1. Dear Guest, we truly appreciate your patience while we are working hard on the upgrade process, which was forced upon us due to the decline of our original forum software. Good news is SPN is almost ready to resume its normal operations soon. The new cutting edge software has been chosen with a primary focus on enhancing user experience especially while using SPN on the mobile devices such as tablets or phones. This new platform will also provide us the opportunity to implement new ideas which were not possible in old software. Forum appearance will be an on going process and you would notice significant changes as we mature working in the new software environment. Some of the core functionality like the blogs will be restored gradually. Once, the forum is fully active, please take your time navigating around the new forum functionality. We will also introduce you to new functionality from time to time.

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

Discussion in 'Gurmat Vichaar' started by Ambarsaria, Oct 14, 2011.

  1. Ambarsaria

    Ambarsaria ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār SPNer

    This is based on Professor Sahib Singh’s following work,

    sRI gurU grMQ swihb drpx
    (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Darpan)

    Professor Sahib Singh uses his great grasp of Punjabi, Sanskrit and writing styles/constructions based on these in the composition of writings. His inherent and deep knowledge and upfront presentation allow us to review, comment, agree or disagree but it is all in the open.

    is the first composite word in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji. The phonetics of this word while quite clear has also seen variations and has lead to change of possible meaning(s) as a result.

    I am no Phonetics expert but I can relate to Dr. Kulbir Thinds marvellowus contributions in this regard and accept the phonetics presented by him as follows,

    (Ref: http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1)
    This is in full alignment with Professor Sahib Singh’s description and dis-assembly of the word.

    Meaning of :

    1-ie`k[ E-EAM[ > -kwr[

    ‘E’ is a word from Sanskrit. It has three possible meanings.

    So which one applies!

    To confirm the proper application of meaning, '1' is used in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

    The third part (> ) is from Sanskrit and is a syllable used at the ending of a word. It stands for “one essence that may not change”.


    Appreciate any comments and corrections of any errors as all errors are mine to correct.

    Sat Sri Akal.
  2. Seeker9

    Seeker9 Cleverness is not wisdom SPNer

    That is a very detailed explanation. I will download and read more
    I also have a couple of translations and would offer the following
    that most of you will probably already be familiar with

    One universal Creator God.
    The name is truth.
    Creative being personified. No fear. No hatred.
    Image of the undying, beyond birth, self-existent.
    By guru’s grace
    Chant and meditate.
    True in the primal beginning, true throughout the ages
    True here and now.
    O Nanak, Forever true

    (Dr Sant Singh Khalsa, MD)

    God is one. It is true. He is the Creator. He has no concern with
    anything. He has no enemy. He is immortal. He does not take
    birth. He came into existence on His own. He is realized by Guru’s
    (divine teacher) grace reciting God’s name.


    Mentioned above is true from the beginning, for
    a long time. It is true now. Nanak says it will always be true.

    (Swarn Singh Bains)


    So both translations describing a few common characteristics:

    - One-ness
    - Beyond birth
    - Self-existent
    - Immortal
    - This is the Truth
    Taranjeet singh and spnadmin like this.
  3. harry haller

    harry haller SPNer


    As Ambersariaji has kindly provided us with

    One creator present as one essence everywhere

    How can these two letters encapsulate sikhi. What can we learn from them? If we were to focus only on Ek Onkar for the moment, what can it teach us?

    The statement is pretty definitive, there is an energy that kickstarted the big bang, and all life that spewed forth from that bang has an element, an essence of creator. The creator is different from 'god' as we have no record of the creators word, of the creators thoughts, unlike the Old Testament. So for christians it is easier to personalise God, clearly we were never meant to personalise the Creator.

    I have never created anything in my life, if I had created a life, and I wanted the best for that life, would I nurture it personally, or give it the tools to nurture itself, again a stark difference between Christian and Sikh. Creator must seem quite a aloof Creator by comparison, no garden of eden, just sort of, here you go, theres the toolbox, get on with it. Creator does not seem to treat us like children, Creator seems to treat us as adults with free will, mind you, I have always thought the best brought up children were the ones that were never treated like children.

    If Creators essence is everywhere, and bearing in mind Sikhism and science go hand in hand, then we are talking at a molecular level, I am no scientist, so I am afraid I cannot expand this any further, but Carbon comes to mind, but then again, it does not say Creator is everywhere, it says the essence is

    wikki says
    In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.

