Who Are The Gurus?

[spnadmin]

prakash.s.baggu ji

Some of us, and I am one, still do not accept that by shaving a distinction between the terms guroo/guru/gur one can get a deeper understanding of ShabadGuru.

ShabadGuru is greater than any one Guru, but all of our Gurus were of and in the Shabad Guru. Unity and not duality is IMHO the realization of what the shabads gently move us toward.

And in spite of all of that, the bani were written down by someone. In fact 6 of our Gurus did that. So it is nothing more than a term of art to say that a shabad in Mehla 5 is by Guru Arjan Dev. Of course it is by Guru Arjan Dev because he penned it for posterity.

At the same time only one ShabadGuru inspired and flowed through the pen of the 6.

How is the Guru/Guroo/Gur line of argument not distinction without a difference?

If you think my posts are unworthy of a reply, and decide to ignore them, I will not be offended. Thank you

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Spnadmin
Dear AMAN SINGH Ji,
Pl accept my divine Greetings,
I thankyou very much for your candid response to my post.I am not at all offended and I appreciate your concern.
In fact so far we have not given any thought that there is a definite pattern of Grammer in Gurbaani language.Acceptance comes next when we are primarily convinced about this fact of Gurbaani. This you will have to do yourself only.
If you sincerely go thru Gurbaani ypou will notice that it is always the word SHABADU being reffered as GUROO not the word SHABAD.{SHABADU is a word in GUrmukhi script of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji with a single underline at the last letterD}Would you pl consider as to what is the role of this underline in particular word.?
In fact as I know we all have been trained not to pronounce this underline of any word
,I dont know why but this has led to this confusion of understanding if we rewrite any such word of Gurbaani we dont take care of this underline and thus the word becomes defferent from what is there in Original Gurmukhi Script.
You will surprise to notice that nearly 70 percent of Gurbaani are related to this underline .If we obviate the underline of Gurbaani words then where is the understandingas a whole.
In the mean time I would be grateful to you if you can bring to my notice the word SHABAD GURU as you consider .f I am convinced then I am prepared to think the way you think.
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

Please note that the word SHABAD GURU was first introduced by you prakash.s.bagga ji in reply to forum leader findingmyway ji as follows

First we must be clear that the BAANI in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is neither of Any GURU in person or any BHAGAT.The Source of the whole Gurbaani is SHABADUGUROO Only.If we look at this aspect of Gurbaani we would find no difference in GURUS and BHAGATs as well.
Our GURS are reffered GURU because of GUROO JOTi which itself is reffered as NANAKU/NANAK.
It is not So in case of BHAGATS.

edited by spnadmin

 

[findingmyway]

Spnadmin
Dear AMAN SINGH Ji,
Pl accept my divine Greetings,
I thankyou very much for your candid response to my post.I am not at all offended and I appreciate your concern.
In fact so far we have not given any thought that there is a definite pattern of Grammer in Gurbaani language.Acceptance comes next when we are primarily convinced about this fact of Gurbaani. This you will have to do yourself only.
If you sincerely go thru Gurbaani ypou will notice that it is always the word SHABADU being reffered as GUROO not the word SHABAD.{SHABADU is a word in GUrmukhi script of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji with a single underline at the last letterD}Would you pl consider as to what is the role of this underline in particular word.?

You will surprise to notice that nearly 70 percent of Gurbaani are related to this underline .If we obviate the underline of Gurbaani words then where is the understandingas a whole.
In the mean time I would be grateful to you if you can bring to my notice the word SHABAD GURU as you consider .f I am convinced then I am prepared to think the way you think.
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

And what does this underline mean in your opinion. How do you think Shabadu is different from Shabad? Please share your understanding....

