Pronunciation Of “ੴ ”

In an article [http://www.iuscanada.com/journal/articles/omkar.pdf] Devinder Singh Chahal PhD, claims that ੴIkkankar/Ekkankar should be pronounced as “Ikk Oh Beant or Ikk Oh Anant,” and openly says that Bhai Gurdas misunderstood it like many other Sikh scholars. He also claims that Guru Nanak Dev doesn’t name the Creator as “Ikk Onkaar/Ekkankar”; obviously in a hurry, he has overlooked all usages of “Ekkankar” in Gurbani in context of the Infinite Creator, and interestingly Dr Chahal gives one quote in this article in which “Ekkankar” is used for the Creator. Even if we agree with him that the Bani “Dakhni Onkaar/Omkaar” has nothing to do with the pronunciation of ੴ, there is another thing, which needs to be pondered over. “ੴ” has been completely written by Guru Nanak Dev and his descendant – Gurus. Most of the vital words Guru Nanak Dev has used in his Bani are interpreted and clarified in Sri Guru Granth Sahib. “ੴEkkankar” is also defined and clarified as well.

             If we continue reading Bani “Dakhni Onkaar/Omkaar”, in stanza number 5, Guru Nanak Dev talks about all pervading Creator, and addresses Him as “Ikkankar, which is exactly the guide to pronounce ੴ; let’s look at that first.

ਏਕੋ ਏਕੁ ਕਹੈ ਸਭੁ ਕੋਈ ਹਉਮੈ ਗਰਬੁ ਵਿਆਪੈ ॥

ਅੰਤਰਿ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਏਕੁ ਪਛਾਣੈ ਇਉ ਘਰੁ ਮਹਲੁ ਸਿਞਾਪੈ ॥

ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਨੇੜੈ ਹਰਿ ਦੂਰਿ ਨ ਜਾਣਹੁ ਏਕੋ ਸ੍ਰਿਸਟਿ ਸਬਾਈ ॥

ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨਹੀ ਦੂਜਾ ਨਾਨਕ ਏਕੁ ਸਮਾਈ ॥੫॥ 

Ėko ek kahai sabẖ ko▫ī ha▫umai garab vi▫āpai.

Anṯar bāhar ek pacẖẖāṇai i▫o gẖar mahal siñāpai.

Parabẖ neṛai har ḏūr na jāṇhu eko sarisat sabā▫ī.

Ėkankār avar nahī ḏūjā Nānak ek samā▫ī. ||5||

In Essence: Though all say the Almighty is but one; however, they remain engrossed in conceit (In fact). If one realizes that the Almighty is the same, who pervades within us and out, only then one can find His home within. Akalpurakh is very close; do not consider Him away, because He is the only one who pervades in the whole world. Nanak says that there is none other than “EKKANKAR ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ /” who is permeated in all.

             Why Guru Nanak Dev is addressing the Creator as “Prabh and Ekkankar”? Isn’t “Prabh” used in Hindu philosophy? Why does the use of “Onkaar” become a big deal then? Why Guru Nanak Dev is using “Prabh” “Ekkankar” together? The Answer is that he stresses on getting our attention on the one Creator regardless the name He is addressed with. As per Dr Chahal’s understanding, the word “Omkaar” belongs to ancient Hindu/ philosophy of Trinity belief! Well, Guru Nanak Dev uses this word by adding number one with it to define the “oneness” of the Creator by negating its usage for other entities through which the Creator was otherwise reduced to human beings; besides, he has no worry if people do not call him original or declare that he has taken these words from such and such source? These things bother to small minds only. His main goal is to lead people to one and only one Creator. Many words used for the Creator in Gurbani are also used in ancient Hindu philosophy in context of various Devtas and deities but that doesn’t bother Guru Nanak Dev and his descendants and Bhagatas of Sri Guru Granth Sahib; obviously we should not think that these words have anything to do with their old usages because their context, in Gurbani, is all pervading Creator not any deity or Devta or other concept in case of Omkaar. If they interpret “Onkaar/Omkaar” for concept of trinity, so be it, Sikhi doesn’t believe in it rather rejects it for One Creator.

