Omn Vs Waheguru

[DivineJourney]

Hi guys

Just wanted to take your views on the use of shabad while Naam Simran....what is the relavent of using 'Omn' shabad while meditating or naam simran. And its relavenc in Sikhi? any difference between Omnkar or Omn or Vaheguru???? And why Omn is always associated wid Hindus?????

Love

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Om origionally stood for the One Almighty. However, Om became entangled with the three primary Hindu dieties. So Om has now come to represent Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

However, Ik Onkaar was written specifically to talk of the ONE Almighty, independent of the three dieties.

Some info: http://www.hindunet.org/aum/

[DivineJourney]

wats the banis view on Om, Omnkar and Vaheguru!

[munjoth]

i think it was always "on" not "om" i think this was changed as guru nanak dev ji when he went to the sidhis he put them on the right road by saying that "ona" only represents the 3 chele so where is god in all this....so he brought to them "Onkar" "kar" means continuous one that never ends etc..and "ik" as added as there is only one who is continuous.

Now, i think, the jogis use "onkar" to meditate on not "on" Sikhs are given the full moolmanter not just ik onkar as to meditate just on "ik onkar" is quite powerful hence why it shouldnt be attempted.

For a clear katha on ik onkar etc you should download the katha by giani thakur singh he goes into more deph of what "ona" means and how "ik onkar" came about :wub: - www.gurmatveechar.com and jap ji sahib katha or ill be happy to send it too you if you are unable to get it form that site.

[gupt_paapi]

Waheguru Ji ka Khalsa

Waheguru ji Ki Fateh!

Now, i think, the jogis use "onkar" to meditate on not "on" Sikhs are given the full moolmanter not just ik onkar as to meditate just on "ik onkar" is quite powerful hence why it shouldnt be attempted.

117742[/snapback]

thanks 4 the info... but with those kinda statements... its kinda tempting for moorakhs lyk me 2 try dat out! lol :wub:

anyway Omn, as mentioned above means 1 almighty. thats 1 gun (compliment kinda thing) but we all know, that we can praise Him soo amny times. With so many words/names. THis is why Our Guru gave us 1 word: WAHGURU. its not jsut 1 praise, its ALL of them combineed into 1.

u r sooo amazed at His creation, so many words to express it.. u can only say WOW. WAH WAH! thats how u express ur amazement of How He is.

Guru means Teacher. So its WAH + GURU. U r wowing at ur true teacher. WAH WAH!! UR CREATION IS SOO BEAUTIFUL. WAHH!! UR SOO AMAZINGG :wub:

And on top of dat, in Bhai Gudas Ji's Writings, it is said that it took 36 AGES to produce the name WAHEGURU. 9 ages per letter (WA + HE + GU + RU). Now how amazing is that fact by itself?! :wub: Just His Name is so amazing.

So the WORD WAHEGURU is so amazing, imagine the Owner of that name!!! WOW.

In conclusion, i beleve that Waheguru is the best to do Simran on, coz then ur meditatin on everyhting about him.. its powerful enough to give u mukti. The whole Guru Granth Sahib is based around the NAAm. wot is this naam? WAHEGURU.

Hope i answered ur questoin :wub: Forgive me for spelling mistakes (too used 2 msn ) and if i added summign untrue, thats my manmukh mind, n if there is truth in the writing, that is from the Guru's mouth :TH:

Waheguru ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji KI FATEHHH!!!

[harsharan000]

Om is the origin of the the trinty of gods such as :  Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Om is also Maya, as referred by Guru Jee as mother of these her 3 sons.

Om as seen above, should not be confused with Oankar, which are 2 different things.

Oankar is Ik, which means the Lord creator is One, and that creator as mentioned by Sree Guru Nanak Dev Maharaj, that Oankar or Lord, is Sat Nam.

So Oankar is a description of the only True real being,  who is Sat Nam, hence  it is this ultimate reality, which Guru Sahiban and Bhagat Jan of the highest rank,  mention in the Bani, to give our love and devotion only.