    So essence of vanilla is the smelly bit without all the bits that do not smell, so essence of Creator could possibly be described by the lines following, namely,
    to have no fear, to make no enemies, to recognise that what is now, was before, and always will be,

    but going back to the line, one Creator present as one essence everywhere............................

    I have to stop here, I will think further on this at bedtime, I look forward to the interpretation of others, thanks
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2011
    Ishna likes this.
  4. harry haller

    harry haller SPNer

    I needed a few days to think this through before the next line, it has certainly made me think harder about the rest of creation, and knowing that an creator exists as one essence in everything puts a different perspective on things,

    MY wife rang me that evening to tell me that 'spot' the ferret was ill. Now I am not keen on the ferrets, I do not even know why we have them, they smell something terrible, but I had finished thinking about the above line, and I drove home to see Spot.

    Spot looked terrible, my wife was worried about the vets fees, I was worried about the vets fees, however earlier that day, the shop had done ok, we had taken enough to afford the vet without a huge problem, I picked Spot up and looked at him, I had never looked at him before, not that close, he looked bad.., I cannot do much about animals dying in India or Africa, or even children, but here in front of me was our ferret, who although was not dying, did not look great, We paid extra to get him seen to that moment, and a few hours later he was pumped full of steriods, and antibiotics for an ear infection. If creation looks you in the eye and asks for your help, how can you refuse, if you have animals, then you have to put their needs above your own, or else, do not keep animals. The trees, the ferrets, the snails, the ants, spiders, all creation, all contain essence of creator, all need to be existed with, side by side, some need to be eaten, eat them with respect and gratitude, some need to be worn, wear them with respect, and that is what Ek Onkar means to me, I could spend another year figuring it out completely, and I am sure as time goes on, my understanding will get better, thank you
    spnadmin, Ishna and Ambarsaria like this.
  5. Ambarsaria

    Ambarsaria ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār SPNer

    Harry Haller ji thanks for a wonderful post. One thing to watch out is the mis-conception and may be I am wrong to say so, that a ditto image of the creator resides in all of us. That is not true from my understanding. An image that does not differentiate between you and me, a Hindu neighbor, a Muslim neighbor, a Christian neighbor, and all humans resides identically in all of us per the creator's definition of how much of what we should be capable of. A similar image resides in various life forms specific to their needs but without favoritism within each segment.

    So this kind of defeats the line about merging as we can not merge more than how we are created. Whole ether is the creation and the creator that creates is in the total sum. Creator never created anything apart from the creator's architectural plans.

    Understand of course but don't try to merge when one doesn't even have a choice to un-merge.

    Sat Sri Akal.
    spnadmin and harry haller like this.
  6. harry haller

    harry haller SPNer


    Excuse my quick replies, I only post here when I am working, so I have to grab the chance as work and my brain allows, but I fully agree with you on the merging point, as I understand it, everything is present and ready to go, I have a pristine 1994 V8 LSE in my head, I just do not know how to drive it yet, although I am learning, maybe I should get some 'L' plates so other enlightened souls know I am learning and can make allowances for my constant bad driving the wrong way down one way streets, but one day............
    Ishna likes this.
  7. harry haller

    harry haller SPNer


    On your point of the ditto image, allow me to share my own thoughts regarding this,

    If we are all blessed with an essence of creator, and each of us has a singular essence, than that essence will not be the same as another, as once interpretation and experience is applied to it, it becomes personal, through life, and study of our own individual way, we become enlightened, an elder, an Iman, a Gyani, each at the top of his/her understanding and learning, but only within that essence, what seems to be the end, is just the beginning, I do not think any religion can take you further than that, after that, with the knowledge you have, you have to find your own way further, at this point there is no sikh, no muslim, no hindu, only man and creator, look forward to your thoughts
    Ishna likes this.
  8. Ishna

    Ishna Sikhish SPNer

    Regarding essence within and without, there might be value in doing a SriGranth search for the English term 'with water' to read some of the shabads with ideas like:

    ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਹਮ ਤੁਮ ਗੁਰਿ ਖੋਈ ਹੈ ਅੰਭੈ ਅੰਭੁ ਮਿਲੋਗਨੀ ॥੪॥੩॥
    कहु नानक हम तुम गुरि खोई है अम्भै अम्भु मिलोगनी ॥४॥३॥
    Kaho Nānak ham ṯum gur kẖo▫ī hai ambẖai ambẖ miloganī. ||4||3||
    Says Guru Nanak, the Guru has destroyed my sense of 'mine and yours'. Like water with water, I am blended with God. ||4||3||

    (from here)

    It's all just the swirl of water.
  9. harry haller

    harry haller SPNer


    Know what I think about that statement, if our minds are like oil and water, with one to be manmukh, and the other to be gurmukh, then Guru is washing up liquid! (which as we all know, allows oil and water to mix, or am I the only male here who is an expert on dishwashing)
    Now I get your point,
    In fact you are preconceived and have already accepted the following:
    1..The numercal number one is to be refered as IK and

    2...The disection of the three words is by taking Ik as separate and the rest is added as OngKaar.