             Dr Chahal feels that the first stanza of the Bani “Onkaar/Omkaar” states views of the Pundit, whom Guru Nanak Dev encountered in a temple in south of India; that also appears incorrect because whatever is expressed there in the first stanza, is not limited to trinity concept, rather it conveys that the totality of existence of all comes from Onkaar, and then Guru Nanak Dev uses the word “Gurmukh” in context of getting saved [from Maya inflicted world – Ocean]. Guru Nanak also addresses the Creator with numerous names in various places in Gurbani, and he doesn’t care if those names were used earlier by others for their revered entities because he explicitly states that there is no name that can express Him fully [538 SGGS Mehla 1] Literally he addresses Him as “Naao [JapJi] also. Now let’s look at the first stanza of “Dakhni Onkaar/Omkaar” and see if it conveys views of that Pundit Dr Chahal is talking about or of Guru Nanak Dev?

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਉਤਪਤਿ ॥ ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਕੀਆ ਜਿਨਿ ਚਿਤਿ ॥

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸੈਲ ਜੁਗ ਭਏ ॥ ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਬੇਦ ਨਿਰਮਏ ॥

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸਬਦਿ ਉਧਰੇ ॥ ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਤਰੇ ॥

ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੧॥ 

O▫ankār barahmā uṯpaṯ. O▫ankār kī▫ā jin cẖiṯ.

O▫ankār sail jug bẖa▫e. O▫ankār beḏ nirma▫e.

O▫ankār sabaḏ uḏẖre. O▫ankār gurmukẖ ṯare.

Onam akẖar suṇhu bīcẖār. Onam akẖar ṯaribẖavaṇ sār. ||1||

In Essence: Brahma was created by Onkaar whom [Onkaar] Brahma cherished in his mind. The mountains and the different yugas have come into existence from Him [Onkaar], He [Onkaar] is the cause of Vedas’ creation [it is just an expression of the concept of His Ordinance] Onkaar saved the world with Shabada [concept of His Grace]. Through Onkaar [with His blessings] Guru – followers were saved [Importance of Guru]. Ponder over and listen about the “word onam” [addressed to Pundit] , this word is for that power that is an essence of whole world. [Obviously Guru Nanak Dev is saying that this word belongs to all pervading Creator not to a certain deity, ponder over it and do not limit it to your thought]

             Guru Nanak Dev is addressing those people who write “onam nameh” to idols, and makes it clear that the Brahma well known – Devta was His creation, who kept Akalpurakh in his mind, mountains [earth], ages and Vedas came into existence due to Him [due to His Will], literally Guru Nanak Dev is defining His Hukam/Ordinance. There is the word “Shabad” [Indication is about His grace, which is materialized through Guru] through which many were saved. So it is important to know that whom Pundit addresses “onam nameh”, actually is not “Onkaar/Omkaar”, Pundit is mistaken because Onkaar is the Creator of all including the entity the Pundit pays tribute t; Onkaar is the essence of the whole world. Literally Onkaar gets new meaning by Guru Nanak Dev, no wonder he calls the Creator “Ekkankar” in Stanza number 5. Where is the Pundit’s own point of view here in this stanza? I couldn’t believe what Dr Chahal is saying here. Pundits talk about Brahma and Shiva, and they put liberation in the hands of Devtas unlike Guru’s thought, which rests it on His grace through Guru. Let’s look at the point of view of Dr Chahal who interprets this stanza by deeming it Pundit’s views. He writes in his article:

             “In the next four phrases Pundit teaches a few more attributes of Omkar as follows:

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮਾ ਉਤਪਤਿ ॥ ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਕੀਆ ਜਿਨਿ ਚਿਤਿ ॥

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸੈਲ ਜੁਗ ਭਏ ॥ ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਬੇਦ ਨਿਰਮਏ ॥

ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਸਬਦਿ ਉਧਰੇ ॥ ਓਅੰਕਾਰਿ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਤਰੇ ॥ 

             Mountains and different yugas (periods of time) came into existence from Omkar.

