Talk:Mul Mantar

Possible copyright violation

Most of the parts of this article have been pasted from SikhiWiki.org. Click on the link to follow it. Sikhiwiki.org has not mentioned its licensing on the same page and I do not have any reason to believe that it is GFDL compliant.

Note to the uploader: Please check the licensing of the article that has been copied from SikhiWiki.org and discuss it here. I am watching this page. --Andy123(talk) 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SikhiWiki is a GFDL compliant Wiki. See disclaimer [1]. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the same. So, why dont we try to merge and transfer articles from Sikhiwiki.org to Wikipedia? --Andy123(talk) 13:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed User:Harisingh has been doing just that. However, the site is a bit preachy, so it'll need npoving and some of the content is also from non-FDL sources so it needs to be double checked. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Should God be "He" or "he"?

The article is inconsistent: sometimes God is "He" and sometimes "he". I just copyedited the Ōaṅkāra section, and on the basis of the introduction ("The English translation uses 'he' when referring to God. Sikhism does not recognise God as being of either sex and the original Punjabi version reflects this by being without gender.") I changed an instance of "He" to "he". I now wonder if I was right to do so. Isidore 22:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends, if by 'He' you mean another word for 'God' then it should probably be capitalised. All about style I suppose. As long as it's consistent throughout the article it should be okay. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the article to use He, etc, throughout. Isidore 19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Creation

Under the explaination for Sat Naam the words "nothing in existence" are used and the whole section seems to imply that Skihs believe that God created the universe at a fixed point in time. However, I thought the Sikh belief was that the life-time of God's creations was infinate and humanly indefinable, therefore Sikhs can not say if there was ever a nothingness, as opposed to the Hindu belief.

This is mere speculation and I can not back this up with scripture references so I think clarification is required. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.82.50.2 (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

God as male or female

I've moved the following text here; it certainly does not belong in the article:

The English translation uses 'He' when referring to God. Sikhism does not recognise God as being of either sex and the original Punjabi version reflects this by being without gender.

"The above statement regarding the English translation about God is incorrect. Sikhism does regard God as being of the male sex with the word 'purkh.' Purkh itself means male in the Gurmukhi script, and in this case, ਪੁਰਖੁ relates to that particular male personification of God. There are other instances in Gurbani where God is referred to as 'The Only Male.'"

• New Addition*

The first paragraph is correct. In Sikhism, God is neither male or female, the Guru proclaims this:

"(Since God) is neither male nor female; how can anyone describe Him? " (Sri Guru Granth Sahib PG 685)

The Lord is infinite, therefore cannot be described in finite words.

Proposing a move

I believe that this article should be moved to the title "Mul Mantar" as that is the straightforward pronunciation of the word and the best approximation in English. The current title "Mul Mantra" is misleading, if the final "-a" has been added as an attempt to comply to IAST, then it isn't even correct in that regard, "Mul" should have a final "-a" as well. In the English Wikipedia, Punjabi words and names have correctly been romanized without IAST, for example Guru Nanak Dev, not Guru Nanaka Deva, which is wrong. It just misleads people who are unfamiliar with IAST, let's keep it simple without inherent "-a"s everywhere. let's have it match other Punjabi article names in Wikipedia. If in agreement I'll move in a few days.3swordz (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Profitoftruth85 appears to have made the move. 3swordz (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. While it may be correct that in modern Punjabi, the word is pronounced 'Mantar' (indeed many complex consonant clusters in Punjabi have been simplified), the word 'Mantra' is a the proper *English* word to use. It must be remembered that Sikh scripture is not neccessarily in Punjabi, and the Punjabi of old was different to the Punjabi of today.