While some due due to their karam, aspire at most to Swarg,  Baikunth or any other spiritual planes, in sikhee, by following Gurbani implicitly,  we aim towards Akal Purukh and Sach Khand, the eternal and changeless realm of ultimate Truth, by Guru Jee´s kirpa.

Sat Sree Akal.

[MrDoaba]

Om and On(g) are the same thing. The pronunciation of Om differs amongst different schools of thought with some stating it is pronounced the same as On(g). That's to not say Om and Ik Onkaar are the same thing, of course Guru Sahib has made this distinction; the Ik is what sets it apart.

Also just as On(g) does not have only one arth, neither does Om.

All I'm stating is that the On(g) part of Onkaar is the same as Om, they are one and the same and this is accepted in traditional Sikhi. But it's no surprise people and stupid "preachers" find this hard to digest with their revisionist nonsense and Hinduphobia.

On(g)/Om is written differently depending on the script, obviously we use Gurmukhi and it's not exactly a bombshell that the Gurmukhi one looks very similar to some of the other scripts...because it's the same thing.

 

 

- Taken from a Sikh text written in Devanagri which says "Ik Onkaar Satgur Prasad". If On(g) and Om were not the same, then the translator wouldn't have gone to the trouble of writing it this way, instead he would have written Ik Onkaar in Gurmukhi.

 

 

- Taken from a commercial product, for reference. "Omkaar/On(g)kaar" in Devanagri script.

 

 

- Taken from a Puratan Pothi Sahib, again illustrating On(g) and Om are in fact the same thing; with Brahma Ji, Vishnu Ji, and Shiv Ji depicted in the On(g) and Akaal Purkh depicted in the Ik. This is artistic representation before anybody shouts "there is no image of Akaal Purkh blah blah". People were not so anti-imagery or anti-art back in the day.

 

  - Om in Bengali and Oriya script. Clear resemblance.

 

 

Gurbar Akaal!

[Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi]

15 hours ago, MrDoaba said:

Om and On(g) are the same thing. The pronunciation of Om differs amongst different schools of thought with some stating it is pronounced the same as On(g). That's to not say Om and Ik Onkaar are the same thing, of course Guru Sahib has made this distinction; the Ik is what sets it apart.

Also just as On(g) does not have only one arth, neither does Om.

All I'm stating is that the On(g) part of Onkaar is the same as Om, they are one and the same and this is accepted in traditional Sikhi. But it's no surprise people and stupid "preachers" find this hard to digest with their revisionist nonsense and Hinduphobia.

On(g)/Om is written differently depending on the script, obviously we use Gurmukhi and it's not exactly a bombshell that the Gurmukhi one looks very similar to some of the other scripts...because it's the same thing.

 

 

- Taken from a Sikh text written in Devanagri which says "Ik Onkaar Satgur Prasad". If On(g) and Om were not the same, then the translator wouldn't have gone to the trouble of writing it this way, instead he would have written Ik Onkaar in Gurmukhi.

 

 

- Taken from a commercial product, for reference. "Omkaar/On(g)kaar" in Devanagri script.

 

 

- Taken from a Puratan Pothi Sahib, again illustrating On(g) and Om are in fact the same thing; with Brahma Ji, Vishnu Ji, and Shiv Ji depicted in the On(g) and Akaal Purkh depicted in the Ik. This is artistic representation before anybody shouts "there is no image of Akaal Purkh blah blah". People were not so anti-imagery or anti-art back in the day.

 

  - Om in Bengali and Oriya script. Clear resemblance.

 

 

Gurbar Akaal!

In other thread u were saying kurte are brahman influence and here you're crying abt hindu phobia LOL. ur confused haa 

BTW , Dakhni Oankar baani makes it clear what is Oankar.

I urge the op to read it 

To the OP  : 

"Onam akhar tribhavan saar" (The 'ONam' (om) word is the essence of the three worlds).

So like hindus we believe this "sound" created universe. But we don't call it "om" , we call it "oan" . 