             Vedas were born from Omkar.

             Omkar saved the world through Sabd.

             Through Omkar the Guru-oriented swim across (the sea of life) safely.

             Here Pundit says that Omkar created mountains, various yugas (periods of time) and Vedas; saves the world and the people with Sabd (word). But in ancient philosophy it is generally accepted that Vedas were written by Brahma. What is the truth?” [Interpretation as per a quote from Devinder Singh Chahal ji’s article]

             First of all, Dr Chahal doesn’t feel necessary to interpret the whole stanza when it was very necessary to prove that the views in it are of the Pundit or not; he omits the verses that contain Guru Nanak Dev’s advice. Moreover, Guru oriented [Gurmukh] is not used by Pundits, in their theory the pundit is the guide, in this very Bani in stanza number 22 [As a matter of fact first stanza and stanza 22 have a big relevancy] Guru Nanak Dev again stresses on “Gurmukh”; obviously, “Quote- Through Omkar the Guru-oriented swim across (the sea of life) safely [ above quote interpretation by Dr Chahal]” this is a Gurmat – concept defined repeatedly in Gurbani not by any pundits. The next verses, which are omitted by Dr Devinder Singh Chahal are “ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰ ਸੁਣਹੁ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥ ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੧॥ , they [these verses] explicitly make it clear that actually this word “ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰ “ belongs to the power that pervades in all three worlds, so ponder over it, and do not limit it to the deities . Add to it, there is another problem, Dr Chahal first subscribes these words to Pundit then questions his views; just have a look at it, “Quote: But in ancient philosophy it is generally accepted that Vedas were written by Brahma. What is the truth?”

             My response to Dr Chahal is this that here the Pundit is not saying that the Vedas were creation of Onkaar, these are Guru Nanak Dev’s views, and I will support this with another quote from Gurbani.

             Surprisingly Guru Nanak Dev further defines it by asking the pundit to give up these games of entanglements.

ਸੁਣਿ ਪਾਡੇ ਕਿਆ ਲਿਖਹੁ ਜੰਜਾਲਾ ॥

ਲਿਖੁ ਰਾਮ ਨਾਮ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਗੋਪਾਲਾ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ 

Suṇ pāde ki▫ā likẖahu janjālā.

Likẖ rām nām gurmukẖ gopālā. ||1|| rahā▫o.

In Essence: Oh Pundit! Why to write this worldly puzzle [entangling views]? Through Guru, write down only the name of all pervading Akalpurakh who is the Care – taker of the world (pause)

             Pundit is asked to write only the name of the Care – Taker of the world, Ram. Here Ram and Gopal are used for Akalpurakh. Also note it down that Gopal is also used in Hindu Scriptures and Philosophy; it doesn’t bother Guru Nanak Dev from where the words come, then why would he bother about the word “Onkaar/Omkaar”? Meanings of “Ekkankar” are given in SGGS Gurumukhi English Dictionary and Mahan Kosh in the same manner as Dr Sahib Singh interprets it. Besides, Guru Nanak Dev’s effort is to lead people to one Creator by telling them that He is present all over and is not limited to one body. How can above views be of a Pundit? I would like to quote here Guru Nanak’ Dev’s own words regarding Vedas and other stuff, which contains almost similar idea expressed in the first stanza of Dhakhni Onkaar/Omkaar. In the quote below, Guru Nanak Dev is saying that all people and Yugas are coming from Him, and He by being permeated in His Creation plays all roles, it is on 432 SGGS; obviously they are very much close to the views expressed in the first stanza of Dakhni Onkaar quoted above.