    So you get the pronunciation as IK -OngKaar.

    Now I have not accepted both as above.

    I have understood from Gurbani that:...

    1...Numerical one to be refered as EK

    2...The word EKwhen added with Ong to get EKOng and Take the Kaar as separate.

    Why EK not IK...Both words are Nouns .The word IK is definitive Noun and EK as Indefinitive Noun.
    Since the word Ong gramatically PLURAL(Masculine Gender)or SINGULAR(Feminine GENDER) ,So the word EK is more correct as per grammar rule rather than IK.

    Since the word Ong is PLURAL it can not be convertedto SINGULAR by matra of AUKAD so the word Numerical Number One iis placed to make it SINGULAR as EKOng.

    Now EKOng is single word can be refered as SABADu and this SABADu is GuRoo in Gurbani.
    So adding EKONG with KAAR we get the words EKOng-Kaar when all combined it would be pronounced as EKANKAAR which is there is SGGS .It has meaning as SABADu GuRoo JOT(i).

    On the contrary.we dont find any pronunciation as Ik OngKaar and also meaning that Creator is ONE.I have already shown from Gurbani that it is a SYSTEM of three which have been refered as CREATOR.

    CREATOR is ONE is not the message from Gurbani.However the SYSTEM (as creator) is ONE this is the message as IKu EKANKAAR..Ref SukhmaniASTAPADI 10

  11. Ambarsaria

    Ambarsaria ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār SPNer

    Sorry Prakash.S. Bagga ji I have no pre-conceived ideas. I started reading Prof. Sahib Singh ji’s Darpan this year.

    Please give me the phonetics of above in your own English

    I read these as
    1 ਇੱਕ (ikk) , 2 ਦੋ (dō) , 3 ਤਿੰਨ (tinn) , 4 ਚਾਰ (chār) , 5 ਪੰਜ (pañj) , 6 ਛੇ (chhē) , 7 ਸੱਤ (satt) , 8 ਅੱਠ (aṭṭh) , 9 ਨੌਂ (nauōn) ,

    So far me1 ਇੱਕ (ikk) ੧ is right
    See correct and complete at the top of the thread.

    You keep quoting this line, where you think others learn from
    Sorry say again ! Where it is to be stated so it is written so. Where it is to be called 1 ਇੱਕ (ikk) , it is also written so as well and context is so defined.
    You keep mixing up disjointed and two elements:

    • ਇੱਕ(ikk)as a number
    • ‘E’ sMsik®q dw Sbd hY[E-EAM[
    • > -kwr[
    Sorry there is no Ek!
    So now you are saying Ek is more correct rather than saying Prof. Sahib Singh ji is wrong and Ik is wrong.
    One cannot be half pregnant!

    One also does need to pay some attention to credentials. For example Prof. Sahib Singh ji below.

    Last edited: Dec 10, 2011
    spnadmin and Tejwant Singh like this.
  12. AMBARSARIA ji,
    The word Ong is very much there in Gurbani as

    [SIZE=+1]पउड़ी ॥[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=+1]ਓਅੰ ਸਾਧ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਨਮਸਕਾਰੰ [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=+1]ओअं साध सतिगुर नमसकारं ॥[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=+1]O▫aʼn sāḏẖ saṯgur namaskāraʼn.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=+1]ONG: I humbly bow in reverence to the One Universal Creator, to the Holy True Guru.[/SIZE]

    The above quote is at pp250 SGGS.
    It is very much clear that the word Ong is PLURAL (from the grammar of the whole line)
    What should be the SINGULAR for Ong ?

    I think that you are overlooking a point given by Prof Sahib Singh ji himself that EKANKAARu is also the pronunciation of the SYMBOL that is visible in SGGS. (So it is obvious that ponunciation of the SYMBOL as IK Ong Kaar is not there in SGGS)
    I considered this and I find the pronunciation EKANKAARu more in line with Gurbani.
    What is wrong here?
  13. Ambarsaria

    Ambarsaria ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār SPNer

    Prakash.S.Bagga ji thanks for your response to one part of my post.

