Talk:Om/Archive 1

Disambiguation

Is there a Wikipedia convention about where to put disambiguation links that don't merit a separate disambiguation page? I agree that Aum Shinrikyo isn't relevant to the topic, but I have frequently seen "Aum" used as a shorthand for it, and I don't know whether casual browsers (who might not know, or be able to spell, the full name) would scroll as far as the bottom. I thought I'd generally seen these links at the top, but then I'm relatively new here. Mike Capp 21:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If there is/are only one or two different meanings, why not like the Linux or Tungstenpage, place an italized paragraph on top? This may not be the official Wikipedia way (don't know).--Jondel 23:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just moved it to the top. Btw, Wikipedia:Disambiguation does recommend this method as one of the ways to deal with disambigs, so I suppose it is an official Wikipedia way. -- Zawersh 00:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IE 6

The page looks really screwed up in IE 6. Anyone else? --mjwilco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.36.211.11 (talk • contribs).

Screwed in my IE6 too.--Jondel 08:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fixed it I think. Is is better now?--Jond

el 06:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirect from Om to Aum; page transfer

I will probably be criticized by people for making this change (but that's inevitable in Wikipedia). I did it primarily because of the nature of the subject being discussed. Even in the Vedas and Upanishads and mystic Hindu texts that are the primary source for the syllable, "aum" is described as the threefold product of the sounds "a", "u" and "m". It makes little sense to transcribe it as Om. This goes primarily to accuracy. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:28, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Aum or Om?

There should be a consensus about the spelling of the word. Aum, as LordSuryaofShropshire points out, it composed of the three seperate sounds, this is reflected in the Devnagri (i.e. original) rendition of the sound. Sfacets 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page, as 'Aum' is commonly used in Hindu or Hindu-based religions, whereas 'Om' is commonly associated with Buddhism. Sfacets 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Trance?

What on earth does goa/psychadelic trance have to do with this article on Aum? Sfacets 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The symbol is very common in the trance scene, mainly among Goa trance fans. It has become one of their characteristics. Perheps I'll write a paragraph about it when I'll find the time. Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 16:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't one of their characteristics. It became popular in the west in the 60's with the Hippy countercultural movement, and in doing so lost it's original significance. It was taken up again by The Goa trance scene, which some see as a progression/branch of the original Hippy movement.

In comparison to it's main use in Hinduism for example, it plays an extremely minor role in the Trance scene, and doesn't symbolise it - most people in the west would associate the Aumkara to either the Hippy movement, or Hinduism/Buddhism, not trance. Sfacets 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Aum shape is, for my opinon, the biggest characteristic of the Goa trance. The hippie culture is irrelevant, the point is that in these days, many non-Hindu people in the world see it as their representative. I don't think you are aware to the trance scene for making these statements. Here, visit psyshop, type "goa" in the search bar and check how many albums havingn Aum shape on the cover. And that's just the most commercial (aka the "full on" subgenre of psytrance and not real Goa) albums!

I also suggest you read Goa trance#History and make the diffrence between western "club trance" and eastern goa trance. Club trance has nothing to do with Aum. Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 05:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the mention of trance, and I was specific about Psychedelic Trance. The use of the symbol in Goa and Psy-trance is a simple fact. The only reason anyone would remove this item would be if they had a point of view they wished to enforce on the article. User:Transentient 17:08, July 8, 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it merits inclusion, however stating that the symbol AUM is the main symbol of Goa trance is an over-simplification.

Sfacets 22:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But you can't have Goa without Hinduism. Goa trance came about when a bunch of generally wealthy new age / hippy westerners went to India looking for stimulation. They took some powerful psychedelic drugs and found themselvs face-to-face with a very old and well-developed culture that was built on a particularly profound spiritual foundation. Goa trance is, essentially, what Hinduism looks like to westerners on drugs. Therefore, the Aum is as important to the devotees of the Goa trance movement as it is to Hindus. User:Transentient 06:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Names of God in other Religions

Would a "See Also" or some other link section, with links to the name attributed to/used for the deity in other religions, be useful here? Examples would be Allah and the Tetragrammaton. --Jm woltjen 20:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in Origin

The origin section says:

The OM symbol's left part, which looks like a figure 3, looks like the form of the ū vowel used as a syllable with no attached initial consonant (in the Devanagari script ऊ (Unicode U+090A); but it is actually based on a Brahmi version of ओ (the vowel ō as written without an initial consonant). The nasal sound is indicated by a chandrabindu (U+0901).

But the introduction says:

The Aum symbol is a ligature of Devanagari ओ+ँ (oṃ, encoded in Unicode at U+0950 ॐ, the Tibetan script variant ༀ at U+0F00).

How can it be a ligature of the Devanagari version if it is based on the Brahmi character? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sacreligious?

Would getting a tattoo of the Om symbol be a sacreligious action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.128.180 (talk • contribs)

That depends on the religion of the person who is getting the tattoo. User:Transentient 07:00 8 July, 2006 (UTC)

I have a tattoo of this symbol on my upper back and I don't think that my action of putting it there is sacreligious. I got this symbol as a tattoo because of the importance of the symbol and my need to improve my life spiritually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.214.246 (talk • contribs)

It depends who you're talking to about it ;) It depends where you had the tattoo done. It depends why you had the tattoo done. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency

Since the page is at Aum perhaps all of the "Om"s in the text should be changed to Aum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.135.228 (talk • contribs)

I agree... please discuss this proposal. Sfacets 04:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and doing so then... Sfacets 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Date of origin of the symbol

Does anyone know when was this symbol was first used? I know there are references to the Aum chant in the Vedas but I think the symbol might be quite a lot later. -- Chris Q 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a silly question

Could there be any chance that the Hindu 'Om' is linked to the Latin 'Homo' (both of them being IndoEuropean languages, after all) ? I'm asking this because I'm a Romanian, and in my language the word for 'man' is 'om' (from the Latin 'homo'). Also the similarity to 'Aum' is (for me, at least) intriguing, due to the fact that the 'o' in 'om' is preceded in speech by a mild, semivocalic 'u'. ['O' is read as the 'o' in 'coin'; and 'u' is read as the 'oo' in 'moon', only shorter]. Anyone any ideas/suggestions? Thank You.

P.S. : Is it true that the alternate/secret name of Zeus/Jupiter was 'Homo' ? (I'm asking this because I somehow got the idea that 'Aum'/'Om' is a deity, not just simply a mantra/sound suited for meditation). Thanks. -- Lucian.

no, iot couldn't be; the Sanskrit equivalent of homo would be kshamya. dab (𒁳) 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

I embarked on the badly needed cleanup, removing essays, unsourced and offtopic material ranging from string physics to anatomy; feel free to add back closely sourced material to the pertinent section. The article could still be in better shape, and is rife with {{fact}} tags, but at least the more rambling and eccentric parts are gone, and the ToC is designed to accomodate topically sorted additions. If no citations are forthcoming, more uncited material will have to be removed per our WP:CITE policy. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OM in Indus Valley?

Some source [1] mention that this symbol was used in Indus Valley. Even if everybody may not agree with it, I feel it is worth mentioning.

                               203.197.96.50 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Adi

It's not. deeptrivia (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Other templates which may call this template"

The above is repeated over 7-8 times, I dunno what to do to fix it. Hopefully someone will see this error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.74.35.166 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Aum=Amen?!

According to 82.3.79.187, Aum would be the Sanskrit equivalent of Amen and Hum (Bhuddhism) - I have removed the sentence unless sources can be provided.

It seems unlikely though: Amen is an affirmation, commonly placed at ning of a prayer.

Also the fact that the Buddhist mantra is "Om Mani Padme Hum" shows that "Hum" and "Om" are very different. Sfacets 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Om" is the Sacred Syllable which represents the Supreme Self. "Ameen" (also "Amen") is just a word that means "Accept" and is used at the end of prayers. "Om" has a different, more mystic, and more spritual meaning. Armyrifle 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Om in Islam

Many Shia Muslims belief that there first Imam Ali_Ibn_Abi_Talib is also Om. Om and Ali are the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.59.69 (talk • contribs)

I was a Shia and I never heard that before. Armyrifle 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Om or AUM

This is the first time I have seen Om written as Aum. In my life I had never seen any spelling other than Om. Is there any source for Aum being a real word? (that is being more relevant than Om). Just curious. -Krazy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.153.105 (talk • contribs)

The reason is that all the authoritative Hindu texts, like the Upanishads, speak of AUM as characterized by as a sublimation of three distinct elements, Ah-oo-muh, A-U-M, AUM... each part representing in turn Brahma (creation), Vishnu (preservation), and Shiva (destruction). Also, the A-U-M follows a Sanskrit phonetic tradition of moving the tongue through the entire range of possible vocalic positions, thus composing a full circle (get it? circle of life?)... the three sublimate into the unified four, brahman, sat-chid-ananda (truth-consciousness-bliss). --128.59.26.54 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

what is the sound of Universe

if you keep a microphone in the outerspace, what kind of sound can you expect to record? is it an AUM? --ചള്ളിയാന്‍ 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Om not "Aum"

Writing "Aum" for Om is not an alternative spelling, it is simply *wrong*, as aum is a completely different Sanskrit syllable to om. As I'm familiar with Sanskrit grammar I feel it would be helpful for me to clarify this. In Sanskrit, the vowel o (always long) is grammatically (and in the writing system) equivalent to short a + u, and in fact if these coalesce in a word the result is o. The vowel au is considered to be composed of long a + u. This explains the frequent allusion in Indic sources to om being a+u+m in relation to the correspondence of these with gods or states of consciousness. The bija mantra aum is also encountered, particularly in tantric contexts, though far less frequently than om. The confusion of om with aum is particularly prevalent in works by new-ager dilettantes. Prime Entelechy 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. aum is perfectly accurate if you interpret the a and u as each being short-a and short-u ("the vowel o (always long) is grammatically (and in the writing system) equivalent to short a + u")... the writing of aum underscores the traditional a+u+m... there really doesn't exist a separate 'āum' bija mantra except as a Tantric practice for emphasizing the creative aspect of reality contained within the Pranava Mantra (aum or ōm). Indeed, if you want to use capital O and capital A as referring to a long vowel sound, instead of ō and ā respectively, then just make sure to write Om=aum. This brings me to the 'new-ager dilettantes' comment.... as something of a purist, I prefer 'aum' to 'om' because it highlights the inherent and extensive philosophical discussion of aum and emphasizes the linguistic construction that you yourself highlighted as important to understanding much of Hindu/Yogic symbolism. How the Buddhists use 'aum/om' is not relevant to a discussion of the original Hindu construction. --128.59.26.54 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add that I recognize that in Sanskrit traditional sandhi rules would conflate the a+u into an ō, however there are also instances in which, for instance, the a+v (where v becomes equivalent to u) are retained. Additionally, since we are using the English language, and its corollary Latinate script, the same sandhi rules for Sanskrit need not be applied, in my opinion, where an exception to the rule would prove useful to people who cannot read Devnagari or equivalent Brahmi scripts like Bengali. --128.59.26.54 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Symbolism

This page needs way more on 'Aum'/'Om' symbolism, which is mainly seen within Hinduism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.207.39.62 (talk • contribs).