ਚਚੈ ਚਾਰਿ ਵੇਦ ਜਿਨਿ ਸਾਜੇ ਚਾਰੇ ਖਾਣੀ ਚਾਰਿ ਜੁਗਾ ॥

ਜੁਗੁ ਜੁਗੁ ਜੋਗੀ ਖਾਣੀ ਭੋਗੀ ਪੜਿਆ ਪੰਡਿਤੁ ਆਪਿ ਥੀਆ ॥੯॥ 

Cẖacẖai cẖār veḏ jin sāje cẖāre kẖāṇī cẖār jugā.

Jug jug jogī kẖāṇī bẖogī paṛi▫ā pandiṯ āp thī▫ā. ||9||

In Essence: Who created four Vedas, life from four sources and the four Yugas; He himself has been a Yogi [immaculate] and a Reveler, and a learned scholar [Pundit].

             Literally there is nothing without Him as stated in Jap Ji 4 SGGS,

ਜੇਤਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਤੇਤਾ ਨਾਉ ॥

ਵਿਣੁ ਨਾਵੈ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੋ ਥਾਉ ॥ 

Jeṯā kīṯā ṯeṯā nā▫o.

viṇ nāvai nāhī ko thā▫o.

In Essence: All His Creation is His manifestation; there is no place without Him.

             Obviously the first stanza of Bani “Dakhni Onkaar” contains Guru Nanak Dev’s views not of a Pundit views as Dr Chahal claims.

             I just wonder how Dr Chahal builds a theory about the way Guru Nanak Dev expresses his views, according to that in the first stanza of Dakhni OnKaar/Omkaar , all words were of the pundits before “Rahao” because Guru Nanak Dev first expresses others views. Indeed, many times Guru Nanak Dev first expresses others views before expressing his own, but it is not applicable in all instances for example take an example of Jap Ji, he doesn’t start it with others point of view; take example of Patti, he doesn’t start it with the views of Pundit either, and in Sidh -Gosht, Guru Nanak Dev doesn’t start the Bani with Yogis views [except later on in form of questions]; so the alone idea that Guru first expresses others views before he expresses his, cannot be applicable in all cases; obviously it is not applicable in Dakhni Onkaar either; we have to look for total concept of Guru Message, if we don’t, certainly we will lead others to misgivings.

A quote from Dr Chahal’s article

             “Our further research lead us that the letter open ‘Oora’ means ‘Oh’ in Punjabi-English Dictionary [8] and in Mahan Kosh of BhaiKahn Singh [17]. ‘Oh’ of Punjabi and ‘Oh’ of English means ‘That’ in English [27]. The open end of ‘Oora’has been extended to characterize it as ਬੇਅੰਤ (Beant – Infinite) or ਅਨੰਤ (Anant – Infinite). Thus, it should be pronounced as ਇਕ ਓ ਬੇਅੰਤ (Ek + Oh + Beant) (One Oh ∝ = One and Only, Oh, the Infinite). Or ਇਕ ਓ ਅਨੰਤ (Ek Oh Ananat) as suggested by Harchand Singh of Calgary, Canada suggested that ‘Anant’ isequally good for ‘Beant’. (Personal Communication). Stanzas # 5-7, 9, 11, 23, 29, 31, 34, 35, 46 of the Omkar Bani clearly indicate that the Eternal Entity is One.”

             If as per Punjabi English dictionary [8] and Bhai Kahan Singh Kosh [17] open Oorha means “Oh/ meaning “that” in English” then from where the meaning “Beant/ Anant /infinite” is added to it? Is it because of open – ended Oorha? When we read “ਓਹੁ” with open extended Oorha in Gurbani, we understand that it conveys the meaning of “That [which is itself limited in meaning],” how does open ended Oorha start giving meaning of “infinite?” Why some one feels that “ਓ” should be interpreted as “Beant” and “Anant”, what is the base? Why should we conclude that an open “Oorha” not only conveys the meaning of “ਓਹੁ Oh/that,” but also “Beant/Anant/infinite”? By the way where in Sri Guru Granth Sahib “ਓ open Oorha” is used for expressing Creator’s infinity?