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Spnadmin
Dear AMAN SINGH Ji,
Pl accept my divine Greetings,
I thankyou very much for your candid response to my post.I am not at all offended and I appreciate your concern.
In fact so far we have not given any thought that there is a definite pattern of Grammer in Gurbaani language.Acceptance comes next when we are primarily convinced about this fact of Gurbaani. This you will have to do yourself only.
If you sincerely go thru Gurbaani ypou will notice that it is always the word SHABADU being reffered as GUROO not the word SHABAD.{SHABADU is a word in GUrmukhi script of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji with a single underline at the last letterD}Would you pl consider as to what is the role of this underline in particular word.?
In fact as I know we all have been trained not to pronounce this underline of any word
,I dont know why but this has led to this confusion of understanding if we rewrite any such word of Gurbaani we dont take care of this underline and thus the word becomes defferent from what is there in Original Gurmukhi Script.
You will surprise to notice that nearly 70 percent of Gurbaani are related to this underline .If we obviate the underline of Gurbaani words then where is the understandingas a whole.
In the mean time I would be grateful to you if you can bring to my notice the word SHABAD GURU as you consider .f I am convinced then I am prepared to think the way you think.
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

Prakash Singh Bagga ji,

Guru Fateh.

Despite Findingway ji's and mine several requests to you to interpret the Shabad that Namjap ji posted on your request using your knowledge of grammar in Gurbani, you have failed to do that for the reasons only known to you.

One wonders why this reluctance! If you do not share your knowledge through Gurbani so we all can understand it better, then what you claim becomes redundant and stops making sense in a Gurmat manner as you refuse to use your Gurmat wisdom to explain the Shabads.

I would urge you to do that and share your Gurmat knowledge with us, so that we can become better Sikhs.

I hope you heed to my request.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

FINDINGMYWAYS Ji,
Pl accept divine Greetings,

There is a difference in SINGLE COMPARTMENT and TRAIN.Can ASINGLE COMPARTMENT be reffered as TRAIN .The same is the difference in SHABADU and SHABAD,
For more clarification it would be worthwhile for you to go thru any good book on
Gurbaani Grammer.
With best wishes
Prakash.s.bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

TEJWANT SINGH JI,
Pl accept my Divine Greetings,
I am thankful to your suggestion of interpretation of Gurbaani GUrmati way.If accepting the interpretation without reasoning is the Gurmati way then I am not a part of this
way of understanding.
I am only interested in Gurbaani interpretation as per Grammer of Gurbaani words and if you feel grammer is not important in understanding of Gurbaani I can only say SORRY
Any one has full right to accept reject the views.There can be no compulsion.I am not a religious PREACHER or TEACHER.My concern was only to bring certain aspects of Gurbaani understanding based on Grammer only.
Regarding interpratation of the SHABAD posted by NAMJAP ji I have posted a message in your name nearly 5-6 days back in fact I was looking forward to your initial views but till date I didnt get.
If We all think that Gurbaani should not be understood making use of Grammer then why alone myself should work on it'In future I shall interact only on postings of general interest where there is no grammer involved because GRAMMER IS NOT IMPOTANT.
Withbest wishes and regards
Prakash.s.bagga

 

[sunmukh]

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam

SEEKER9 Ji;
Pl accept my Divine Greetings
Actually the word GURU is the reference for the GUROO JOTi.
In Gurbaani we would find that there is no concept that of meeting with GOD by any of person thru whom Gurbaani was revealed.No where in Gurbaani NANAK as person claimed as GURU.
It is this GUROO JOTi which is OMNIPOTENT{HARi}and OMNIPRESENT{RAM}.NANAK as person is DAS of HARi only.Similar is the situation with BHAGATS .
If we deeply understand Gurbaani We would come to know that this GUROO JOTi assumed the nameof NANAK and because of this effect others GURUs are referred as NANAK-2,NANAK-3 like that Sri Guru Granth Sahibji is also NANAK JOTi a living GURU.
For more clarification on this you may pl consider a Quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji refer pp490-491where it is
NANAK GUR TE GURU HOEAA VEKHO TIS KI RAJAAI
EHU KARAN KARTA KARE JOTI JOTi SAMAAI pp490-491Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji
Prakash.s.baggaswordfight