Added external link to a collection of Om graphics (Sanskrit type) -- 80.128.171.50 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Pranava Veda

This treatise has be redirected here. I am creating an article about the same. Inputs are welcomed. BalanceRestored 11:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The true meaning of AUM

AUM has nothing to do with the universe, but with three gods Agni, Varuna and Marut. The misleading nonsense in this article is due to a war between the gods and the christian (islamic) god,which is just another wargod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.37.226 (talk • contribs)

The meaning of Aum is different between people. For example, from to a Vaishnava perspective, AUM means "Vishnu" as proven in the Bhagavad Gita: I am the taste within water, the radiance of moon and sun; I am Om in all the Vedas, sound in ether, manhood in men. (Bhagavad Gita 7.8) Armyrifle 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Om

Traditionally, this has been spelled and pronounced as Om, in all areas of India and the primarily religious languge, Sanskrit. It is Om, not "aum." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.199 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Om

OMG!!!! Why are these hypocritical, idiotic white people always messing up our religions & cultures? Grrrrr... It's Om, not aum. Aum is 1 step away from um, which is uhhh... This is RELIGIOUS, not stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.199 (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Om/Racism

Just because the title of the article was "Aum" and not "Om" does not automatically meanthat the person was white. They could have been yellow, red, blue, or brown.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.199 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually edit other people's comments but I removed an offensive remark here. -- Q Chris 09:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OM is found in Christian, Judism, Islam in the word AMEN

The origine of all peoples is the middle-east. As peoples spread to all points of the compass they brought holy words with them. From Sumeria the word EN = LORD. AM or OM = being/existant. For example, ENKI = Lord of the Earth (KI = Earth), ENLIL = Lord of the Air. So AM+EN = Eternal Lord. The voice from the burning bush said: I AM. So saying OM is the word/name/essence of God crosses ALL of our religious affiliations.161.40.17.51 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

IS THE VEDIC "OM" IN SANSKRIT SCRIPT, READ BACKWARDS FROM RIGHT TO LEFT, THE NUMBER 786 IMPRINTED IN KORAN IN ARABIC WAY - HOLIEST OF VEDIC SYMBOLS MISREAD BY MUSLIMS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvvchar (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please take your conspiracy theories somewhere else.Bakaman 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is not my theory. It is not conspiracy theory at all which I have stated. It is what is written about in Web pages. To cite a few, please read on the following. Also google on this subject. i) Kaaba a Hindu Temple? www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm ii) Facts of Life: TRUTH ON KABA agrasen.blogspot.com/2006/11/truth-on-kaba.html Posted by Nvvchar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.221.104 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

addition for advaita section

I will add the section.. 'Turiya is the space that lands after the aum representing the fourth state of mind' OK! namasteDomsta333 (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why just Sanskrit version next to the label?

I see no reason, why it should be just Sanskrit. What's the point about this? I think it's a matter of no WP:NPOV. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism reassessment: C

Fails B-criteria:

• The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.

citation needed tags.

• The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

Identifications with deities like Ganesha, Shiva called Omkar, not present.

Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC) MO, MUA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.181.127.196 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Phonaesthetic qualities

I remember reading an book that spelled the syllable "Ohm" and argued that one of the reasons it was considered sacred is due to the physical qualities of the syllable. Say it, it's an interesting upward motion - the "o" starts in the lungs, the "h" goes up through your throat and the "m" balances in your mouth and on your lips. It was argued that the syllable assists with meditation in that its motions parallel meditation's focus on allowing thoughts to come to you and then letting them float away like balloons. Does anyone know what book this is from so that this information can be included in the article? I can't seem to figure out a good Google phrase for this. Thanks Dg7891 (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Article name/move

While I’m no expert on Sanscrit transliteration, though aum may or may not be the more “correct” way to write the syllable, om is almost certainly the more common way to write it in English. Shouldn’t the article be moved to reflect that? —Wiki Wikardo 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I can second that. Never saw "Aum", just "Om namah Sivaya" at hindu temples. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

When we discuss this sacred syllable we always refer to it as Aum and provide its explanation. And even when we utter it during meditation we say it in three parts. It has a proper reason behind it-- One reason is the way it causes progressive vibration in different parts of the body. --Jyoti (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but what 'you' call things isn't at issue here, but what the regular, accepted spelling of the word is. It took me a bit to find this page, because as an english speaker I've only ever seen it spelt 'Om', even in hindic and buddhist text printed here in the USA--71.97.134.56 (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan Aum is not an Aum but an Om

The picture of the Tibetan Aum is not an Aum but an Om. The Tibetan Aum is like the Om but has a symbol that looks like a R on the bottom and also a moon sickle between the "wings" and the dot on the top. See this image: [2] Regards, Jorrit. Dzjorrit (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean "an aum" or "an om"? These spellings indicate one and the same referent. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism

The current text makes it sound like this is a core part of Buddhism, which is clearly not the case. Could somebody who knows more about the subject than I do add which variants of Buddhism use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.120.89 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My own somewhat limited research on Buddhism also seems to indicate that Aum is not a major component of Buddhism either, but articles like these try to be as all-responsible for as much as it can claim. The practice itself may be more common in Theravada Buddhism meditation, more common in Hindu-influenced South and Southeast Asia, or it may simply be the meshing of Indian Buddhist beliefs with local Hindu beliefs. I'm not solid on this, I won't add it. As for its merit in an Aum article, I can't answer that, but you know how this goes... someone definitely will vouch for its validity, lol.3swordz (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the article creates the impression that om is a big deal in Buddhism. The "Buddhism" section is very brief, essentially just mentioning om mani padme hum, which in itself is of course rather notable although restricted to a narrow subset of Buddhism. More information on this would be welcome. --dab (𒁳) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Ik Onkar and Om

3swordz edit comment: Undid 220.227.179.5's revision.Ik Onkar and Om stand for entirely different things,an actual Sikh would know this.See 25Dec08 edit summaries.Ik Onkar is okay under "see also,"but never equate the two.)

Is this correct? Omkār or omkāra is an alternative name for the Hindu Om symbol, and [3] says:

The root of "Onkar," according to Professor Harminder Singh, "is traceable to the Hindu sacred syllable Om or Aum." ‘Om’ is a Sanskrit symbol of the "Absolute Transcendent Reality, Brahma . . . or the Supreme Being which is the unity of all existence."

I am not an expert in this field, but I thought I should highlight this so others can see if the change was appropriate, you can't use the "fact" tag for deletions. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ik Onkar is derived from Sanskrit as Aum is, not from Aum itself. There are plenty of other authoritative figures than a Harminder Singh (who I've never come across; South Asian professors who seem to think their opinion is worth publishing are a dime a dozen) who would state this. The truth of the matter is that while some Hindus today are trying to retool their religion as more monotheistic, with such reform movements like Arya Samaj etc., the kingpin god in mind, Brahma, was and isn't revered like its avatars are. Brahma's role ended after he created the universe, he is not heeded. I'm no Hinduism expert either, but I do research things, and this is the view that one of my Eastern Religions professors (a Hindu, no less) held; it falls in line with everything I've uncovered since.

Remarketing "Om" as "Omkara," etc. to resemble a certain other religion doesn't change what it actually is: a meditative syllable, and I never see it explicitly stating "One God;" it always has to stand for "the Ultimate Reality" or some other oh-so-mystical phrase that never seems to describe anything in particular. This "Sublime Manifestation" covers swayambhu, idol worship, and everything in between. Let's face it, the puja of the images of gods ("Brahma's avatars")is the chief focus of Hindu worship. Be right back to finish this up.3swordz (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sikh God is also described by many Sikhs/SGGS, despite being formless and genderless, as often being merciful but fair (fair always seems to be nice way of saying that God punishes), and many Sikhs believe that God blesses and punishes (this isn't to say that the Sikh God is Abrahamic, but there are characteristics to this being as opposed to a vague "ultimate reality" which is just there and emcompasses just about every conceivable aspect of every imaginable thing, and pass this off as the centerpiece of Hindu worship). Even in this Aum article there was not one mention of a being; it is just described as a "sacred syllable" used in prayer. Aum and ik Onkar are distinct.