    You keep saying the following,
    I don't know what you are not getting from items stated many times. Veer ji Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is Punjabi based with words from other languages. It is not a pronunciation guide. One needs to understand pronunciation from the language underlying the words and Professor Sahib Singh ji has brilliantly done so including for,


    [SIZE=+1]ੴ ਉੱਚਾਰਨ ਵੇਲੇ ਇਸ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਹਿੱਸੇ ਕੀਤੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ: ੧, ਓ ਅਤੇ [/SIZE]> [SIZE=+1] ; ਇਸ ਦਾ ਪਾਠ ਹੈ 'ਇਕ ਓਅੰਕਾਰ'। ਤਿੰਨ ਹਿੱਸੇ ਵੱਖੋ ਵੱਖਰੇ ਉੱਚਾਰਿਆਂ ਇਉਂ ਬਣਦੇ ਹਨ: ੧ = ਇੱਕ। ਓ = ਓਅੰ। [/SIZE]> [SIZE=+1]= ਕਾਰ।[/SIZE]

    Sat Sri Akal.
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2011
    Tejwant Singh likes this.
  14. Parkash Singh ji,

    Guru Fateh.

    Please follow the rules of the forum and post the whole Shabad and explain it in your own words so we can understand where you are coming from. Otherwise, posting one liners from this beautiful poetry becomes nothing but self fulfilling ego trip. Nothing more.And secondly, you claim is false it is not plural, but we will talk about it after you have posted the whole Shabad and explained it in your own words. You can copy and paste the translation for reference purposes.

    Thanks & regards

    Tejwant Singh
    spnadmin likes this.

  15. Here I feel the concern is more for knowing the word not for the interpretation of the whole of the SAbad.So I posted the required information only.
    With regards
    I have also taken the guidance from Prof Sahib Singh ji,
    If I am given two choices like One Pronunciation is in line with SGGS and other not in line with SGGS.
    You tell me what should I accept?
    Should I ignore SGGS ?
  17. Ambarsaria

    Ambarsaria ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār SPNer

    Prakash.S.Bagga veer ji I regret that you believe somehow Prof. Sahib Singh ji's interpretation is not in "line with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji".

    Veer ji I personally find it not very wise to use such language. You willy- nilly kind of align yourself on using SGGS as a support as though others are doing something else not in line with SGGS. Your approach veer is trying to be more pious than others which is noble but in this case it has little to no basis. You may have to unlearn a lot if you have anchored your Sikhi life around such in so hardened fashion.

    Such choice is for each one of us and no one can direct anyone else.

    Sat Sri Akal.
    harry haller and Tejwant Singh like this.
    Well I dont think there can be a Guide other than SGGS for knowing anything related to Gurbani.May be even the pronunciation of the SYMBOL itself.

    Because we differ very broadly in this regard so I think it is better we drop any further sharing of views related to Pronunciation of the SYMBOL.

    However we continue to share in other areas.
    Many thanks for positive interaction .

  19. Prakash Singh ji,

    Guru Fateh.

    You write:

    You are wrong because the whole Pauri proves that you are incorrect with your grammar explanation concocted by you for some reason and that is why it is important to post the whole Shabad in any form to explain what you are trying to say. I have posted the whole Pauri and also the Salok after the Pauri which has the word ਏਕ in it which is interpreted/pronounced as ਇਕ. And the number ॥੧॥ is also pronounced as IK - ਇਕ.

    So, in both cases you are wrong:

    1. Singular but you keep on insisting as plural.

    2.The pronounciation of the number ॥੧॥ as being EK.

    Both are part of your imagination. SGGS, our only Guru is our only guide, not what you think in your mind is. If I were you, I would revise my grammar thinking of Gurbani because your explanations do not make any sense and contradict Gurbani which is sad and a shame.