Sat Sri Akal

Prakash ji, I don't claim to have any deep or reliable understanding of Gurbani, but the manner in which you have written this post suggests within the first part that you believe "Guroo Joti" to be inanimate, whilst "Nanak" was a person, but then within the second part, "Guroo Joti" is implied by you to assume the penname "Nanak" (ie "Guru Joti" is now animate, whilst "Nanak" is now inanimate)

Am I missing something, or are you switching roles ad-hoc ?

JUSTRANDEEPSINGH Ji
WAHiGUROO Ji KA Khalsa
WAHiGUROO Li Ki Fateh
Out ten GURUS are part of GUROO JOTi Only.
There is no concept of GURU either being GOD or meeting GOD in Sikh Philosophy.Because there is no concept of GURU and GOD as two separate entities in Sikhism.
Prakash.S.Bagga

My limited personal understanding of the lines you quote from p490/491 and from the preceding Shabad, and from rest of SGGS ji, is quite different from yours. However I may be mistaken, as your understanding of what "Guroo Joti", "Guru" and "God" may make a huge difference. You also have something in mind with regards to distinguishing between terms like "Gur" "Guru" "Shabd" and "Shabdu". I have been reading your posts on this thread, but haven't worked out what you understand by each of these terms. If you could just define each of these separately, or perhaps state which ones you view to be commutative, then this will help me at least, and maybe others as well, to understand what you are suggesting.

Sat Sri Akal

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

DEAR SUNKUKH Ji;
Pl accept my divine greetings ,
You have very right question to ask.Thanks for this.I think it would be worthwhile for you to have some preliminary knowledge of Gurbaani grammer.For this you may refer some good books in the subject.
From your very first address as EK ONKAAR SAT NAAM it is clear you are required to be familiar with Gurbaani words.If you go thru Gurmukhi version of SGGS ji you will find tha the word SATNAAM is actually SATiNAAMU.
Once you are confirmed about this then I may be in a position to clarify your point
accordingly.
I look forward to your response to my request
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

I make the same suggestion for JUSTRANDEEP Ji.
I hope you will appreciate my point of view in this regard.

 

[sunmukh]

DEAR SUNKUKH Ji;
Pl accept my divine greetings ,
You have very right question to ask.Thanks for this.I think it would be worthwhile for you to have some preliminary knowledge of Gurbaani grammer.For this you may refer some good books in the subject.
From your very first address as EK ONKAAR SAT NAAM it is clear you are required to be familiar with Gurbaani words.If you go thru Gurmukhi version of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji you will find tha the word SATNAAM is actually SATiNAAMU.
Once you are confirmed about this then I may be in a position to clarify your point
accordingly.
I look forward to your response to my request
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

I make the same suggestion for JUSTRANDEEP Ji.
I hope you will appreciate my point of view in this regard.

Ek OnKaar Sat Naamu

Prakash ji, you are quite right about the "u" in Sat Naamu. I have also thought about this previously, but decided it made no difference to what I understood from Sikh ideology. It is the overall ideology or philosophy, that I am interested in, and not technical points, or precise meanings of single words or lines. I have selected this introduction to posts, and most readers will understand pretty well what is meant by the phrase.