As both are Sanskrit-derived South Asian religious emblems, I thought it fair enough to leave it under "See Also." But certain contributors can never leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.102 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That was me again. I think this is enough of a compromise; hopefully for once these subversive editors can respect Sikhism's boundaries and not try to assimilate it with Hinduism. Anyway, hopefully this clarifies.3swordz (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

nobody is "marketing" anything. So Sikhs take "Onkar" as the name of God. So what? Arya Samaj take "O3M" to be the name of God. This is all perfectly relevant to the article topic, and duly explained. Also, nobody is "assimilating" Sikhism to Hinduism, as you will note "Sikhism" is treated under a h2 section cleanly separated from the "Hinduism" h2 section. Pray do not blank content purely due to your subjective religious or in-group sensitivities, this is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is lenient enough to allow you to pick blatant "I am going to tout $RELIGION" usernames. You are still required to respect the project rules, and the project goals, just like everyone else. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, so I mainly work on preserving distinct Punjabi Sikh religion and culture, and I happen to like my culture, yeah, hold that against me. And absolutely none of the astounding number of Hindu contributors on this site have agendas, I'm sure. What does that mean anyway, that having a secular username makes you unbiased? What an inane point...

The Arya Samaj is a main proponent of Hindu "monotheism" after contact with the English, combined with possible embarrassment. They try to redefine Hindu spirituality, do away with the rituals and rites that make Hinduism Hinduism, switch up the hierarchy of importance so that the all-important Hindu gods are made less important than the encompassing spirit Brahma, who is rebranded as "God" (I think we know that is not the case).

That aside, guess what the article's name is? "Aum." And what is the subsection's name? "In Sikhism." What do you get? "Aum in Sikhism." Aum is not the same as Ik Onkar! And there's no way that could be taken as an attempt to make Sikhism an offshoot of Hinduism? Being the extremist that I am, I deemed it all right to leave the link to the Ik Onkar article in the "See Also" section; they have the same Sanskrit roots. The symbol "Ik Onkar" is composed of the symbols "Ik" (Punjabi numeral One) and the first letter of the word "Onkar" (in Sikhism, God); the first letter of the Punjabi alphabet is called Oodda, and the second component in Ik Onkar is that letter with an adapted vowel symbol, nothing more. It is not derived from Aum! Aum, from what I've seen, is used to describe the "Ultimate Reality/insert vague mysticism here" to the Trimurti of Hindu Gods, to three states of being, to the universal spirit Brahma, to a myriad of other things. Ik Onkar unequivocally means "One God," Heaven forbid that two concepts written with two similar "O"-sounding common-root Indic language letters equate to different things. You want to add to this encyclopedia, put the info on Ik Onkar in the correct Ik Onkar article, and leave your "subjective religious or in-group sensitivities" at the door. Putting Ik Onkar info under Aum and not Ik Onkar is not being subjective? Is trying to align two completely different-meaning religious symbols respecting the project goals? Do you define these goals? You put the info in the wrong article, and I'm in the wrong? Your actions are not possibly ideological? Look at yourself first before you attack my motives. Reply if you want, I'll move/remove the Ik Onkar info inserted into this article.3swordz (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ik Onkar is equivalent to Sanskrit eka omkara, meaning "one [single] omkara", and "guess what", this is the omkara article. If you want to argue this is mistaken, I will thank you for doing so with a little less hysteria, sarcasm and general antagonism. Again, Sikhism isn't subsumed under Hinduism and properly treated as an independent tradition in its own right. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't debate any of the facts I posted in either the Jan 28 post or the last one, you attack me for being religiously subjective and for pimping my religion for my own ends, attack my username of all things, call me hysterical and angry, then say I'm the mean-spirited one. I'm perfectly capable of reasonable debate, I've done it a few times with reasonable Hindu contributors, often coming to mutually satisfactory results. You came out barking, not explaining your additions, and it's my fault. The least professional contributor I've corresponded with is an administrator. Go figure.

I've said everything that needs to be said, now you argue back in a civil manner. "Ik Onkar" is not "Aum." Is this so hard to understand? The Sikh concept of the word "Onkar" (God, who is referred to by dozens of other names in the Guru Granth Sahib) is much different than the Hindu "Aum" (a meditative syllable which envelops a myriad of concepts as described in my previous unanswered posts). This isn't the Sanskrit "omkara" article, and may not even be the same definition; this is Aum, a distinctly Hindu concept. Why Omkara redirects or ought to redirect straight to Aum, you tell me. Both Punjabi and Hindi are descended from ... Sanskrit, so the vocabularies may be similar if not the concepts, you see?

Real encyclopedic endeavors suggest different but related things under "see also." That's what I suggested, as subjective as I am. If you see Hinduism and Sikhism as different, why do you insist on what you are doing? I also saw what you just added on this newest version of what you added, the "om ligature" stuff. Did you stop reading my short facts-in-a-nutshell post halfway or something? The second character is the first letter of the word "Onkar" in Punjabi, which is coincidentally the also first letter of the Gurmukhi script, Oorra/Oodaa, coupled with an adapted "horra" vowel symbol to give it a sound (this letter and the third letter of the Gurmukhi alphabet never go without such vowel symbols). Between these three posts, I honestly don't know how to break this down any further.

As for my motivation of Hindu subsumption, you, from your administrative watchtower, have seriously never seen the less scrupulous Hindu contributors try this? You don't see how you own last contrib could be EASILY misconstrued as Ik Onkar being a version of Aum, for all your religious judiciousness? Are you even familiar with other religions? "This is an omkara article, see? It matches!" The essence of your entire reply. Instead of using invective and brushing off me and my points to reinstate your own uninformed belief, try coming off your pedestal and answer the points, instead of deeming me unfit for debate. No curt, useless replies, please. Once again, look at yourself.3swordz (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

can we do this a little less emotionally please? All I am saying is that onkar = omkara, hence this is pertinent to the present article. All your points about "less scrupulous Hindu editors" are perfectly irrelevant to this. And yes, I have a lot of experience with preventing "less scrupulous Hindu editors" from abusing Wikipedia as a platform for ideological propaganda.

Seeing that we cite Guru Nanak as stating "Brahma was created from Omkara", I fail to see how you can claim with a straight face that mentionf of Sikhism is undue in a discussion of omkara.

This isn't an article dedicated to Hinduism. It is the article on the omkara, and it includes a section on Hinduism. Your point of The Sikh concept of the word "Onkar" is much different than the Hindu "Aum" is granted. That's why it gets its own section. I don't see the problem. --dab (𒁳) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This absolutely can be done in a civil manner. It's not like I'm enjoying this. On an aside, I addressed Hindu subsumption because that's what you first attacked. Just saying.

Regardless, there's one issue with this being an "omkara" article: the title is "Aum," a Hindu concept. They aren't truly synonymous at all. If the article itself was to be titled "Omkara" in the ancient Sanskrit sense, the concept of a general higher being before the formation of Hinduism proper, and in the specified Hinduism section it would say that that Hinduism derived Aum from Omkara while Sikhism derived Ik Onkar, it might make slightly more sense. For example:

Title: OMKARA (Sanskrit)

In Hinduism

-Aum

In Sikhism

-Ik Onkar

and so on. I don't think this is a good idea either though.

Something as drastic as renaming the article as the ancient Sanskrit omkara in the ancient pre-Hindu sense, I would imagine, would piss off even a few rational Hindu contributors. This article's name is Aum; Aum is a Hindu concept. Adding a section called "In Sikhism" would make it sound like "Aum in Sikhism," would it not? Aum the meditative symbol does not exist in Sikhism. Aum the concept does not either. Not once does it occur, even once. Sikhism has no sacred meditative syllable. None.

The article starts like this:

Aum (also Om, written in Devanagari as ॐ, in Chinese as 唵, in Tibetan as ༀ, in Sanskrit known as praṇava or omkāra) is a mystical or sacred syllable in the Indian religions, including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. It is pronounced as a long or over-long nasalized close-mid back rounded vowel (IPA [oːⁿ]).

It is placed at the beginning of most Hindu texts as a sacred exclamation to be uttered at the beginning and end of a reading of the Vedas or previously to any prayer or mantra. The Mandukya Upanishad is entirely devoted to the explanation of the syllable.

This just isn't an omkara article, this is "Aum the syllable, the Hindu concept" article. Sikhism has no Aum. Does "Aum in Sikhism" not the have the potential to misinform?

I don't see at all why my solution can't work, leaving it under "see also."

As for Nanak saying "Brahma was created from Omkara," that's just a flat-out alteration of the source. The source is a website called srigranth.org, what I would consider to be a pretty good source, and one I personally like as it helps me learn about the concepts of the faith. (I advocate Sikh/Punjabi culture's autonomy from right-wing Hindu absorption, sure, but I'm not terribly religious at all if you must know; I just like being well-versed, and the SGGS isn't a bad read. I use this hobby to aid a cause) It is also a favorite site for Hindu ideologues as well, with one hitch: they constantly and brazenly alter quotes and take them out of context, as if checking the source won't occur to anyone, it's astounding. I posted a big contrib on the "Hinduism and Sikhism" discussion page blasting this misuse and debunking the altered quotes one by one; I'll try to fix the formatting. Anyway, this quote is among the butchered. The exact pre-altered quote is: "From Ongkaar, the One Universal Creator God, Brahma was created." "Omkara" isn't stated once in the Guru Granth Sahib. Hm, curious.

The quote in greater context:

Raamkalee, First Mehl, Dakhanee, Ongkaar:

One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

From Ongkaar, the One Universal Creator God, Brahma was created.

He kept Ongkaar in his consciousness.

From Ongkaar, the mountains and the ages were created.

Ongkaar created the Vedas.

Ongkaar saves the world through the Shabad.

Ongkaar saves the Gurmukhs.

Listen to the Message of the Universal, Imperishable Creator Lord.

The Universal, Imperishable Creator Lord is the essence of the three worlds. ||1||

Listen, O Pandit, O religious scholar, why are you writing about worldly debates?

As Gurmukh, write only the Name of the Lord, the Lord of the World. ||1||Pause||

Sassa: He created the entire universe with ease; His One Light pervades the three worlds.

Become Gurmukh, and obtain the real thing; gather the gems and pearls.

If one understands, realizes and comprehends what he reads and studies, in the end he shall realize that the True Lord dwells deep within his nucleus.