             Dr Chahal keeps stressing on “oneness” of the Creator through Gurbani quotes, but that is not the issue in the article, it is all about correct articulation of ੴ, use of 1 number with “open Oorha” concludes that there is only one Creator/God/Prabh/ Narrain/Ram/Gopal; moreover, ੴ is not defined by Bhai Gurdas on the basis of “Dhakhni Onkaar or Bani Omkaar;” Regardless whatever way the meaning of Onkaar/Omkaar, Gopal or Ram is interpreted by the Hindu scholars, quite contrary to that, In Sri Guru Granth Sahib, these words are used for the infinite one Creator save for Historical references.

             With a quote, Dr Chahal also tries to explain that actually “ਓਹੁ Oh/that” is used in Gurbani for the Creator forgetting that its use is exactly as the word “that” is used in English; let’s look at one of his quote on 930 SGGS, I shall quote the complete stanza number 9 of Dakhni Onkaar

ਉਗਵੈ ਸੂਰੁ ਅਸੁਰ ਸੰਘਾਰੈ ॥ ਊਚਉ ਦੇਖਿ ਸਬਦਿ ਬੀਚਾਰੈ ॥

ਊਪਰਿ ਆਦਿ ਅੰਤਿ ਤਿਹੁ ਲੋਇ ॥ ਆਪੇ ਕਰੈ ਕਥੈ ਸੁਣੈ ਸੋਇ ॥

ਓਹੁ ਬਿਧਾਤਾ ਮਨੁ ਤਨੁ ਦੇਇ ॥ ਓਹੁ ਬਿਧਾਤਾ ਮਨਿ ਮੁਖਿ ਸੋਇ ॥

ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਜਗਜੀਵਨੁ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਨਾਨਕ ਨਾਮਿ ਰਤੇ ਪਤਿ ਹੋਇ ॥੯॥ 

Ugvai sūr asur sangẖārai. Ūcẖa▫o ḏekẖ sabaḏ bīcẖārai.

Ūpar āḏ anṯ ṯihu lo▫e. Āpe karai kathai suṇai so▫e.

Oh biḏẖāṯā man ṯan ḏe▫e. Oh biḏẖāṯā man mukẖ so▫e.

Parabẖ jagjīvan avar na ko▫e. Nānak nām raṯe paṯ ho▫e. ||9||

In Essence: As the divine light shines in the mortal, he kills the negative forces within; by contemplating Guru Shabad, he sees the highest One Creator who has been present from the beginning and will be to the end throughout the whole world. (That person also understands that) The Almighty Himself speaks and listens through others; that [That, who is that? Answer: Who speaks and listens through others; this answer follows in the next use of “that” as well] destiny – Creator is the Giver of soul and body. That [same] destiny – Creator is in the mind and on mouth[of His devotee]. Almighty is the life of the world, without Him there is none other. Nanak says only through getting drenched in His name, one can obtain honor.

             Look carefully, in the stanza quoted above, there is a continuity of ideas. First importance of Guru – imparted – knowledge is expressed, then it is clarified that through Guru, Eternal Creator is known. Guru also tells that through mediums [others] the Creator speaks and listens to [idea of His being permeated in all], then like the use of English word “that” “Oh” is used because, talk about Him is continued. So here this use of “Oh” doesn’t mean it is used as ਓ in ੴ

             No scholar, as far as I know, has come to a conclusion that “Onkaar” as used in Dakhni Onkaar/Omkaar should be a base to pronounce ੴ correctly, or somehow use of “Onkaar/Omkaar” in Dakhani Onkaar sets up an example to pronounce “ਓ” as Onkaar; as a matter of fact, it is completely written in its articulation – form by Guru Nanak Dev himself, that is why Sikhs pronounce it as “Ikkankaar/ Ikkonkar/Ekkankar”. There is no support in Gurbani to pronounce ੴ as “Ikk Oh Beant or Ikk Oh Anant; contrary to that “ੴ” is written as “Ekkankar” throughout Sri Guru Granth Sahib. I quote here Fifth Nanak literally defining ੴ as Prabh,
On 276 SGGS

