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

[Ambarsaria]

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.

ੴ 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.


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

ੴ1, E Aqy >

‘iek EAMkwr’

Ik▫oaʼnkār


(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.

Note: I do not like or accept from my learning the “Ik –Ongkaar”. The sound of “g” in this is inappropriate in any possible forms from silent to full.

Meaning of ੴ:

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

‘E’ sMsik®q dw Sbd hY[ Amr koS Anuswr ies dy iqMn ArQ hn:-

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

(1) vyd Awid Drm-pusqkW dy ArMB Aqy A^Ir ivc, Ardws jW iksy piv~qr Drm-kwrj dy ArMB ivc A`Kr 'EN' piv~qr A`Kr jwx ky vriqAw jWdw hY[
Used as EN, an auspicious word at the beginning or end of religious books.

(2) iksy hukm jW pRSn Awidk dy au~qr ivc Awdr Aqy siqkwr nwl ‘jI hW’ AwKxw[ so,‘EN’ dw ArQ hY 'jI hW'[

A way and preamble in answering respectfully like “ji haan” (colloquially “yes respectful one”)

(3) EN-bRhm[
Brahma, a Hindu God /deity.

iehnW ivcoN ikhVw ArQ ies Sbd dw ie`Qy ilAw jwxw hY-ies ƒ idRVH krn leI Sbd 'EN' dy pihlW '1' ilK id`qw hY[ ies dw Bwv ieh hY ik ie`Qy 'EN' dw ArQ hY 'auh hsqI jo iek hY, ijs vrgw hor koeI nhIN hY Aqy ijs ivc ieh swrw jgq smw jWdw hY['

So which one applies!

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

qIjw ih`sw > hY, ijs dw au~cwrn hY 'kwr'[ 'kwr' sMsik®q dw iek ipCyqr hY[ Awm qOr qy ieh ipCyqr 'nWv' dy A^Ir ivc vriqAw jWdw hY[ ies dw ArQ hY 'iek-rs, ijs ivc qbdIlI nw Awvy['

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”.

eykMkwru-eyk EAMkwr, auh iek EAM jo iek-rs hY, jo hr QW ivAwpk hY[
so, "<>" dw au~cwrn hY " iek (eyk) EAMkwr" Aqy iesdw ArQ hY "iek Akwl purK, jo iek-rs ivAwpk hY"[

Hence,

<> stands for “One creator present as one essence everywhere”.
​

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


Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Seeker9]

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)
http://www.gurbanifiles.org/translations/

================================================================
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.

Recite

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)
http://swarnbains.tripod.com/

===================================================================

So both translations describing a few common characteristics:

- One-ness
- Beyond birth
- Self-existent
- Immortal
- This is the Truth

 

[Harry Haller]

Gurfatehji

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

 

[Harry Haller]

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

 

[Ambarsaria]

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.

 

[Harry Haller]

Ambersariaji,

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............

 

[Harry Haller]

Ambersariaji,

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]

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.

 

[Harry Haller]

Ishnabhenji,

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)

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

AMBARSAIA Ji,
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

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Ambarsaria]

AMBARSAIA Ji,


Now I get your point,
In fact you are preconceived and have already accepted the following:

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

1..The numerical number one is to be referred as IK and

੧੨੩੪੫੬੭੮੯੦
Please give me the phonetics of above in your own English

I read these as 1 ਇੱਕ (ikk) ੧, 2 ਦੋ (dō) ੨, 3 ਤਿੰਨ (tinn) ੩, 4 ਚਾਰ (chār) ੪, 5 ਪੰਜ (pañj) ੫, 6 ਛੇ (chhē) ੬, 7 ਸੱਤ (satt) ੭, 8 ਅੱਠ (aṭṭh) ੮, 9 ਨੌਂ (nauōn) ੯,

So far me1 ਇੱਕ (ikk) ੧ is right

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.

See correct and complete at the top of the thread.

I have understood from Gurbani that:...

You keep quoting this line, where you think others learn from

1...Numerical one to be referred as EK

Sorry say again ! Where it is to be stated so it is written so. Where it is to be called 1 ਇੱਕ (ikk) ੧, it is also written so as well and context is so defined.

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

You keep mixing up disjointed and two elements:

• ਇੱਕ(ikk)੧as a number
• ‘E’ sMsik®q dw Sbd hY[E-EAM[
• > -kwr[

Sorry there is no Ek!

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.

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.