The Gurmukh sees and contemplates the True Lord; without the True Lord, the world is false. ||2||

"less scrupulous Hindu editing" unveiled, see there? Check the source!

Now, Brahma is of course the highest power in Hinduism, from which their gods are incarnated. Onkar (BTW, which has no "g," it is just place there for pronunciation) created this highest Hindu spirit. Their gods, their texts, their universal conception are trivial to Onkar's limitlessness. That's what I would infer, though it is open, of course.

To clear up another miscoinception, Ik Onkar isn't derived from Aum either. If anything, Ik Onkar is merely an abbreviation of "One God." Both of the component characters are commonly used in regular secular Gurmukhi Punjabi writing. The "Ik" is of course used to write the number "one" and the second character (the letter "Oodda" with a "horra" vowel marker) makes a short "O" sound, plain and simple. If one were to write the word "Oman" the country, for instance, in Punjabi, that very character would be used, like in, say, "Onkar" as well. No joke. These characters aren't holy or special in the slightest unless used in conjunction.

Yeah, the concepts are totally different. So they are cross-lingual cognates that are derived from the same mother language Sanskrit. This still doen't make it right to equate them in the same article, like one is the interpretation of the other. Again, I don't see why my solution, leaving it solely under "see also," should not be considered seriously. Not to mention that it is redundant to link to Ik Onkar when the same Ik Onkar info is already stated. You may not have a problem; I do, being of the culture. Consider this compromise thoroughly first. This just isn't an Sanskrit Omkara article when the title is the Hindu concept Aum. Aum=predominantly a meditative syllable with addition myriad of mystical meanings, Onkar= strictly Sikh conception of God. A big difference. Lumping together two cross-lingual cognates with drastically different meanings doesn't do justice to Ik Onkar at all.3swordz (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with anything you say, but I am afraid you are not making any sort of argument for removing the paragraph, you just keep repeating the content of the paragraph at me. Can you please stop claiming stuff is being "lumped together" with no basis? There is an "In Hinduism" and an "In Sikhism" section, on equal footing. That's "listing", as in, the opposite of "lumping". Your point about Oman is plain silly. The fact that the Punjabi grapheme om is pronounced "onkar" establishes that om here is the religious symbol. Of course you also write Oman with Om-, wth are you talking about. I could understand your protest if I was trying to merge the Ik Onkar article into this one. I am not. I am simply defending the WP:SS structure of this article. That's a simple question of article structure, no dispute about content is even involved here. The fact that omkara ended up as a name of God in Sikhism is extremely notable to this article. Claiming differently would imply the claim that Sikhism itself is unnotable. --dab (𒁳) 12:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting exasperating...

You are in fact lumping two different concepts together. "Listing" alternates would imply, I don't know, "see also"?

You again replied to almost none of my points, instead you latched on on the "Oman" example. Look here. It is NOT an OM ligature. If you don't know Gurmukhi please don't discuss it. Yet again, the "Oorra" letter with an adapted "horra" vowel symbol makes a short "O" sound. Get it? It makes the O- in Oman, not the Om- in it, for goodness' sake. Short "O" sound. Short "O" sound. I seem to remember making that point thoroughly. If you were to transcribe "Orange" or "Obama" (or ANY "O" word, it doesn't have to be effing Oman) into Gurmukhi, that same LETTER would be used. There you go, your one weak little objection debunked.

If you don't disagree with my points, how can you say this is a generic Omkara article? It's NOT. Read the first damn paragraph. AUM the HINDU SYLLABLE, discussed in HINDU TEXTS, never explicitly mentioned as One God. How can you not understand this? Cognates, NOT the same thing. So the languages have related vocabularies, seeing as they evolved from regional prakrits of Sanskrit, like Vulgar Latin differentiating into the Romance languages. The word was reinterpreted altogether to mean God for Sikhism. Different concept, understand? That is my basis for removing the section. I've made it explicit now, and I am tired of repeating it. This is an AUM the syllable article, please don't try to state otherwise. Aum the syllable does not exist in Sikhism. This is in fact a question of proper content, if not in your eyes. At best, you have made OM the Hindu concept the predominant interpretation of an ancient Sanskrit word, and at worst, you have made Sikhism a branch of Hinduism, beholden to its "AUM the syllable" concept. Not validating a Sikh concept through a Hindu one does not make Sikhism unnotable, it means the opposite: Sikhism stands by itself as a very distinct belief system, your view belittles Sikhism as an alternate view of Hinduism. Sikhism is significant enough not to have to validate itself through Hindu concepts, it is in no danger of being unnotable, so don't even go there; it doesn't "need" mentions in other articles. And I am tired of your confounding belief that this is only an innocuous Omkara article, in the ancient Sanskrit sense. It deals solely with the HINDU CONCEPT, the meditative syllable AUM. Read the article. Stop the equivocating. "Aum" does not exist in Sikhism. It looks like "Aum in Sikhism." I'm sick of repeating myself, and you offer nothing to back up your view except exasperating contradictions, ignorant beliefs, a cavalier I-know-better view on what you know nothing about, and pretending to accept my points while continuing on with your ignorance. I offer linguistic, cultural, and religious points that you either can't refute or won't refute, I don't know which.

"Punjabi grapheme "om" ...have the good sense to know what you are talking about. No point in being as prolific a contributor as you are if you assume to know topics you know nothing about. No OR, no uninformed beliefs. That's damaging to Wikipedia, is it not? Why not look up Gurmukhi and read a little about that particular character? It's the first letter of that alphabet. Ik Onkar is composed of two otherwise unremarkable, secular characters. Read up, you seem to have the time.3swordz (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid your behaviour isn't much short of vandalism at this point. Please stop blanking the section. This is the omkara article. If you don't like the intro, propose a change to it. As to your claim that I have "contributed nothing", you may want to compare the version before my cleanup efforts, back in early 2007 From our Gurmukhi article: "Bindi ( ਂ ) and Tippi ( ੰ ) are used for nasalisation". You seem to claim that tippi marks "short vowels" rather than nasalisation. This strikes me as very weird, and I would like to see evidence that our Gurmukhi article is mistaken. --dab (𒁳) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, indirectly threatening me with blocking instead of making any sound points. Good, good, administrator.

You've proven your ignorance. I REFERRED you to the Gurmukhi article, your arrogance is astounding. I said that the irregular "HORRA" vowel marker attached to the "Oorra" (which appears in the Ik Onkar) makes the short "O" sound, not the bindi/tippi, which should not appear, and combined with Oorra still does not constitute any sort of "Om ligature," (I never even stated the sound those made, which makes a nasal ("n") sound, nevertheless "Onnnnnn..." isn't a variant symbol/syllable of any religion to my knowledge. Om ligature, please... Gurmukhi is the Sikh script, Aum never appears in it/Sikhism.

And Onkar spelled out does not have the tippi next to the Oorra anyway; the nasal "tippi" appears between the "aira" and "kakka" letters (or roughly between the "a" and "k" letters. It is pronounced "Oankar" in Punjabi; a Gurmukhi letter cannot have more than two laga matras on it (already has a "horra"). Oorra requires a vowel-making laga matra, it cannot appear on its own, as it does in your little BS ligature. But I'm sure you read that in the Gurmukhi article, accomplished scholar.

Don't talk about what you don't understand. The point of the "horra" was repeated over and over, please read the posts. By "contributing nothing," I am referring to the debate, not the article. I don't care about erroneous/ignorant beliefs manifesting themselves in the past, that is what I am trying to change.

Even in the old version 1) no mention of Sikhism in the intro, rightfully so 2) the later section incorrectly says "Aum in Sikhism," yet again.

All you do is equivocate between Aum the syllable and Omkara the Sanskrit term. This article deals with a syllable, AUM. Ik Onkar isn't a syllable. If it helps, reread the discussion, I think you skimmed it over, honestly.

Stop reverting the blanking until you have proven your points at all, or any points at all for starters. Aren't edits not supposed to be brought back until they are agreed upon? Don't try to say that I will not take any alternatives (unlike you); I've actually proposed two by now:

a) my original "see also,"

b) wanted a change to the intro? Remember this:

Title: OMKARA (Sanskrit term) [interpreted into many ways by many religions]

In Hinduism

-Aum (syllable, many "tri-" meanings/meditation)

In Sikhism

-Ik Onkar (doctrine, One God)

(Aum=redirect to Omkara)

You will have the Omkara article you always wanted.3swordz (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To reiterate, you might miss it: The symbol Ik Onkar has no tippi/bindi, and the tippi isn't even next to the Oorra. That discussion was almost not worth having, except for someone with no real knowledge of Gurmukhi.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 3swordz (talk • contribs)

User:3swordz is the one who needs to "finish the discussion" before blanking content. I am open to compromise suggestions. I am not open to stubborn blanking of content based on "I don't like that". 3swordz needs to learn that consensus isn't a matter of "your revision or mine" but one of constructive suggestions and iterative improvement. Let him make a constructive suggestion and we have a debate. As long as he keeps up the blind revert-warring, he needs to be taught the lesson that stubborn reverting will not get him the revision he wants, as countless hotheads have learned on Wikipedia before him. --dab (𒁳) 21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Read this thoroughly for once, dab. It's clear that you are a bully who would rather characterize any opposition as angry nutjobs and make threats than engage in a discussion. I've presented many arguments, here are a few of them: this article discusses only a syllable, Ik Onkar has been reinterpreted as something else altogether than Aum (and is a doctrine, not a syllable, or meditated upon), which is the title of the article and whose article's intro discusses a meditative syllable).

He has given nothing.

• His attempt to say "Brahma was created from Omkara", (13March) turned out to be a wrongly quoted contribution he never bothered to verify.

