is art. And here, I'm inclined to add, if I may, that it's more of a symmetrical entity [1] than the aesthetic. This is purely a reflection from what you've said in one of your earlier post of it being "graphic".
That's right!
This is one of the elements of Art (and Graphic Design), known as Balance. Symmetry is one way to achieve Balance in a design. This leads to aesthetically pleasing designs.

The starting point for Sikhi was Baba Nanak Ji's experience at Sultanpur Lodhi. The question for Nanak was how to present his new find amid mega institutions, namely, Hindu n Islam. Here he rose above everything, but held on to "Brahm" [epitome of Gurbani] equating as it were with the formless Allah.
I agree with this.

Knowing what he knew [education] and having a spiritual experience out of time n space [meeting with Parmeshar], Nanak homed in on the philosophy of "truth" [sat] over the philosophy of "reality". And, it is in this regard, in my opinion, that he chose a "numerical" concept over the literal.
Yes agreed.

I would say it was always numerical to begin with. Adi Shankaracharya (800ad) and other Indian Philosophers conceptualized reality as Absolute Oneness, Advait, non-dual, not 2 parts but 1.

Neither day nor night but 1 truth. Neither God nor soul but 1 Supreme Soul.

This has been part of Indian thought since forever.
And not just Oneness but also Void. Pure Void. Shunyata. 0.

ਸੁੰਨ Shunya. God is Nirankar. God is 0, nothingness. It's not a thing. It is no-thing.

What did the Upnishads say?

Brahma means "that which is the source of everything ie Upnishads say - Brahma is not that which you see, but that whereby you see.

What you see are things, but that which sees those things is not a thing in itself. It is a non-thing. It is Nirankar.

Why use mathematical concept is because of the probability of existence [Ekonkar] doesn't require proof. Let's take an example to make sense. Say you n I are out in the jungle looking for Tigers. We see 4 [counting, as it were], but there may have been 5.
What do you mean?
 

Original

Writer
SPNer
Jan 9, 2011
1,053
553
66
London UK
Good morning Bhagat Singh - hope you're well !
I understood the point you were trying to make but it is simply not the case.
I'll skip this for the minute !
Avtars are a big part of Guru Granth Sahib.
..they are indeed, but in the light of evolution and humanitarian principles all human birth "must" be treated and regarded as equal. Removal of hierarchy from within Sikhism is pivotal to uphold the concept of a democratic system [Khalsa, 5 pyara].

Carefully read the shabad by Guru Arjun Dev ji on 1082, I posted in my last post.
..without going into too much detail, who's to say Nanak wasn't Krishna, Rama and the rest. Who's to say you're not Nanak and I'm not Govind. The beauty of it all is capsuled in the sargun nirgun conceptualisation.
I'll tell you. The theology (the nature of divine) in Guru Granth Sahib is not Islamic thought, it is entirely Indian thought. Avtars are not part of Islamic thinking are they?
Question: who are the Indians ?
Avtars are not part of Islamic thinking are they?
..no they are not !
And furthermore, if you put aside the avtars for a moment, even then it is not Islamic thought. Rather it is Indian thought that is being proposed to the Muslims.
..nothing is being proposed ! we tend to follow the evolution of humankind and its exodus out of Africa. This provides a better structured analysis of who we are as Sikhs. Nanak had gone beyond it all and this was later corroborated by Charles Darwin's TOE. Nanak's Sikhi goes back when life first appeared in water [p472 SGGSJ]. Do any of the religions matter when Baba Nanak has given us the real deal to steer away from conflict and home-in on nam simran ?

This is not an Islamic belief. This is Vedic belief.

Muslims do not believe that God resides in all beings. This is purely Indian thought. And Kabir ji is teaching this to a Muslim. He is not preaching Islamic theology. He is preaching Indian theology to everyone including Muslims, and he explains Indian theology in their language.

He says Khuda resides in all beings. This is the age-old Atma-Parmatma belief system in action, entirely Indian system.

Aside from that Kabir ji is vegetarian so he is also saying that it is wrong to kill animals. But that's another topic for another day.

..let me put it to you, the first ape that walked the planet [besides LUCY] was Nanak, make what you will ! All the rest, Islam, Judaism and the rest were ideologies and pretty much still are. Sikhism is a religious-science evolving and moving with time, it will continue to flourish and embrace the social, mental, spiritual and emotional content of the human being for the betterment.
I would say it was always numerical to begin with.
..yes it was ! Read up on the immortality of the soul, Plato n Socrates.
ਸੁੰਨ Shunya. God is Nirankar. God is 0, nothingness. It's not a thing. It is no-thing.

This has been part of Indian thought since forever.
And not just Oneness but also Void. Pure Void. Shunyata. 0.
..Nanak came to simplify what otherwise was complicated a system. In a nutshell, that is what Sikhism is, kirit kar, vand shuk and nam jap. The pillars of humankind and not just Sikhism, if you will.

What do you mean?
..tell me, is there a square with all four sides equal, all right angles equal, etc. in the physical world of objects, naturally? No ! But yet, we make use of a square in so much of what we do, for example, a box. Similar geometrical shapes and theorems are part of reality that we see in tables and chairs, but that reality is classified as "abstract". Nanak said there is truth, it is abstract by definition but real in existence and there is only ONE way to find out - through faith, through belief and practice. Nanak said just as you can't find a "real" box in the physical world of objects but can in the mental world of ideas, similarly, you can Ekonkar and connect to it through nam simran to communicate with and confirm for yourself [subjective] its existence.
 
Nov 11, 2021
1
1
48
ਉਮੀਦ ਹੈ ਇਹ ਲੇਖ 'ਇੱਕੋ' ਜਾਂ 'ਇਕੁ ਓ ਬਿਅੰਤ' ਦੇ ਉਚਾਰਨ ਪ੍ਰਤੀ ਪਾਠਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਸ਼ੰਕੇ ਮਿੱਟਾਉਣ ਵਿਚ ਸਹਾਈ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ।
ਇਸ ਲੇਖ ਨੂੰ ਵੱਧ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਸੰਗਤਾਂ ਤਕ ਪਹੁੰਚਾਉ ਜਿਸ ਨਾਲ ਨਾ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਪੱਥਭ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟ ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ ਬਾਰੇ ਜਾਗਰੂਕਤਾ ਵੱਧੇ ਬਲਕਿ 'ੴ' ਦੀ ਅਪਰੰਪਾਰ ਵਿਚਾਰਧਾਰਾ ਅਧੀਨ ਪੰਥ ਇਕੱਠਾ ਹੋ ਸਕੇ।
Kindly do read complete essay: ਅਦੁੱਤੀ ਸਵਤੰਤਰ ਸੰਕਲਪੀ ਚਿੰਨ੍ਹ 'ੴ' ਦਾ ਉਚਾਰਨ 'ਇੱਕੋ' ਕਰਨਾ ਗੁੰਮਰਾਹਕੁੰਨ
 

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

Top