However to respond to your point, I think the "u" in Sat Naamu, is simply a very subtle soft "uh" --- it is possessive form of the verb "to be". This implies "OnKaar" is "Truth", the "Naam" referred to by peers and predecessors of Guru Nanak Dev ji, and hence the "Naam" referred to in the remainder of SGGS ji. Naam is an ancient term, but Guru Nanak Dev ji is emphasising by use of the "u" that the only "Naam" is Truth, and nothing else. There is nobody who can give "naam" and people do not have to receive "naam". All people have to do is understand Truth is OnKaar, and Truth is a complete representation of that same "naam" of vedic faiths. Hence we can interpret "Ek OnKaar Sat Naamu" as " One Creator Lord; Truth is the embodiment of that One Creator Lord"

This brings us to what you see in different versions of root words. Grammar will make subtle differences, but unless you wish to undertake a supreme scholarly project, which of course you are most entitled to do, you will have to accept standard interpretations until they disturb you. Some differences may even be down to evolution of words, and mis-spellings. Language changes and all are prone to error save for God.

The essence of Gurbani comes through without deep investigations. Guru ji occasionally mocks those who made very intense studies and debated endlessly over technical issues, but lost the main message whilst entrapped in such studies. Nobody knows God but God Himself. This is a loud statement in Gurbani. One can search forever and debate forever but no-one will find a complete solution or full representation to the nature of God. One has to rely on faith.

When you have established a clear vision of what you can take from Sikhi, then that will be enough to follow that path. You must have faith in it. Going down the path is far more important than knowing the exact nature of the path. It could be made of concrete, tarmac, grass or mud, but if one does not set foot on it because one wants to know what one treads on, then there will be no possibility of reaching any destination.

As for my faith, surrendering oneself to leadership kindly provided by God in the form of the Sat Guru He generously implants in each and every sentient being, will eventually take one to God. One requires faith in the path that God sets for all. His Hukam that one accepts. He has set the path, so it cannot be false. If not we can spend time debating, or turning to countless babas or prophets whilst we dither over what to accept. Whilst we dither the opportunity to grasp this chance to escape from the cycle of reincarnation dwindles away. There is only Truth, no miraculous fast-track routes, and no unique path.

I get this advice from Guru ji from the shabd you mention on P490:

One has to accept what God gives, and go wherever He leads us by virtue of delegation of that role to Sat Guru (who resides in the temple of one's mind), if we want peace of mind here and now. If we surrender to that Guru then one loses one's own identity (rooted in ego), and hence merges with that Sat Guru. We are liberated from our own delusions and attachments, and see things as they really are. This is Truth.

Sat Sri Akal

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

DEAR SUNKUKH Ji,
Pl accept my divine Greetings,
I thak you for appreciating the use of underline in the Gurbaani Word NAAMu.I fully agree to your explanations .I am sure you may get more clarifications to the significance of such words This shall be done by SATiGURU ji only .
You have mentioned regarding change of language with time.Is this aspect applicable to GURBAANI which we say as JUO JUG ATAL BAANI.Who gives us the right to alter the form of Gurbaani words? Is this our GURMATi which allows us ?.These questions need to be answered before we can accept the change.
In the mean time I would be grateful to you if you can tell me where do I get in Guebaani that ONKAAR is as EK ONKAAR.I am eqully interested and open to accept if
there is something wrong with my own thinking.I am fully prepared to change if satisfiedas per Gurbaani Vichar only.
You say ONKAAR is GOD.But if I ask my GURU I dont get the answer so.I should accept what you say or accept what GURU is telling?
I look forward to your response in the subject
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Ref:Gurbaani Language

THE LANGUAGE OF GURBAANI IS SACRO-SANCT.IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY GURSIKH TO SEE THAT THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT IS MAINTAINED IF TRANSLATED TO ANY OTHER LANGUAGE>ANY VARIATION IN THE FORM OF GURBAANI WORDS WOULD LEAD TO CONFUSIONS ONLY.
THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE GREATEST SERVICE TO OUR GURUS.
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[sunmukh]

Ref:Gurbaani Language

THE LANGUAGE OF GURBAANI IS SACRO-SANCT.IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY GURSIKH TO SEE THAT THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT IS MAINTAINED IF TRANSLATED TO ANY OTHER LANGUAGE>ANY VARIATION IN THE FORM OF GURBAANI WORDS WOULD LEAD TO CONFUSIONS ONLY.
THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE GREATEST SERVICE TO OUR GURUS.
Prakash.S.Bagga

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam/u

Prakash ji, the original script cannot be maintained in langauges that use alternative scripts. I can think of only Punjabi that uses the Gurmukhi script, so any translation requires abandonment of the script. Dissemination of the teachings of SGGS ji in as many languages as possible, even if some small loss is made in meaning, would be a good service. SGGS ji gives very useful and eternally true advice.