    Tejwant Singh

    ਪਉੜੀ ॥
    पउड़ी ॥


    ਓਅੰ ਸਾਧ ਸਤਿਗੁਰ ਨਮਸਕਾਰੰ ॥
    ओअं साध सतिगुर नमसकारं ॥
    O▫aʼn sāḏẖ saṯgur namaskāraʼn.
    ONG: I humbly bow in reverence to the One Universal Creator, to the Holy True Guru.
    ਓਅੰ = ਹਿੰਦੀ ਦੀ ਵਰਨਮਾਲਾ ਦਾ ਪਹਿਲਾ ਅੱਖਰ।

    ਸਾਡੀ ਉਸ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਨਮਸਕਾਰ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਗੁਰੂ-ਰੂਪ ਧਾਰਦਾ ਹੈ,= Singular, not plural as you claimed

    ਆਦਿ ਮਧਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰੰ ॥
    आदि मधि अंति निरंकारं ॥
    Āḏ maḏẖ anṯ niraʼnkāraʼn.
    In the beginning, in the middle, and in the end, He is the Formless Lord.
    ਆਦਿ = ਜਗਤ ਦੇ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਵਿਚ। ਮਧਿ = ਜਗਤ ਦੀ ਮੌਜੂਦਗੀ ਵਿਚ। ਅੰਤਿ = ਜਗਤ ਦੇ ਅਖ਼ੀਰ ਵਿਚ।

    ਜੋ ਜਗਤ ਦੇ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਵਿਚ ਭੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਸੀ, ਹੁਣ ਭੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਹੈ, ਜਗਤ ਦੇ ਅੰਤ ਵਿਚ ਭੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਰਹੇਗਾ।
    = Singular, not plural as you claimed

    ਆਪਹਿ ਸੁੰਨ ਆਪਹਿ ਸੁਖ ਆਸਨ ॥
    आपहि सुंन आपहि सुख आसन ॥
    Āpėh sunn āpėh sukẖ āsan.
    He Himself is in the absolute state of primal meditation; He Himself is in the seat of peace.
    ਸੁੰਨ = ਸੁੰਞ, ਜਿਥੇ ਕੁਝ ਭੀ ਨ ਹੋਵੇ।

    (ਜਦੋਂ ਜਗਤ ਦੀ ਹਸਤੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੁੰਦੀ) ਨਿਰੀ ਇਕੱਲ-ਰੂਪ ਭੀ ਉਹ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਆਪ ਹੀ ਆਪਣੇ ਸੁਖ-ਸਰੂਪ ਵਿਚ ਟਿਕਿਆ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ,
    = Singular, not plural as you claimed.

    ਆਪਹਿ ਸੁਨਤ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਜਾਸਨ ॥
    आपहि सुनत आप ही जासन ॥
    Āpėh sunaṯ āp hī jāsan.
    He Himself listens to His Own Praises.
    ਜਾਸਨ = ਜਸ।

    ਤਦੋਂ ਆਪਣੀ ਸੋਭਾ ਸੁਣਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਭੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ।= Singular, not plural as you claimed.
    ਆਪਨ ਆਪੁ ਆਪਹਿ ਉਪਾਇਓ ॥
    आपन आपु आपहि उपाइओ ॥
    Āpan āp āpėh upā▫i▫o.
    He Himself created Himself.
    ਆਪੁ = ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ।

    ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਨੂੰ ਦਿੱਸਦੇ ਸਰੂਪ ਵਿਚ ਲਿਆਉਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਭੀ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਹੈ,= Singular, not plural as you claimed.

    ਆਪਹਿ ਬਾਪ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਮਾਇਓ ॥
    आपहि बाप आप ही माइओ ॥
    Āpėh bāp āp hī mā▫i▫o.
    He is His Own Father, He is His Own Mother.
    ਮਾਇਓ = ਮਾਂ।

    ਆਪ ਹੀ (ਆਪਣੀ) ਮਾਂ ਹੈ, ਆਪ ਹੀ (ਆਪਣਾ) ਪਿਤਾ ਹੈ।= Singular, not plural as you claimed.

    ਆਪਹਿ ਸੂਖਮ ਆਪਹਿ ਅਸਥੂਲਾ ॥
    आपहि सूखम आपहि असथूला ॥
    Āpėh sūkẖam āpėh asthūlā.
    He Himself is subtle and etheric; He Himself is manifest and obvious.
    ਅਸਥੂਲਾ = ਦ੍ਰਿਸ਼ਟਮਾਨ ਜਗਤ।

    ਅਣ-ਦਿੱਸਦੇ ਤੇ ਦਿੱਸਦੇ ਸਰੂਪ ਵਾਲਾ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਹੈ।= Singular, not plural as you claimed.