• His latest attempt to try to engage with Gurmukhi have both been laughably wrong and embarrassing to anyone who holds himself so high up on a pedestal:

• He confused "horra" with "tippi/bindi," and botched his own argument, demonstrating no familiarity with Gurmukhi. Then he tries to talk down to me with "You seem to claim that tippi marks "short vowels" rather than nasalisation. This strikes me as very weird, and I would like to see evidence that our Gurmukhi article is mistaken."(3April) LOL

• His homemade "OM ligature" is equally BSed, meant to approximate the Hindu AUM symbol. He threw together an Oorra letter with a circular "tippi" nasal marker, which are not connected and don't even look like the Oorra with the connected short-O "Horra" it ought to be in the Ik Onkar symbol. Punjabi has no Aum ligature, it is not made with Gurmukhi. His precious Punjabi OM grapheme does not exist. The nasal "tippi" still doesn't appear next to the Oorra even when the word "Onkar" is spelled out. It is actually pronounced "Oankar." You have no clue.

• He thinks that the issue is equality, when the issue is understanding what the article covers-- A SYLLABLE and its use in MEDITATION. "There is an "In Hinduism" and an "In Sikhism" section, on equal footing."(1April) Aum in Sikhism does not exist, so...yeah. "The fact that the Punjabi grapheme om is pronounced "onkar" establishes that om here is the religious symbol."(1April) Again, his beloved Gurmukhi-inspired ligature does not exist. Gurmukhi is exclusively a Sikh script created by Guru Angad Dev for his followers and the scriptures (derived from the indigenous Landa script), even Punjabi Hindus use the Devnagari AUM symbol shown at the beginning of the article, and many actually tend to speak Hindi as opposed to Punjabi. Even the relatively fewer Punjabi-speaking Hindus write the Punjabi language only in Devnagari to distinguish from the more numerous Sikhs. That is another topic entirely, but having any sort of cultural familiarity would have prevented him from making such hilariously incorrect arguments, and BSing his "knowledge" on the subject.

• Continuing with his false premise that "equality" is the issue, "The fact that omkara ended up as a name of God in Sikhism is extremely notable to this article. Claiming differently would imply the claim that Sikhism itself is unnotable." (1April) Well... the article is about the MEDITATIVE SYLLABLE. Again. Etymology is inconsequential as the word was reinterpreted entirely, I will cover this later in a section not meant for you. His quote would be implying that the Sikh's entirely reimagined understanding of its own symbol Ik Onkar (One God) can only be validated through AUM the Hinduism meditative syllable (THE ARTICLE'S CONTENTS) (as opposed to a drastic reinterpretation of the word Omkara), therefore being beholden to Hinduism to be considered legitimate. Sikhism is unnotable until it is mentioned in an AUM the Hindu SYLLABLE article. That is what you imply.

"Your point of The Sikh concept of the word "Onkar" is much different than the Hindu "Aum" is granted. That's why it gets its own section. I don't see the problem."(13 March) Oh, don't you? The article's title is Aum, and its Hindu usage is the subject matter. The Sikh doctrine/not-syllable IK Onkar doesn't belong there.

He has not owned up to any of this yet, of course. He's opted for insults and threats this whole time, what will change?

His total arguments: zero. The few (like, two: "it gets its own section" and the "Punjabi grapheme" thing) he presents are straight-up wrong.

Total insults/falsehoods:

• "Wikipedia is lenient enough to allow you to pick blatant "I am going to tout $RELIGION" usernames."(10 March) That's mature. A personal attack, framing me as a zealot rather than making a point, or knowing how the Hindu reformist Arya Samaj was influenced by British cultural attitudes. Uncalled-for vitriol right from the beginning.
• "If you want to argue this is mistaken, I will thank you for doing so with a little less hysteria, sarcasm and general antagonism." (11March) Yeah, come out snarling with no arguments, then play it cool.
• "Seeing that we cite Guru Nanak as stating "Brahma was created from Omkara", I fail to see how you can claim with a straight face that mentionf of Sikhism is undue in a discussion of omkara." (13March) You're absolutely right, I couldn't keep a straight face, you cited it wrong. Check the source? srigranth.org, try it.
• "I am afraid your behaviour isn't much short of vandalism at this point."(3April) Neither is yours. You cite/argue nothing to support a section that has never been substantiated, and has simply never been contested. You impose your will, reverting just like I delete, but for no reasons.
• "I am open to compromise suggestions." Bull. You want it your way. I've given solutions, you've proposed nothing new.
• "3swordz needs to learn that consensus isn't a matter of "your revision or mine" but one of constructive suggestions and iterative improvement." No, that applies to you. I HAVE SUGGESTED TWO, two times each: 1) leave it under "see also," (not manically purge it completely or deny any link like you try to make it seem), 2) Change the format, stated for the third time: Title: OMKARA (Sanskrit) h2: In Hinduism: -Aum(Info) h2: In Sikhism -Ik Onkar(info) 3) I have a THIRD solution based on the second, but you wouldn't be interested. I will show it to others.
• "As long as he keeps up the blind revert-warring, he needs to be taught the lesson that stubborn reverting will not get him the revision he wants, as countless hotheads have learned on Wikipedia before him." 1) blind edit-warring means not stating a thing to prove your view. 2) More threats is your m.o. Acting all tough won't exempt you from making a single valid point.

My talk page:

• "If you have no argument to present, kindly stop it. Otherwise feel free to present actual evidence that onkar is unrelated or WP:UNDUE to omkara."(2April) No sir, back at you. I have been making my case with many reasons. I never denied the etymological derivation of Ik Onkar for the Sanskrit word Omkara, that was my very first statement back in 28Jan with QChris. Ik Onkar was, however, drastically reinterpreted to mean only ONE GOD, Ik Onkar is not the same or derived from AUM, the Hinduism meditative symbol article with the myriad of mystical meanings.
• "Your sectarian allegiances are of no interest here." No, yours aren't. You have no credibility, you've demonstrated that. 3swordz (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

wow. I hope you do not expect me to read all that. I would just ask you again to stop blanking content for no good reason. Thank you, --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't expect you to read it at all, that's how this dispute was prolonged. How dare some lowly contributor have the gall to make the mighty administrator look at his own bull? At any rate, your newest edit is just fine, with Ik Onkar as a little footnote; could have linked to it with "see also" only to avoid redundancy but whatever. "Aum in Sikhism" was the main issue. Just remember to keep debates civil, give reasons not insults, and can the attitude next time, it's unbecoming for an otherwise very industrious administrator.3swordz (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Omkara

3swordz, if I am understanding you correctly, you are stating that

• The (Sikh) onkar is not the same as the (Hindu) Aum.
• Onkar is not a syllable.
• The Hindu syllable Aum has no special place in Sikh theology.

So far I agree with you. That said, I think that the concept of Onkar should be discussed in this article too (without making any of the above false claims), because:

• The Sikh onkara is thought to have been derived/based on Aum or omkāra (i.e., om + kāra, which in Sanskrit simply means, "the sound or syllable om"; just as aikāra and okāra refer to sounds of ai and o respectively).
• The concept of onkar in Sikhism is analogous to the concept of Aum, so far as they both symbolize the primal truth/reality/God.

Remember that a wikipedia article is about the subject and not just a dictionary definition of the subject; so related concepts should be discussed (giving them WP:DUE weight), even if they are not synonymous. If this requires rewording the lead, that can be discussed here on the talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are a couple of useful reference for the section:

Likewise, the symbolic representation of God as the mystic syllable or sound om (in the Mandukya and the Prasna Upanisad), which "contains all that is past, present, and future" — "Bhutam, bhavad, bhavisyad iti sarvam aumkar evah" — is found in the Guru's Dakhni Onkar. He writes in this work that God is "the creator of Brahma, of consciousness, of time and space, of the Vedas, the emancipator, the essence of the three worlds". The concept of om, which is somewhat elusive in Hinduism, is crystallized in Sikh theology and is given a status of symbol - the symbol of God. It invariably emphasizes his singularity, expressed in the saying, "Ik Aumkar" ("There is one God").

— Singh, Khuswant (2002). "The Sikhs". In Kitagawa, Joseph Mitsuo (ed.). The religious traditions of Asia: religion, history, and culture. London: RoutledgeCurzon. p. 114. ISBN 0-7007-1762-5. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Guru Nanak's teaching about God is summed in the Sikh 'Mul Mantra', the creedal statement of Sikhism - Ek Onkar which stands for one primal reality. It is the equivalent of the Hindu 'OM' as in Kath Upanisad.

— Mahinder N. Gulati (2008). Comparative Religious and Philosophies. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. p. 330. ISBN 8126909021.

Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, the last two bullet points you bring up on 4April I can see myself agreeing with.

I do believe the word Onkar in Ik Onkar is etymologically derived from the Sanskrit word Omkara, I stated this on 28Jan (not from Om the syllable, which also has a basis in Omkara), so I agree with that. But it is indeed a complete reinvention of the word, so it is not wholly the spiritual heir as is Aum.

Ik Onkar is indeed to Sikhs as what Om is to Hindus as Gulati states, they encase what higher powers mean to them. But this differs widely. To Sikhs it is firmly One God/God is One. To Hindus it has many shades of meaning, like for starters what I described earlier: The trimurti of the three main Hindu Gods, the three Vedas, a primordial sound, 3 stages of consciousness, 3 senses, 3 states of knowledge, etc. etc. This stays constant in all the mentioned religions except Sikhism. As Khushwant Singh says, Sikhs took omkara as a symbol and gave it its own ascribed meaning.

Even the article cannot conclusively say what it chiefly stands for; as the Khushwant Singh quote says: "The concept of om, which is somewhat elusive in Hinduism, is crystallized in Sikh theology and is given a status of symbol - the symbol of God. It invariably emphasizes his singularity, expressed in the saying, "Ik Aumkar" ("There is one God")."