Sat Sri Akal

 

[spnadmin]

As a point of information only.

To maintain the Gurmukhi script in its original form would require that all the search engines versions of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, gutkas, and similar texts, such as Mahan Kosh and Guru Granth Darpan, be scrapped. Or they would have to be republished - a costly venture. The purest form of Gurmukhi is the larevaar script, by which all the words are continuous. The use of larevaar was abandoned even by SGPC sometime in the 1960's in favor of what we now read, the pad ched script, where words are given separately. The point of the change was to make the Shabad easier to read, at that time for those Punjabis who had been schooled in the pad ched using modern print materials. That change from larevaar to pad ched was also not without controversy. Today we read pad ched I assume because making the shabad of the gurus more accessible was an important thing to do.

The pic attached to this comment shows the same vaar in pad ched and larevaar.

 

[sunmukh]

DEAR SUNKUKH Ji,
Pl accept my divine Greetings,
I thak you for appreciating the use of underline in the Gurbaani Word NAAMu.I fully agree to your explanations .I am sure you may get more clarifications to the significance of such words This shall be done by SATiGURU ji only .
You have mentioned regarding change of language with time.Is this aspect applicable to GURBAANI which we say as JUO JUG ATAL BAANI.Who gives us the right to alter the form of Gurbaani words? Is this our GURMATi which allows us ?.These questions need to be answered before we can accept the change.
In the mean time I would be grateful to you if you can tell me where do I get in Guebaani that ONKAAR is as EK ONKAAR.I am eqully interested and open to accept if
there is something wrong with my own thinking.I am fully prepared to change if satisfiedas per Gurbaani Vichar only.
You say ONKAAR is GOD.But if I ask my GURU I dont get the answer so.I should accept what you say or accept what GURU is telling?
I look forward to your response in the subject
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

DEAR SUNKUKH Ji,
Pl accept my divine Greetings,
I thak you for appreciating the use of underline in the Gurbaani Word NAAMu.I fully agree to your explanations .I am sure you may get more clarifications to the significance of such words This shall be done by SATiGURU ji only .
You have mentioned regarding change of language with time.Is this aspect applicable to GURBAANI which we say as JUO JUG ATAL BAANI.Who gives us the right to alter the form of Gurbaani words? Is this our GURMATi which allows us ?.These questions need to be answered before we can accept the change.
In the mean time I would be grateful to you if you can tell me where do I get in Guebaani that ONKAAR is as EK ONKAAR.I am eqully interested and open to accept if
there is something wrong with my own thinking.I am fully prepared to change if satisfiedas per Gurbaani Vichar only.
You say ONKAAR is GOD.But if I ask my GURU I dont get the answer so.I should accept what you say or accept what GURU is telling?
I look forward to your response in the subject
With best wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam/u

Prakash ji, I was hoping you would be providing your understanding of words like Gur; Guroo; Shabd; Shabdu instead of leaving me to learn from SatiGuru ji only.

You also didn't pick up on use of sihari before tatt ha in "Sati" when you picked up on missing aunkar under mamma in Sat Naam.
The same sihari appears in "SatGuru". This is translated as "True Guru", whereas when it comes to Sat Naam, this is commonly translated as "The Name is Truth" So in one form it is translated as True, and in another as Truth. At same time "sach" is also translated as "true", and Sati is only pronounced as Sat instead of Sati. The pronunciation is actually same as for the number seven (Satt) which uses an adhak and no sihari at all.