 

[MrDoaba]

23 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

In other thread u were saying kurte are brahman influence and here you're crying abt hindu phobia LOL. ur confused haa 

BTW , Dakhni Oankar baani makes it clear what is Oankar.

I urge the op to read it 

To the OP  : 

"Onam akhar tribhavan saar" (The 'ONam' (om) word is the essence of the three worlds).

So like hindus we believe this "sound" created universe. But we don't call it "om" , we call it "oan" . 

 

Dear oh dear Ajeet. That was sarcasm you plonker! Sorry you missed it. Odd you say I was "crying" though, that's what you do with your RSS/Brahmin conspiracy topics. Seems like you're the confused one...shall I write "LOL" also?

 

Anyway, you're 100% right, Dakhni Oankaar does explain what Oankaar is. I also completely agree with your statement that like Hindus we believe this sound created the universe. But technically you're wrong when you say we don't call it Om, because neither do they.

ਓਨਮ ਅਖਰੁ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਸਾਰੁ ॥੧॥  
Onam akẖar ṯaribẖavaṇ sār. ||1||  
The Universal, Imperishable Creator Lord is the essence of the three worlds. ||1||  

Onam stands "On(g) Namah", which is a Mantra used by Hindus. - ਓਅੰ ਨਮਹ

The historical context of this Bani is important. Guru Sahib is explaining the Arth of Oankaar and giving Updesh. Guru Shaib is not saying "oh Pandit, you almost got it right, it's not Om, it's On(g)...you Hindus are wrong". You see, the "Hindus" did have that part (the sound) right, they always have, that isn't the issue, because surprise...Om and On(g) is the same thing. Guru Sahib is instead explaining, as you quite correctly said, what Oankaar is. More on this later.

Now then, you, and others may be thinking "that doesn't make sense because Hindus say Om not On(g)/Oan....of course they're wrong!". But unfortunately (for some lol), they're not..."why not?" you may ask. It's because there is no such thing as "Om". First of all, there is no "M" sound in the character ॐ...it is not represented in the Om symbol anywhere. Secondly, if you read about the way Sanskrit and other Indian languages were and are transliterated, you would find that in many cases the nasal sound produced by Bindis and Tippis, and in this case the Chandrabindu (a type of Bindi used in the Devanagari script which indicates a strong nasal sound), have been incorrectly transliterated in the Roman script with the letter M. Even now, when you read transliterations of Sanskrit or Hindi, many times where there is a Bindu or Chandrabindu, it is transliterated as M. Over time this corrupt form has become the popular way of saying it. Obviously you're not supposed to pronounce the M as an English one though.

However, having said all this one could still argue that many people, Hindus included, still pronounce Om with the English M sound...and yes many do. But many people also pronounce Oankaar differently (or wrong depending on your perspective). Those who have had Santhiya will pronounce it correctly, just as those Hindus who have studied Sanskrit and learnt to read their scriptures properly will (if you listen carefully enough to recitations you will notice this).

So, the fact remains ॐ and ਓਅੰ are indeed pronounced in the same way and have the same sound!

Lastly, and going back to the historical context or Uthanka of this Bani...people had started to equate ॐ/ਓਅੰ to Shiv Ji...it had become synonymous with him, hence the name "Omkareshwar" or "Lord of Om".  Guru Sahib was correcting the Pandit there and giving Updesh on the true nature of Oankaar; that the true Omkareshwar is Akaal Purkh.

In Madhya Pradesh stands a Gurdwara that marks Guru Nanak Dev Ji's visit called Gurdwara Sri Omkareshwar Sahib located near the main shrine dedicated to Shiv Ji.

Again as we can see, the transliteration is "Omkareshwar" but in Devanagari it is spelt ओंकारेश्वर...with a bindu, of which the actual transliteration would be Onkaareshwar.

 

Amazing what you can learn when you don't be so Hinduphobic, isn't it?

 

Gurbar Akaal!