LOVE FOR STUDY OF SANSKRIT LANGUAGE

There used to be held inter-religious debates on many issues in Pasroor. Although Sahib Singh could not follow the frequent quotations made in Sanskrit by Arya Smajist Hindus, yet he was greatly attracted to the language. He resolved that he would learn this language, and in the high school he would study Sanskrit instead of Persian Language, He had learnt Gurmukhi alphabets the very next day he received Amrit, and was regularly reciting the Gurus’ Compositions.
He learnt the alphabets of Dev Nagri script (Hindi) in a couple of days.. At that time many friends and teachers told him, not to change the language, as the time left for the examination was very short (3 months only). Sahib Singh insisted that his language subject would be Sanskrit. He went to the Sanskrit teacher, who greatly encouraged him and promised all types of guidance. He began spending all of his time on study of Sanskrit language. In three months’ time he attained so much proficiency, which others could not attain in 3 years. In high school he always attained the first position in Sanskrit.

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

Where do you get Ong when Prof. Sahib Singh ji say it is “ E-EAM “ .

You are rehashing Prof. Sahib Singh ji’s discourses! So if the use of 1 is to simply clarify singularity/plurality of “Ong” per you why should it be phonetically sounded versus only read so.

Now EKOng is single word can be refered as SABADu and this SABADu is GuRoo in Gurbani.

Veer ji who is Guru ji’s teacher other than the one creator. You want such to be named Guroo whereas you previously confirmed that it is GUR.

So adding EKONG with KAAR we get the words EKOng-Kaar when all combined it would be pronounced as EKANKAAR which is there is Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji .It has meaning as SABADu GuRoo JOT(i).

This is wrong based on the comments above.

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 referred as CREATOR.
First you defined the meaning as the focus and now you are starting to say Gurbani should define phonetics of Languages! It is Gurbani (Writings of the Creator).

CREATOR is ONE is not the message from Gurbani.

Sorry your logic flaws have been shown and the above is not supported as being based on flawed concepts.

However the SYSTEM (as creator) is ONE this is the message as IKu EKANKAAR..Ref SukhmaniASTAPADI 10
Prakash.S.Bagga

What is this absurdity of now bringing other stuff of your own as “SYSTEM” and also calling it “creator”. Gurbani states the one creator is indefinable and you have now defined it as a system of some sort.

So can you define this system for us which is different than one creator? You may want to review the following sabad too,

Sukẖ Sāgar Har Nām Hai / ਸੁਖ ਸਾਗਰੁ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਹੈ

Sorry I find your argument and thesis unacceptable based on the above.

I am always open to comments and corrections.

Sat Sri Akal.
[/quote]

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

AMBARSARIA ji,
The word Ong is very much there in Gurbani as



पउड़ी ॥

Pa▫oṛī.

Pauree:


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.


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?
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Ambarsaria]

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

You keep saying the following,

So it is obvious that pronunciation of the SYMBOL as IK Ong Kaar is not there in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji

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,

ੴ

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।

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

AMBARSARIA ji,
The word Ong is very much there in Gurbani as

SIZE=+1]पउड़ी ॥[/SIZE]

Pa▫oṛī.

Pauree:


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.


The above quote is at pp250 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
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 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. (So it is obvious that ponunciation of the SYMBOL as IK Ong Kaar is not there in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji)
I considered this and I find the pronunciation EKANKAARu more in line with Gurbani.
What is wrong here?
Prakash.S.Bagga

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

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

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

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
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

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,

ੴ

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।

Sat Sri Akal.

AMBARSARIA Ji,
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 ?
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Ambarsaria]

If I am given two choices like One Pronunciation is in line with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and other not in line with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

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.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

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 Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji as a support as though others are doing something else not in line with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. 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.

AMBARSARIA Ji ,
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 .

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Prakash Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:

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.

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.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

ਪਉੜੀ ॥
पउड़ी ॥
Pa▫oṛī.
Pauree:
xxx

ਪਉੜੀ

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,
xxx

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 ॥
Salok.
Shalok:
xxx

ਸਲੋਕ

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॥

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

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. Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, 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.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

ਪਉੜੀ ॥
पउड़ी ॥
Pa▫oṛī.
Pauree:
xxx

ਪਉੜੀ

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 Guru 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,
xxx

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 ॥
Salok.
Shalok:
xxx

ਸਲੋਕ

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 Guru 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॥

TEJWANT SINGH Ji,
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
Prakash.S.Bagga