Never mind though. As long as we understand the intention the detail is immaterial.

This web-site may be of interest to you whilst pursuing grammar, language and script issues:

http://www.sikhspirit.com/khalsa/punjabi1.htm


As for your point regarding "Ek-OnKaar":

One doesn't have to read in "God" if one doesn't wish to. This is the duality creeping in, setting God apart. When one reads this phrase, one could understand "Ek-Onkaar" as "There is only one complete creation in which the creator pervades throughout". Guru Nanak Dev ji doesn't describe a separate God who lives well away from individuals. Instead Gurbani states He is both very near, and far. One who wishes to realise "God" will need to break down the duality in one's mind, and identify with the ever resident Lord. One has to accept one's mool (origins), instead of living in a separate delusory state created by ego

jaisaa ghar baahar so taisaa.
​

​

Just as He is within the home of the self, so is He beyond.​

(p221)​

saglee jot jaataa too so-ee mili-aa bhaa-ay subhaa-ay.
​

​

Your Light is in everyone; through it, You are known. Through love, You are easily met.​

(p765)​

"God resides in His Creation" and "His creation resides in Him".

jaat meh jot jot meh jaataa akal kalaa bharpoor rahi-aa.
​

​

Your Light is in Your creatures, and Your creatures are in Your Light; Your almighty power is pervading everywhere.​

( p469)​

Prakash ji wrote:

You say ONKAAR is GOD.But if I ask my GURU I dont get the answer so.I should accept what you say or accept what GURU is telling?

Veer Prakash ji, you are questioning whether you should accept my advice, or Guru ji's advice. Ji, this is a forum for discussion. You will read many different versions because people understand matters differently. If not there would be little to discuss. Guru Ji's advice is there plain and simple, in ink, in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.Any advice which you may see as advice from me, is not offered as a warranted reinterpretation of what was on Guru Sahibans mind when Bani was written. I was not there. Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji has given me an understanding which I am sharing wth you. You can go directly to Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, and this is the best option for you. It is the same Guru Ji who provides advice to me. It seems quite straightforward to me, but then I am not worrying about grammar issues, or single lines. I don't really care if there is an aunkar or not, but I can see you are concerned. The translations are very good and provide a wealth of invaluable advice. Over the whole of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, any discrepancies that happen to be spotted between translations and the original become insignificant, to the point that they can be ignored and forgotten. It is the message that counts, and it is the message that changes thinking in the mind, rather than individual words.

jin kahi-aa tin kahan vakhaani-aa.
​

​

One who speaks, merely describes speech.
jin boojhi-aa tin sahj pachhaani-aa.
But one who understands, intuitively realizes​

(P221)​

However if you are finding difficulty in accepting translations, then you can choose to read other's interpretations, as together they may help you to understand better, and so form an intuitive understanding. Not all people spend their time trying to mislead others. I frequently read posts suggesting people are out to deliberately misguide others. To me this suggests there is some paranoia within some members of Sikh forums. My own personal opinion is that most people do not have the time or patience to engage in this sort of activity. There may be some manic people about but most people do try to help others when possible. They may make mistakes, but who doesn't? Whether you accept what someone else writes is entirely your choice, and it your right to reject any advice as well.

The whole of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji provides wonderful advice, but for the purpose of this thread, running into discussion of what are Gurus, grammar, words, and use of "God" in Ek OnKaar, I would urge you to read the shabd beginning p220 ending middle of p228, entitled:

