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.
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.