Case in point, see the Guru Granth Sahib online: http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1040&punjabi=t&id=44544#l44544

You see the line 'ਮੂਲ ਮੰਤ੍ਰੁ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮੁ ਰਸਾਇਣੁ ਕਹੁ ਨਾਨਕ ਪੂਰਾ ਪਾਇਆ ॥੫॥ ', where the spelling is actually Mūl Maṃtra + u (The u is used for grammatical purposes and is not part of the word per-se). There are 77 instances of the word 'Mantra' in the Guru Granth Sahib, compared to just 1 of the word 'Mantar'. 80.195.229.252 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked with a book I have on Sikhism before making the move, you can view it here.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked these: http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=mool+mantra&btnG=Search+Books  ; http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=mool+mantar&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Mantra is an ENGLISH word. Mantar is not. 80.195.229.252 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if "mantar" isn't an English word. Most Punjabi words aren't. The English transliteration "Mantar" more closely shows the Punjabi pronunciation, what you may be getting at is the "inherent -a" in Punjabi, which most article titles correctly leave out. (For instance, "Guru Nanak Dev" as opposed to "Guru Nanaka Deva.") Inherent -a's only complicate and mislead and most English speakers don't get the true purpose of it. (they would give it full weight, saying it something like "mon-traw".) English speakers unfamiliar with Punjabi would never get it right but "Mantar" would be the common-sense route.

I also find your assertion that old Punjabi was different than modern Punjabi in this respect hard to believe. Punjabi still has inherent -a's, it's just that the common trend in the English wiki for Punjabi is just to leave it off at word-final positions. Let's not tack on -a's everywhere.3swordz (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, ਮੰਤ੍ਰੁ minus the "u" might be seen as "mantr," which could be tricky. As long as "mantar" exists in the SGGS, it's an acceptable variant. And consonant clusters still have a notable presence in Punjabi with the "subscript" letters, nothing's been simplified. Even back then, "mantar" was used in the scriptures, no less, and it's used very commonly now. 3swordz (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Controversial Inclusion

The Mul Mantar adds at the word "Gurprasad".

The following lines are from the next bani in Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

"Jap" - The name of the Bani. See the beginning of other Banis for example. "Aad Such.....Bhi Such" - Is an introduction to the Bani Jap.

This is further corroborated by looking at the granth as a whole. The Mul Mantar, or the Manglacharya is used to begin each Ragh, Bani and Vaar.

The Mul Mantar, is sometimes shortened, but it always begins with Ik Oh-ang-kar and ends with Gurprasad. Even the pictures on the page show it as such.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mul Mantar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825234434/http://www.sikher.com/guru-granth-sahib/user/search/scripturelist?scripturepage=1 to http://www.sikher.com/guru-granth-sahib/user/search/scripturelist?scripturepage=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Source?

@Dylanraiman: Welcome to wikipedia editing. Do you have a source for this addition? Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Hi Sarah, I just recovered this from the previous version of the page because I know the version that includes the "Jap" verse is common and that there is debate about which is the proper version of the Mantar. My source is the previous version of the page since I remembered seeing it here. But I just found this website as well, can we use this? https://www.searchgurbani.com/guru-granth-sahib/ang-by-ang Dylanraiman (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: This website as well: http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1 Dylanraiman (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dylanraiman: As you note there is debate about "which is the proper version of the Mantar" etc in Sikhism and various subtraditions. We can't use such websites per WP:RS guidelines (anyone or any competing group can offer their own interpretation, or start a website to mislead/misrepresent/carelessly discuss Sikhism/Sikh beliefs). We must try to find high quality sources. Do you have a peer-reviewed scholarly or equivalent reliable source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Yes I understand what you're saying. Would it be possible for us to use a primary source for now until we find a scholarly source? Basing this on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. Dylanraiman (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dylanraiman: No, primary sources are generally not okay (except in cases where an exact quote is appropriate and when chosen with care as there are variant primary texts/manuscripts). We prefer secondary or tertiary RS. Japji is long, and this truncated version and its translation should be verifiable in a quality source. I will let that table you added remain the article for about two weeks. Hopefully, that is enough time for you to find an RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)