RAAG GAUREE, ASHTAPADEES, FIRST MEHL: GAUREE GWAARAYREE

There is only one creation and one God, and you are part of it; when you realise this, all your doubts and questions about grammar, gurus and God will disappear, as will notions about great respect and disrepect. All the differences will become immaterial, and you will not be interested in the correctness of answers. Problems of all people who follow organised religions but still look for ever deeper meanings in scriptures, are created by the mind, as the mind seeks to set itself apart from the truth. Sikhi is very simple, but Sikhi is as much prone to misinterpretation as any other religion, by people who are not interested in learning from Sikhi, but are instead attached to Sikhism, as their form of identifier. They will then seek parts they can use to create division. This statement is not intended to malign or condemn you, as it is a natural process of the mind caught in duality, whilst ego presides. What one must do is destroy ego, and you will then view yourself as neither Hindu, Mussalman or Sikh. You will only be a GurSikh, with no attachment to any religious grouping, but great love and compassion for all. (I am not suggesting you need to give up 5ks, etc, but am saying your mind will not be attached to your Sikh identity, to the point that you judge others or yourself by reference to that identity)

Sat Sri Akal

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Dear SUNKUKH Ji
Pl accept my divine greetings,
I am greatly diappointed at your views on Gurbaani language.I didnt expect like that from a person of your calibre .
I am extremely sorry Dear Sunmukh Ji
With best Wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Spnadmin
Dear Aman Singh Ji
Pl accept my Divine Greetings,
I really appreciate presenting some authentic comparison of LARIVAAR and PADCHED Script of SggS ji.
You will yourself notice that LAREWAAR BAANI did have proper gramatical indications and the same have been retained in PAD CHED Script.
In fact we should be greatly thankful to the person who undertook the whole script in PADCHED and made Gurbaani easily understandable by us.This person must have great and perfect Knowledge of Gurbaani grammer.
You will surmise to know ,had the grammer indications not been provided it would have
been difficult task to undertake PADCHED script,
Thanks for your valuable information
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[spnadmin]

Spnadmin
Dear Aman Singh Ji
Pl accept my Divine Greetings,
I really appreciate presenting some authentic comparison of LARIVAAR and PADCHED Script of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.
You will yourself notice that LAREWAAR BAANI did have proper gramatical indications and the same have been retained in PAD CHED Script.
In fact we should be greatly thankful to the person who undertook the whole script in PADCHED and made Gurbaani easily understandable by us.This person must have great and perfect Knowledge of Gurbaani grammer.
You will surmise to know ,had the grammer indications not been provided it would have
been difficult task to undertake PADCHED script,
Thanks for your valuable information
Prakash.S.Bagga

Prakash S. Bagga ji

Thanks for your reply. It is and has always been clear to me that the diacritical marks, including the aunkar, are included in the Larevaar script. That was not why I brought the matter of Larevaar up. The question of "original script" came up before that post. You raised the issue that without proper grammar, to include the aunkar, we have strayed from Guru's original language.

However, the importance of aunkar was and always has been in this thread in reference to pad ched. I am trying to take things a step further. If we are concerned about having the original version of script, as you seem to be, then a discussion of the aunkar to indicate the plural becomes superfluous. If we want the "original" then Larevaar is what we must use.

What is important and what is not important?

Is it important to have the original script of the Gurus?

If so, then the logical answer is not to worry over the aunkar. It is there as you yourself say in the Larevaar version. The aunkars are all right where they are supposed to be.

Maybe that is not the question. Next question.

Is it important to have the aunkar in the pad ched script? If yes is the answer, then what is the problem? The aunkar is present in most script versions of the shabad, including the unicode versions on the web. Why are we worried about it then?

Perhaps there is a different question that is really our concern.

Is it important to represent the sound of the aunkar in the "transliterations" of the Gurmukhi? As forum member Sunmukh ji has pointed out that is usually impossible one is using a non-Indic script.

But let me point out one thing. There are several transliteration systems on the web and some of them attempt to include the sound of the aunkar. These systems may not be used all the time. Here is an example where the sound is included: ISO 15919 transliteration: Ika ōaṅkāra sati nāmu karatā purakhu nirabha'u niravairu akāla mūrati ajūnī saibhaṃ gura prasādi

It is the ISO 15919 transliteration system.