ਕਈ ਕੋਟਿ ਖਾਣੀ ਅਰੁ ਖੰਡ ॥ ਕਈ ਕੋਟਿ ਅਕਾਸ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੰਡ ॥

ਕਈ ਕੋਟਿ ਹੋਏ ਅਵਤਾਰ ॥ ਕਈ ਜੁਗਤਿ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਿਸਥਾਰ ॥

ਕਈ ਬਾਰ ਪਸਰਿਓ ਪਾਸਾਰ ॥ ਸਦਾ ਸਦਾ ਇਕੁ ਏਕੰਕਾਰ ॥

ਕਈ ਕੋਟਿ ਕੀਨੇ ਬਹੁ ਭਾਤਿ ॥ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤੇ ਹੋਏ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਮਾਹਿ ਸਮਾਤਿ ॥

ਤਾ ਕਾ ਅੰਤੁ ਨ ਜਾਨੈ ਕੋਇ ॥ ਆਪੇ ਆਪਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸੋਇ ॥੭॥ 

Ka▫ī kot kẖāṇī ar kẖand. Ka▫ī kot akās barahmand.

Ka▫ī kot ho▫e avṯār. Ka▫ī jugaṯ kīno bisthār.

Ka▫ī bār pasri▫o pāsār. Saḏā saḏā ik ekankār.

Ka▫ī kot kīne baho bẖāṯ. Parabẖ ṯe ho▫e parabẖ māhi samāṯ.

Ŧā kā anṯ na jānai ko▫e. Āpe āp Nānak parabẖ so▫e. ||7||

In Essence: There have been many millions of various lives and realms, many millions of skies and cosmos, many millions births of beings, thus in many ways the Creator has unfolded, many times He expended His expansion, forever and ever, He has been only the one Creator [Ekkankar]. Many millions of kinds of creation He created, all emanate from Prabh and merge in Him eventually. No one knows His limits; Nanak says Akalpurakh is all by Himself.

             Above the concept of Ekkankar is expressed in detail , in no way Ikkankar or Ekkankar has any limit like of trinity concept. Still it is used in context of Prabh, the Creator.

             Bhai Gurdas actually rightful way explains why Guru Nanak Dev uses “1”with “OOrha” without guessing unlike others. Bhai Gurdas writes:

“ਏਕਾ ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ ਲਿਖਿ ਦੇਖਾਲਿਆ ।

Aykaa aykankaaruz|ikhi daykhaaliaa

By writing 1 (One number) in the beginning, Ekkankar is defined as the one only [This is the right pronunciation of ੴ]

ਊੜਾ ਓਅੰਕਾਰੁ ਪਾਸਿ ਬਹਾਲਿਆ ।

Oorhaa aoankaaru paasi bahaaliaa

[With the first number], and by using “oorha” as “Onkaar” with it, [idea continues]

ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾਰੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਭਾਲਿਆ ।

Sati naamu karataaru nirabhau bhaaliaa

The True Name of fearless Creator is made understood.

ਨਿਰਵੈਰਹੁ ਜੈਕਾਰੁ ਅਜੂਨਿ ਅਕਾਲਿਆ ।

niravairahu jaikaaru ajooni akaaliaa

and also it is explained that the Creator is beyond enmity, birth [and death]. [Vaaran Bhai Gurdas]

             Bhai Gurdas leaves no doubt about the pronunciation and meaning of Mool Mantra, and he hasn’t misunderstood it at all as Dr Chahal claims because as we go through Sri Guru Granth Sahib, we will find the use of “Ekkankar” just as we understand the meaning of ੴ by Gurus including Guru Nanak Dev on 30, 53, 85, 189, 222,227, 276, 284, 294, 296, 381, 507, 608, 688, 736, 782,, 821, 838, 901, 904, 905, 916, 930, 999,1034 and 1039, SGGS.