There is a few issues with this quote though. Aside from the issue that an entertainment columnist like Khushwant Singh isn't the best source when it comes to scholarliness (he likes to interject his beliefs as fact, and I have read that book that is quoted; he calls organizations he likes "saner elements" as opposed to people he doesn't like instead of just covering the history, the book often seemed to read like an editorial and promoted his views. But besides that, he incorrectly referred to Ik Onkar as Ik Aumkar, and he incorrectly transcripted the Dakhni Onkar with the word Aumkar -- I actually quoted this passage to dab on 13March to show his own wrong use of the word "Omkar(a)," which actually never appears in the SGGS. The full passage in English, along with its original Gurmukhi line, says only Onkar; a site to verify this is www.srigranth.org, it starts on page 929. I tend to shy away from quoting Indian writers because they always seem to be pushing a viewpoint from either side and don't have a concept of just stating the facts. To Singh's credit he doesn't claim to be objective, but still, it's not the best scholarly source. The gist of his quote seems right, though, so whatever.

Anyway, in regards to "rewording the lead," I have a third solution, which is better than my second in my opinion and may not even require that anymore. My second solution was this:

Title: OMKARA (Sanskrit) (originally the Aum article)

In Hinduism

-Aum

In Sikhism

-Ik Onkar

where the article's name would be changed from Aum to Omkara and Aum would become a subsection, if Ik Onkar had to be kept. But I expressed my apprehension with this, because I do think Aum is entitled to its own article.

Instead, maybe we can turn Omkara itself into a small article of its own instead of a redirect to Aum, with very brief descriptions of its interpretations in Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. The intro could be something brief like "Omkara is a Sanskrit term meant to describe a concept of a higher power, interpreted in different ways by several Dharmic religions" followed by "In Hinduism" h2 (briefly covering Aum and providing a link to "Main Article: Aum"), a SIkh h2 (Briefly covering Ik Onkar and providing a link to the main article), etc.

Of course, this would entail the removal of the Ik Onkar h2 from the Aum article, leaving it in "see also" as it is related. But there would be an Omkara article covering Aum and Ik Onkar as equal subsections as opposed to Ik Onkar under Aum. An equal "omkara" article would finally actually exist for "dab" to refer to.3swordz (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

so you have figured out there may be an article move debate in this. Congrratulations. Now you only need to hold on to that thought, and try to get WP:CONSENSUS for whatever it is you want, and stop blanking content while doing that. Abecedare's references establish beyond all doubt that the Sikhism stuff is relevant to this article. I am perfectly fine with moving the article to Omkara if that stops 3swordz throwing around his temper. That's about as far as we need to go to resolve this "dispute". --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I proposed the moving solution 23 days ago when you wanted me to be "a little less emotional, please?", reading helps. Abecedare's quotes solidify the etymological link between Onkar and the Sanskrit word omkara, which I never contested, and was my first statement on 28Jan, and also show Sikhism's reinterpretation as wholly independent of a meditative syllable. I said to possibly make the omkara redirect a brief article, and the sole link between Aum and Ik Onkar as equals, a move isn't even necessary anymore. Your tiny footnote will do though, the character's correct composition is shown in the "Ik Onkar" article, so you can keep your om ligature, people will see both and choose the more informed view. Reading and engaging in the debate could have saved you a lot of time.3swordz (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the whole point: You are not even disputing anything on the page, you are just creating a disturbance over nothing at all for reasons best known to yourself.There isn't any "debate", since you haven't actually presented any references or any criticism. If you want to move the page to omkara, which has been a redirect here all the time, be my guest, but please stop making a fool of yourself and please stop wasting people's time over nothing. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The argument was that the article deals with a Hindu meditation syllable only, and Ik Onkar isn't a meditation syllable and has no definition in common with Aum (unequivocal One God vs. several encoded meanings like 3 Vedas, 3 stages of consciousness, etc.). That's the main criticism, repeated numerous times. I said that Omkara should become a small article of its own (and ought not to redirect), with no moving needed, but I get the whole "no reading" policy. You have severe trouble differentiating between etymological derivation and complete reinvention, taking a common root word and making it mean something other than AUM the syllable doesn't make it beholden to Aum. But you can't seem to pick up on the difference between a reused word and a syllable derived from it, being linked to omkara automatically makes it Aum the syllable to you.

LOL you act like I'm hassling you, you seem to have been waiting considering your prompt reply. I wasn't expecting one back.3swordz (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Y "the article deals with a Hindu meditation syllable only" -- wrong. What is happening is that you are trying to make it an "article about a Hindu meditation syllable only" by blanking all content that doesn't fit that description. Abecedare's references make clear that the Sikh Onkar is an adaptation of the Omkara mysticism. Now cite your own references or stop it. Your comments about syllables and what not just go to show that you either still haven't read the article, or simply fail to understand anyting in it. Your only valid point is that we have no reference confirming that the onkar ligature contains tippi in origin. This is completely self-evident in my opinion, but you are within your rights to be a pedant about this point and request a source. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The contents of the entire introduction, produced again:

Aum (also Om, written in Devanagari as ॐ, in Chinese as 唵, in Tibetan as ༀ, in Sanskrit known as praṇava or omkāra) is a mystical or sacred syllable in the Indian religions, including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. The omkara is taken as a name of God in Arya Samaj, and similarly as a symbol of God in Sikhism (no it's not).

It is pronounced as a long or over-long nasalized close-mid back rounded vowel (IPA [oːⁿ]).

It is placed at the beginning of most Hindu texts as a sacred exclamation to be uttered at the beginning and end of a reading of the Vedas or previously to any prayer or mantra. The Mandukya Upanishad is entirely devoted to the explanation of the syllable.

and it goes on to say the syllable's significance in the religions that use the syllable. Abecedare's quote shows its derivation from the word Omkara, not from a syllable. As I stated earlier, Singh transcribed the verse incorrectly; I have also said that he is not the best source for objective info, being mainly a humorist and novelist. So yeah, it deal with a syllable only. No references are needed to say that the article deals with a syllable, it's right there. Hopefully you're feeling okay.3swordz (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I don't need to be immature and demand a source, you will never find one. Conversely, I know Gurmukhi.3swordz (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your 11:21 comment, I was referring to the fact that noticing that the solution you just noticed was present for 23 days before when I said you could have saved time by reading. You prolonged this severely by not reading anything, as you continue to. I won't let you get away with this "om ligature" stuff now since you keep sneaking falsehoods back in.3swordz (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sound sample

can anyone post a sound sample of Aum its its hinduism—Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychomelodic (talk • contribs)

Additional Western Appearances

It could possibly be further added that "OM" has appeared independently in Western Mystery Tradition through Enochian, in which the letters O and M combine to form OM, meaning "to know", "to understand", or "wisdom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.175.50.26 (talk • contribs)

pronunciation

What is/are the exact value(s) of this syllable in phonetic terms? Some IPA symbols with explanations might be helpful. - filelakeshoe 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

the theoretical pronunciation is [oːⁿ] (or overlong [oːːⁿ]). obviously real-world pronunciation will vary, already due to the native phonological setup of the speaker's, and also because of additional modulation in chanting. After all, this isn't speech, it's non-phonological mystical chanting, and IPA wasn't intended for that. Some will also make it closer to [aːuːm] because they have been told it is three phonemes, trying to pronounce it "properly", or because their guru told them to dwell on each phoneme individually. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

JOSEPH CAMPBELL in his book The Power of Myth explains the AUM very clearly. First of all it is a four-element syllable , mainly vowels. The four syllables represent a sound of the energy of the universe of which all things are manifestations-- or simply stated,the God force) The syllables represent the father, son and holy spirit all in one. The fourth syllable is a non-sound of silence out of which AUM arises.It represents the birth, the coming into being and the dissoultion which cycles back.(These are not quotes) The silence is what we would call the immortal, and there wouldn't be the mortal if it wasn't for the immortal. To me this explains the AUM or the OHM or the OM better than anything. This is the ultimate etymology of the original meaning of the OHM and why it is uttered. One is attempting to become at one with the infinite source of all that is not only infinite but within the individual soul as well. The father within doeth the works--do not look either lo here nor lo there for the Kingdom of God is within you said Jesus or words to that effect. Joseph Campbell is the ne plus ultra authority on any and all of the so-called myths and deep meanings behind the great spiritual traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locatewisdom (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Power of Myth is a 1988 "companion" to a television series. Fair enough if you can quote it verbatim. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Onkar glyph

The talkpage merriment above seems to boil down to the question of what is the origin of the Gurmukhi onkar glyph. It is clear that ੴ consists of ੧ 1 for ek and a modification of ਓ o for onkar. Now what modification of o will give you omkara? That's right, oṃ, i.e. Gurmukhi ੴ is the equivalent of Devanagari १ॐ or IAST 1oṃ expanding to literally "one omkara" (which is, surprise surprise, what the glyph represents). But it appears that the "modification of ਓ" being the tippi in origin is less than obvious to Sikh authors, and I have difficulty finding a reference for it. All I can cite is that it is a "peculiar modification" of o[4]. For this reason, and because of the ardent resistence to anything concerning Sikhims exhibited above, the claim that ੴ is a ligature of ੧ਓੰ =1oṃ is tagged as {{dubious}}. We need better sources on this point. User's noise about my "astounding ignorance" regarding Gurmukhi is based on a conflation of ੳ and ਓ in their comment on "my BS ligature" btw.