But my next question is this? Let us first stipulate that the Gurmukhi script does include all of the important diacriticals that help us grasp the GRAMMAR of Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

ੴ ਸਤਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਕਰਤਾ ਪੁਰਖੁ ਨਿਰਭਉ ਨਿਰਵੈਰੁ ਅਕਾਲ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਅਜੂਨੀ ਸੈਭੰ ਗੁਰ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦਿ ॥


Now let's take a look at 3 different transliterations of the Mool Mantar

1. Ika ōaṅkāra sati nāmu karatā purakhu nirabha'u niravairu akāla mūrati ajūnī saibhaṃ gura prasādi

2. Ik▫oaʼnkār saṯ nām karṯā purakẖ nirbẖa▫o nirvair akāl mūraṯ ajūnī saibẖaʼn gur parsāḏ.

3. ikoankaar sathnaam karathaa purakh nirabho niravair akaal moorath ajoonee saibhan gurprasaadh||

Only number 3 does not include the transliteration of the aunkar. Number 3. From your perspective please explain how the translation of the mool mantar will be any different whether the aunkar is in the transliteration, or not?

I propose that it changes nothing, because the transliteration is there only for the purposes of bridging the sounds of Punjabi to the sounds of English or other languages with a similar phonetic system. The transliteration has no bearing on grammar of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The TRANSLATION, and its grammatical accuracy, is based on the Gurmukhi - where we can see the aunkar is always present.

4. Is it important to PRONOUNCE the sound of aunkar in order to be correct in grammar and therefore correct in meaning? If the answer is yes, that is a matter of learning. For that there are many wonderful examples on the web of Shabads in video where the pronunciation is excellent. We can use them to learn. A transliteration does not have to spell out the aunkar for pronunciation to be correct. Again the Gurmukhi not the transliteration should be the reference point.

I also believe that a discussion of Guru as Guroo can only go so far before the message of Guru Nanak gets bogged down and can be missed completely. Every forum member knows that correct grammar is essential to understanding the meaning of any language. Punjabi in Gurmukhi script is not unique in this regard. Is there a good way to wrap it up?

 

[spnadmin]

Forum members who have come late into this discussion. It is 12 pages long. The original topic was not about grammar, spelling and meaning. The thread needs to return to its original topic. This is not my first request Thank you.

 

[sunmukh]

Dear SUNKUKH Ji
Pl accept my divine greetings,
I am greatly diappointed at your views on Gurbaani language.I didnt expect like that from a person of your calibre .
I am extremely sorry Dear Sunmukh Ji
With best Wishes
Prakash.S.Bagga

Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
Parkash ji, not everybody has same understanding of Gurbani or attaches equal priority to the same matters that others attach priority to. I have limited direct understanding of Gurbani, so am reliant upon translations. They are more than good enough for me, as what they communicate is very easily understood, and I trust the translators to be far more competent than I ever will be. There is no need for you to express any sorrow. I wish you well in your learning and projects.
Sat Sri Akal

 

[spnadmin]

sunmukh ji

You are always gracious. Another important consideration regarding the aunkar


Regarding the grammatical possibilities of the aunkar. Forum mentor Gyani Jarnail Singh Arshi has noted on another thread that purakh(u) purakh + the aunkar indicates a proper noun given the context in which it is used. There is some very interesting material on this thread, which reflects the scholarship of Bhai Ranghir Singh and Professor Sant Singh Sahib.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/26996-the-mool-mantar-sikhis-blueprint-roadmap.html

The Purakh has an "aunkad" under the KH..meaning it is a PROPER NOUN..according to Gurbani Grammar.

So in addition to my previous remarks,

I do not agree that ਨਾਮੁ naam(u) implies the plural of naam, or that ਪੁਰਖੁ purakh(u) implies the plural of purakh. By the same logic ਗੁਰੁ gur(u) need not imply the plural of guru.