    ਲਖੀ ਨ ਜਾਈ ਨਾਨਕ ਲੀਲਾ ॥੧॥
    लखी न जाई नानक लीला ॥१॥
    Lakẖī na jā▫ī Nānak līlā. ||1||
    O Nanak, His wondrous play cannot be understood. ||1||
    ਲੀਲ੍ਹ੍ਹਾ = ਖੇਡ ॥੧॥

    ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! (ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਦੀ ਇਹ ਜਗ-ਰਚਨਾ ਵਾਲੀ) ਖੇਡ ਬਿਆਨ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾ ਸਕਦੀ ॥੧॥= Singular, not plural as you claimed.

    ਕਰਿ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਦੀਨ ਦਇਆਲਾ ॥
    करि किरपा प्रभ दीन दइआला ॥
    Kar kirpā parabẖ ḏīn ḏa▫i▫ālā.
    O God, Merciful to the meek, please be kind to me,

    ਹੇ ਦੀਨਾਂ ਉਤੇ ਦਇਆ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ! ਮੇਰੇ ਉਤੇ ਮਿਹਰ ਕਰ।= Singular, not plural as you claimed.

    ਤੇਰੇ ਸੰਤਨ ਕੀ ਮਨੁ ਹੋਇ ਰਵਾਲਾ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
    तेरे संतन की मनु होइ रवाला ॥ रहाउ ॥
    Ŧere sanṯan kī man ho▫e ravālā. Rahā▫o.
    that my mind might become the dust of the feet of Your Saints. ||Pause||
    ਰਵਾਲਾ = ਚਰਨ-ਧੂੜ। ਰਹਾਉ = ਕੇਂਦਰੀ ਭਾਵ।

    ਮੇਰਾ ਮਨ ਤੇਰੇ ਸੰਤ ਜਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਚਰਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਧੂੜ ਬਣਿਆ ਰਹੇ ॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥= Singular, not plural as you claimed.

    ਸਲੋਕੁ ॥
    सलोकु ॥


    ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਆਕਾਰ ਆਪਿ ਨਿਰਗੁਨ ਸਰਗੁਨ ਏਕ ॥
    निरंकार आकार आपि निरगुन सरगुन एक ॥
    Nirankār ākār āp nirgun sargun ek.
    He Himself is formless, and also formed; the One Lord is without attributes, and also with attributes.
    ਆਕਾਰ = ਸਰੂਪ। ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ = ਆਕਾਰ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨਾ। ਗੁਨ = ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਸੁਭਾਵ, (ਰਜ, ਤਮ, ਸਤ੍ਵ)। ਨਿਰਗੁਨ = ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਸੁਭਾਵ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਪਾ ਰਹੇ। ਸਰਗੁਨ = ਉਹ ਸਰੂਪ ਜਿਸ ਵਿਚ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਸੁਭਾਵ ਮੌਜੂਦ ਹਨ।

    ਆਕਾਰ-ਰਹਿਤ ਪਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਆਪ ਹੀ (ਜਗਤ-) ਆਕਾਰ ਬਣਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਉਹ ਆਪ ਹੀ (ਨਿਰੰਕਾਰ ਰੂਪ ਵਿਚ) ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਸੁਭਾਵਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਪਰੇ ਰਹਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਤੇ ਜਗਤ-ਰਚਨਾ ਰਚ ਕੇ ਮਾਇਆ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੋ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।

    ਏਕਹਿ ਏਕ ਬਖਾਨਨੋ ਨਾਨਕ ਏਕ ਅਨੇਕ ॥੧॥
    एकहि एक बखाननो नानक एक अनेक ॥१॥
    Ėkėh ek bakẖānano Nānak ek anek. ||1||
    Describe the One Lord as One, and Only One; O Nanak, He is the One, and the many. ||1||
    ਏਕਹਿ = ਇਕੋ ਹੀ ॥੧॥

    ਹੇ ਨਾਨਕ! ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਆਪਣੇ ਇਕ ਸਰੂਪ ਤੋਂ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਰੂਪ ਬਣਾ ਲੈਂਦਾ ਹੈ, (ਪਰ ਇਹ ਅਨੇਕ ਰੂਪ ਉਸ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਖਰੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਹਨ) ਇਹੀ ਕਿਹਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਇਕ ਆਪ ਹੀ ਆਪ ਹੈ ॥੧॥
    Have I ever accepted EK as IK .How can you conclude that I agree with the interpretation of the Sabad. I feel You create your own and decide your own .What is this style I fail to understand.
    With regards

Share This Page