The first is a blank Oorra. The second is an Oorra left open, thus the irregular horra manifesting for the world to see. As you can see, this religious symbol can be extremely stylized. (No, really!)3swordz (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

To summarize, we are clear that ੴ is 1o (੧ਓ) plus a "peculiar modification". that the modification can indeed take peculiar forms in actual manuscript hands is evident from this image. That the "peculiar modification" originates just as the ॐ ligature as ਓ plus tippi (oṃ) remains unreferenced. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. You can see from the spelled-out version that the tippi is not near the Oorra. So Sikh authors didn't see the truth about their own "glyph" but you did for them. And you're still pretending to know Gurmukhi, and sneaking your own beliefs back in. The Oorra is one of two letters that cannot make a sound unless a vowel marker is attached to it. A blank Oorra with a tippi means nothing, it cannot exist. The Oorra is fitted with a vowel marker, an irregular "horra" to make a sound. The tippi is also never attached to a letter, it is placed between letters on the upper line, and the tippi can't just hang precariously like that, it has to be between letters. The bindi is used in that fashion, to do what the tippi can't. Plus, the tippi never makes the "m" sound, you would need a "mumma" letter to make that. Please stop embarrassing yourself, you don't know what you're ranting about. Settle with a "peculiar modification," lol. It's a horra used on an Oorra, exactly as it would be used in secular writing to make a short-O sound. Not this again...3swordz (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your images destroy your argument. I don't see a tippi anywhere. I've never seen an administrator defend blatant OR so determinedly, and assume to know better than generations of Sikh scholars, or anyone who knows Gurmukhi for that matter. An Oorra left open = w/horra = short "O". We are not looking for what makes it what you want it to be, "om," we are stating what it actually is.3swordz (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And believe me, once you take a glance at the article and see that it deals with a syllable (I will produce the entire intro yet again):

Aum (also Om, written in Devanagari as ॐ, in Chinese as 唵, in Tibetan as ༀ, in Sanskrit known as praṇava or omkāra) is a mystical or sacred syllable in the Indian religions, including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. The omkara is taken as a name of God in Arya Samaj. (which is just a Hindu reformist movement)

It is pronounced as a long or over-long nasalized close-mid back rounded vowel (IPA [oːⁿ]). Om is more an intonation more than a word

It is placed at the beginning of most Hindu texts as a sacred exclamation to be uttered at the beginning and end of a reading of the Vedas or previously to any prayer or mantra. The Mandukya Upanishad is entirely devoted to the explanation of the syllable.

(its use as a syllable in other religions, etc.)

the Sikh reinterpretation will go altogether. Your disingenuous beliefs are on this talkpage for everyone to see.3swordz (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

yes. it would be nice if you started to cite actual sources instead of filling this talkpage with vitriol. I found a source stating that the onkar glyph has a "peculiar modification". Your interpretation is as unsourced as mine, and if you insist we are going to be pricks about this, we'll just cite whatever sources we have. I am not here to defend any OR. I am here to prevent you from blanking referenced and relevant information. The only point you have is what I have tagged as "dubious" for you. You seem to be unable to separate the issues in a constructive manner, so somebody needs to do it for you. The "In Sikhism" section is seperate from the question of article title, and again separate from the very particular question of the Gurmukhi glyph. This section is supposed to address the Gurmukhi glyph, and there is no reason for you to embark on yet another generic rant. In terms of content of this "dispute", seeing that Guru Nanak adopted the Upanishadic omkara as a term for God, I don't see why you should be so upset at the idea that he should have adopted the written symbol along with the term. It's just a name of God, ok? Like any other names, it has a history. --dab (𒁳) 06:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I never denied ever that onkar was etymologically derived from the term "omkara" as opposed to syllable "Om" that was made clear as far back as my very first statement way back in 28Jan, before you ever had to get involved. I already discussed Singh's questionable status as a source a few times now, he has no qualifications, and he incorrectly transcribed the line he used to make his point, as I showed precisely in my own source. Sources should be qualified, Wikipedia would be a mess if anyone's book could be quoted as fact. What you can't seem to understand is that this is an article about a syllable, and that Ik Onkar is not Sikhism's Om ligature. As for your insistence that we are equals in terms of knowing Gurmukhi, please stop. This is like arguing that a letter "t" stands for a Christian cross rather than the sound "t"; you are prescribing too much meaning to a Oorra modified with a horra, which is the first letter of Oankar, not a ligature. I don't need to source the sound the letter makes, that's the sound it makes. This is like arguing what sounds Latin letters make with no familiarity with the Latin alphabet. And you finally seem to have cooled off on trying to pin the tippi on the letter, so I may have even made progress with you, if you'd admit that.

Ik Onkar is more like the initials for One God, it is a doctrine, not a syllable. I have also stated repeatedly that the history is made irrelevent by the term's complete reinvention, while the etymological derivation I never contested. At any rate, I hope you're still on board with the Omkara article idea, I intend to either

A) make the Sanskrit term Omkara an article of its own rather than a redirect link, and the sole place where Ik Onkar and Aum show up in the same place, as equal derivations of the term (my preferred option, may want to read more of it in my discussion with Abecedare where you discovered this idea 23 days late), B) barring that, if you insist on stubbornly keeping the uncontested status quo, this article itself will become the Omkara article, depriving Aum of its own article and relegating Aum to a section of In Hinduism, which I would rather not have happen. The first will entail removing the Sikhism section from AUM, but will appear alongside Hinduism's AUM in the Omkara term article, so it is a fair trade-off. I will do this soon.

I feel I have been more than generous with concessions in the meantime, so your Sikhism statement (the symbol, as opposed to being an initial) in the intro I will delete. That is inaccurate, period.3swordz (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3swordz, you say that, "onkar was etymologically derived from the term "omkara" as opposed to syllable "Om"". Unfortunately:

• Your statement is contradicted by the reliable sources we quote in the article, which plainly say that the concept of onkar is based on and equivalent to the idea of the primal om.
• Omkara, literally means the "the sound, syllable om", so the distinction that you are trying to draw between the two ideas (om and omkara) seems artificial.

I don't know what can be gained by further discussion of personal theories and opinions, without sources. Of course, if you have reliable sources to back up your viewpoint, we can quote them too. Abecedare (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The source wrongly transcribes the verse from the Dakhni Onkar, is the issue. The word Om or Omkar do not appear in the SGGS, and I've already expressed concern for using Khushwant Singh as a scholarly source, although aside from his incorrect insertion of AUM, did correctly state the term's complete reassessment as a new, singular idea for Sikhs.

As for deleting the intro statement, the second character is simply the first letter of the word Oankar (a Gurmukhi Oorra left open, creating the adapted horra to make a short-O sound), it is not an Om symbol. I've also shown this to dab, who cannot seem to draw a source for his om ligature theory. As someone who is very familiar with Gurmukhi, this is extremely self-evident, this is like debating what sounds Latin letters make. Any Punjabi language guide will show this, I do not have to cite. But I do have a book cover of a novel that may illustrate the idea. The same character, in secular usage here The title is "opra khet" (rocky land), pronounced with a short-O sound as in Onkar. As stated earlier, neither of the component characters of Ik Onkar are special except in conjunction, they are secular by themselves. Ik Onkar's can be embellished/elongated/decorated in many ways, or it doesn't even have to, it is the same character. It is not an Om symbol, is the point.3swordz (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

dab:An example of what a tippi should always look like here, on the third word (Sapne Te Suntap, it's about Sikh Americans). Tippis are used like in -nt or -ng or -nj, etc., they are not elongated, like you want them to be.3swordz (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

you clearly have no idea what "ligature" means. You may as well claim that & is an 8x ligature because it looks more like 8x than like et. But let that pass, I already agreed we don't have a reference for the tippi. What you need to do is stop reverting unless you can at least quote some sort of reference backing up your opinions. The credit goes to Abecedare for presenting quotable sources for this onkar thing. Plus I came up with a source on the shape of the ik onkar glyph. I graciously accept that anything not referenced may be challenged. Conversely, tf there is anything left that you want, now would be a good time to stop talking and present us with a quotable reference, especially if you are unhappy with the quality of such references as we have, the burden evidently lies with you to come up with sources with at least as much credibility. If you present sources that are clearly superior to the ones we have now, we will obviously favour them.

Regarding your continued bickering regarding Gurmukhi, can you please once and for all accept that I realize that o is written as ਓ and stop telling me this? The question here isn't the shape of Gurmukhi ਓ but the "peculiar modification" to the ਓ glyph found exclusively in the ek onkar glyph. This is rather less than "self-evident", called "peculiar" by a Sikh author and considered "peculiar" enough by the Unicode Consortium to give it its own codepoint, ੴ.

Btw, Abecedare, the literal meaning of "omkara" is "to make om" (i.e. "to make an om sound"). Of course, by Guru Nanak's time, omkara was just a name, in Upanishadic Hinduism referring to some sort of highest spiritual quality. Nanak then just so happened to pick that name for his concept of God. There is nothing controversial about this, and nothing that would either tout or denigrate Sikhism, it's just like pointing out that Allah or God have their own etymologies too. --dab (𒁳) 10:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"by Guru Nanak's time, omkara was just a name for some sort of highest spiritual quality." that is actually what I have been getting at this whole time, buddy, you can put that in the Onkar h2. It no longer had an explicit link to AUM, and was reinterpreted entirely. Hence my Omkara article solution now 24 days ago.

It's "peculiar" because it is decorative, there is no reason for it except for decoration or self-imposed meaning, many do not prescribe any, and the extension is far from universal/uniform/necessary etc.

I didn't stop telling you because you insisted on a claim you created for yourself that was wrong in the extreme, and insisted on "dubious" when it was nonsensical altogether.