             So Bhai Gurdas gets help from Gurbani/in Guru’s own words only. What Bhai Gurdas has written about it, is genuine and above all guesses, he is very much aware of what he is saying, it would be highly unlikely that he wouldn’t have asked Guru Arjun Dev Ji about the pronunciation of ੴ as Dr Chahal declares him incorrect solely depending on his own guesses.

             “Sikhi/ is a way of living in Creator’s love” well defined through Sri Guru Granth Sahi; it has nothing to do with previous faiths or philosophies; if Parma Nanda or other individuals want to claim that Guru Nanak Dev has no new knowledge [as per an article of Dr Chahal], it is their problem; in “Sattyarth”, Arrya Smaji Daya Nand calls Guru Nanak Dev “an atheist” because such people’s egoist agenda is to tell the world that they found the Creator first, and they never realized that there could have been civilizations, which existed before Hindus, and could have been destroyed thousands years before them. Still unknown civilizations are buried out there, we would never find to what spiritual peak people might have reached. Knowledge of the Creator comes to those upon whom He bestows His grace; it might have come to many another parts of the planet as well. Clouding enlightened ones’ views becomes agenda of those who are diseased with conceit. Look at an eminent Sikh Historian Khushwant Singh; he considers the word “Ram” “Seeta” used in Jap Ji for Ram Chandra ji and Seeta Ji. All other Names like Krishn, Braham, Narrain used for all pervading “Ikkankar”in Sri Guru Granth Sahib, are interpreted by such kind of people as Hindu – Gods or concept of Gods. We cannot stop fundamentalist – Hindus or people with such agenda calling Sikhs Hindus though openly Fifth Nanak declares that Sikhs are not Hindu [1136 SGGS]. Who are they to judge this path anyway when Fifth Nanak explains once for all that Guru Nanak – path is neither Hinduism nor Islam? This declaration is right there in Sri Guru Granth Sahib but they don’t accept it, and keep playing with the words; it is their psychiatric – games; Sikhs know that they cannot, and they don’t worship idols or believe in any of them. By guessing and giving new meanings to ੴ by articulating it differently is nothing but a muscular game of mind. What Dr Sahib Singh ji says about the meaning of “Kaar” in context of “Ekkankar” sounds right as we see Guru Nanak Dev and his descendants using “Ekkankar” as “all continuously pervading power”? Dr Chahal’s questioning him by saying that he [Dr Sahib Singh] interprets “Kaar” as “continuous” but also he interprets “Kaar” as work; therefore he is wrong, is very unfair commentary. Should we believe now that one word conveys only one meaning because Dr Chahal says so? When Dr Sahib Singh quotes “Sanskrit word” he defines it as it is interpreted in Sanskrit but when “Kaar” is used in context of “work” he uses it in that sense, how anyone can prove him wrong, what is the base? Is it that “one word has one meaning” technique that should be a base to understand a language? 

             Talking about originality of Guru Nanak Dev, there is no evidence that any one ever used “Ekkankar” before, so that is original, If we take Parma Nanda’s own words and accept that Guru Nanak Dev has added one [number] with Omkaar/Onkaar to express “oneness” of Onkaar, it becomes more clear that all Hindu Seers before Guru Nanak Dev were wrong, because they failed to define Creator’s oneness, isn’t it originality? Guru Nanak Dev is not interested in who is the first to know Him, he doesn’t question all the prevailed Hindu and Ibrahim – faiths; however, it is the mountain of hypocrisy in all faiths he questions. If “Onkaar” comes from ancient belief, Guru also informs us that in the Vedas, worshipping of the Creator is indicated, but people have forgotten [919 SGGS]. I strongly feel that Bhai Gurdas, Dr Sahib Singh and other Scholars are not incorrect in defining “ੴ/ as “Ekkankar/Ikkankaar” but Dr Chahal.

Humbly

G Singh

gursoch@yahoo.com

Reference:

Sri Guru Granth Sahib [SGGS]
Guru Granth Sahib Darpan: By Dr Sahib Singh
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Kosh:By Bhai Veer Singh
Mahankosh By Kahn Singh Nabha
Search Gurbani.com Bhai Gurdas Vaaran