Plus, the "t" point was not addressing any "ligature" point, I was addressing how you mistook a secular letter for a religious symbol with your extremely limited knowledge on the subject of the Gurmukhi script. You ascribed too much meaning to a little secular letter because of a passing resemblance.3swordz (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)3swordz

This is nice, buddy, as I have said, you haven't made any point that is in any way controversial. It is your edits (blankings) that are, not your insistence to keep repeating the same trivial points on talk over and over. In a charitable reading, this was just a misunderstanding, or bad communication. That happens, no problem. You may just want to avoid exploding in revert-wars next time you find communication difficult. Again, I see no point in any further exchange of niceties unless you can finally bring yourself to presenting your first quotable source. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The original article said "Aum in Sikhism" and claimed that it was based on the om syllable, and wrote the verse wrong to put in Om (and didn't say much else for the section), when it is initials more than anything else and is not based on AUM. There have been changes for the better whether you want to admit or not, and could have come a lot sooner it you had not considered yourself above reading the points of a mere non-administrator peon and not demonstrating your complete infamiliarity with Gurmuhki. And it is naive to any take source on faith, considering it was wrong, and I have read it myself; the source was far from encyclopedic, but was rather editorial-like. Khushwant Singh is known for being opinionated, and is no scholar.3swordz (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

at no point was there a string "Aum in Sikhism" in the article. There was a section "In Sikhism" the scope of which you insisted on misrepresenting. Once again, I am not prepared to discuss any of this unless and until you present some decent reference. If there have been "changes for the better", they are my changes. Your entire contribution consisted in blanking content and wasting space on talk. This has nothing to do with being an administrator or not, it has to do with bloody well pulling your own weight if you want to edit an article. Once again, I am not insisting we use the Khushwant Singh reference, and we will have something to discuss as soon as you present your first reference that may be used to either replace it or put it into perspective. No source, no discussion. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Title: Aum h2: In Sikhism. There is no misrepresentation. Trying your hardest to look knowledgeable on Gurmukhi. Incorrectly citing already faulty sources for subjective conclusions, and demanding sources for what alphabet letters stand for. Your changes, lol. Sure, your changes. Still haven't ruled out a move.3swordz (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gurmukhi is just another Brahmic script, I honestly don't know why you keep harping on it. You, sir, are a troll. I acknowledge that the disruption caused by you and your peers ultimately lead to better articles, so no problem. If you still want to move this article to omkara, you have my complete indifference, but you'll need to suggest it cleanly as opposed to burying the proposal in your ranting. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gurmukhi is important because it is what Ik Onkar is written in, so yeah. And I've already taught you about Oorra and introduced it to this article as an initial for the word Oankar as opposed to "derived from AUM" with no mention of it, so get through your head as well that it can't be used w/o a laga matra. And leave up the tags until sources can be placed there, don't impose a time limit, you're not that far up. if you had bothered to look at what you rved, I added citation tags. The h2 title has been changed to Onkar in Sikhism as opposed to looking like Title: AUM h2: In Sikhism. I don't care if you love me or hate my guts, my "trolling" has changed the article for the better through better points and called you out on your BS several times. (The reinterpretation you eventually confessed to abecedare, if not me, and the whole tippi/ligature malarkey episode are among those).

Yet again, a move may not even be necessary, I may convert Omkara into a brief article of its own instead of being a redirect is what I've reiterated many times. it will entail the removal of the Sikhism section from Aum, but will make Aum and Ik Onkar equal subsections when it comes to the interpretation/reinvention/reassignment of the term omkara. Give time for the sources, my life doesn't revolve around this site like yours does. Leaving citation tags for informed statements is within the rules. Now leave it at this.3swordz (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3swordz, I have eyes in my head, I can see the right half of the glyph looks ura plus hora. I really do not know why you think you need to keep "instructing" me about this when I quite plainly asked for a source relating to the ik onkar glyph about five times over. If you are so great with Gurmukhi, you know that ura plus hora just yields boring old ਓ (i.e. o) in normal writing, and the onkar glyph is a special case. Special cases need special references, and I will thank you for ceasing to insert random references on Gurmukhi in general. I am glad your life "doesn't revolve around this site", in spite of appearances on this talkpage, and I will thank you if you will leave this article alone until you come up with your reference. Ok? References first, edit later. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

onkar glyph, continued

if any bona fide editors are still following this, we need a reference discussing the development of the special Gurmukhi onkar glyph.

[5] here is an interesting page, pointing to Sikh literature on the glyph. Apparently, they say that the arc signifies "kar" in order to end up with a tripartite glyph ik-on-kar. But Bhai Gurdas' Vaaran refer to the special "onkar" glyph as Ura in the form of Oankar[6], and to the written-out ik onkar as "The Five Letters". --dab (𒁳) 08:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is another reference: John Westerdale Bowker, God: A Brief History (2002) p. 124, "[the Ik Onkar symbol] is made up of:

• the numeral 1
• the sign for Oan ('that which truly is', the Sanskrit Aum)
• the word for kar 'syllable'"

this confirms that the symbol is considered tripartite in Sikhism, consisting of 1+Aum+"kar". --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

More Sikh references (unfortunately available to me only in "snippet view") confirm that Sikh theology interprets the "Ik Onkar" as the statement that "the Aum is One", i.e. Sikhism is fully aware of the mystic implications of the aum syllable, including its tripartite significance (a-kāra, u-kāra), ma-kāra) and far from being "unrelated" to that, the "Ik Onkar" is taken as the positive statement of "these three are really one". This is evident from Wazir Singh, Humanism of Guru Nanak (1977) p. 100 ("Onkar is a variation of Om (aum) of the ancient Indian scriptures") and Wazir Sing, Aspects of Guru Nanak's philosophy (1969) p. 20 ("Onkar in relation to existence implies plurality, since the phenomenal ... a, u, m of aum have also been explained as signifying the three principles of creation, sustenance and annihilation ... but its substitute Ekonkar definitely implies singularity in spite of the seeming multiplicity of existence.")

It turns out that the Ek Onkar is far more relevant to the Hindu aum than the article hitherto assumed. Beyond sharing simply the same origin in Upanishadic mysticism, Ek Onkar is a straightforward commentary on the Hindu Trimurti symbolized by Aum. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Institute for Understanding Sikhism

Finally, some light on where 3swordz' obstinate behaviour in this is coming from is shed by an article found at the "Institute for Understanding Sikhism": Devinder Singh Chahal, OMKAR The Misunderstood Word [7]

"Guru Nanak explains to the Pundit that there is no Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) of God to which the word, Omkar, implies."

Chahal calls the ੴ ligature an "original and unique logo [sic] coined by Guru Nanak", describing it as "1 + Open Oora with its open end extended". The "open end extended" corresponds to the "peculiar modification" mentioned above. Weirdly, Chahal goes on to claim that it "should be pronounced as ‘Ek Oh Beant or Anant’. The mispronunciation as Ek Oankar or Ek Onkar or Ek Omkar or Ek Oamkar or Ek Aumkar ... should be forsaken" Chahal thinks that it is "an irony that it is mispronounced as Ek Oankar or Ek Onkar or Ek Omkar and is misunderstood to be originated from OM (Oam/Aum) by majority of the Sikh scholars and the Sikhs at large." We seem to be looking at Sikh theological speculation attempting to "correct" the Sikh mainstream. It helps a lot to at least understand the motivation of religionist editors. But most of the time, they won't provide the references putting their own view into context themselves, because they are, of course, simply Right. At least we will now have the "Institute for Understanding Sikhism" to quote for the opinion that the ੴ glyph is an "original and unique logo" and has nothing to do with om whatsoever, and that all Sikhs scholars since the 17th century are plain wrong. The article goes on to state

"It was Dr Parminder Singh Chahal (personal discussion) who gave very simple and convincing logic that ੴ is composed of two parts, i.e. numeral '1' and the first letter of Gurmukhi alphabet, ਓ [sic, not ੳ], with an open end. The numeral '1' should be pronounced as 'Ek' and the letter ਓ (Oora) with open end as 'Oh'. It was also observed by Kalsi [ Kalsi, Nirmal Singh. 1996. Beej Mantar Darshan (Punjabi). Kalsi Technologies] that ੴ should be pronounced as Ekoooooo. Our further research lead us that the letter open 'Oora' means 'Oh' in Punjabi-English Dictionary and in Mahan Kosh of Bhai Kahn Singh . 'Oh' of Punjabi and 'Oh' of English means 'That' in English [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary [sic, wth?]]. The open end of 'Oora' has been extended to characterize it as Beant (Infinite) or Anant (Infinite). Thus, it should be pronounced as ieku Ek + Oh + Beant (One Oh ∝ [sic, apparently intending ∞] = One and Only, Oh, the Infinite). Or Ek Oh Ananat as suggested by Harchand Singh of Calgary, Canada suggested that ‘Anant’ is equally good for ‘Beant’. (Personal Communication)."

this is intriguing, and it streamlines perfectly with the incoherence due to 3swordz (talk · contribs) above. It is also cranky OR: thanfully, the article also gives the solid references of Sikh mainstream who are all "ironically mistaken", admitting that

"Now it has been become an established fact in the Sikh psyche that ੴ is Ek Oankar, Ek Onkar, Ek Omkar, Ek Oamkar, was originated from OM. It is mentioned in the same way on the Hindu Internets [ sic! ]. For example, Prem Sanjeev, member of Sikh Diaspora and Learning Zone Internet Discussion Groups, says “Om is the essence of the Vedas. The Upanishads and the Geeta glorify It. It with this one sacred syllable all Vedic mangalaacharans are considered done. By remembering and invoking the Lord as Om, Shri Guru Nanak Dev dutifully maintains the Vedic paramparaa or 'tradition', for that new philosophy which disregards age-old wisdom can never bear fruit. When new thoughts or ideologies are based upon the wisdom of the ancient, they have not only the fragrance and freshness of the new but also the strength and tenacity of the old. Saints never come into this world to destroy the link with the ancient; rather, they come to fulfill the wisdom of the past. Shri Guru Nanakji did the same. The approach was new, but the knowledge was not. The language was different, but the essence the same.” The Dharam Parchar Committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), Amritsar has gone a step further to structurally misconstrue ੴ into ‘Ik Oamkar’ as it appears on the title page of the April-May-June 2002 issue of Gurmat Gian (Fig 1 [which casts ੴ into Devanagari, clearly including anusvara, but failing to interpret the "peculiar extension" as equivalent of chandrabindu] semi-circle])."

Depending on the notability of the "Institute for Understanding Sikhism", we can now explore this issue at the Ek Onkar article (not in this one of course). The upshot seems to be that Gurmukhi ੴ is generally read as equivalent to Devanagari १ॐ (IAST 1oṃ) but that there are some articles floating around on the Internets claiming that this is an ironical misunderstanding. --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

~3;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.253.27 (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)