Talk:Om/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What about YouTube?

I would like to insert two links:

• AUM Spirituality: Significance of AUM - Ohm, Om Talk by Dr. Acharya Yogeesh
• AUM Mantra

Is it possible here?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.214.237 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now I've inserted the speaker, Dr. Acharya Yogeesh. No wikilink there.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.214.237 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Components

File:Om-n.svg may be used for describing the concepts associated to the character's graphical components. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

...but of course such associations would need to be based on a quotable reference. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Om, not Aum

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request and discussion below. That was very well-argued. - GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Aum → Om —

Om is the common English transcription of ॐ. Not just in English, but across most Western languages. The archive makes it clear that the current page's preference is merely WP:OR, in disregard of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH.

Three possible objections:

• Aum is more specific than Om and therefore makes a better title: The Om usage is so common that Om already directs here instead of to the Om disambig. That should've sent up red flags.
• The Hindu scriptures gloss Om as three sounds: This should be explained in the article, but doesn't change the common English spelling. (Less importantly, but worth mentioning: the ancient Vedic scriptures are authoritative neither for linguistic or modern use and are beside the point.)
• Some people use Aum/Om to distinguish between Hindu and Buddhist concepts: If this can be sourced (it seems specious), include that information in the Buddhist section of this page. However, far and away most people spell both concepts identically, which is why the Buddhist concept is already discussed here despite the presumed "misspelling."

Yes, this will require some minor editing and cleanup, but that should probably await consensus on the move. -LlywelynII (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From archives: (directly; many others in the archive & on this page use "om" despite article's omission of it)

• SUPPORT: Krazy
• SUPPORT: Prime Entelechy
• SUPPORT: 151.199.193.199
• SUPPORT: Wiki Wikardo
• SUPPORT: Thirusivaperur
• SUPPORT: 71.97.134.56
• OPPOSE: LordSuryaofShropshire
• OPPOSE: 128.59.26.54
• OPPOSE: Jyoti
• OPPOSE: Aum best represents the sound, and ūm represents the ॐ character. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support; "om" is clearly the most commonly used transcription in English. Powers ^T 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support obvious case of common english usage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

omkar ambavane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkarambavane3688 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources Needed

There seems to be some confusion in this article about the Sikh concept of onkar and aum. As is my understanding, the word onkar simply means "creator of aum" (-kar being etymologically related to "karta", which appears three words later in the Mool Mantar). This article, however, seems to equate onkar with aum and (apparently) omkara. There especially seems to be a lot of unsourced claims (such as Ek onkar meaning "The Aum is One"). I would be very interested in seeing some sources for these, otherwise they should be deleted. Krea (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there is confusion. The translation "The Aum is One" admittedly could do with attribution. It is one possible choice of rendering a nominal sentence. Obviously the literal word-by-word rendition is "one om syllable", but then English needs the copula and the article, so that "one om syllable" isn't a well-formed English sentence.

Of course kar is "etymologically related" to the root kar "make", but kāra is the technical term for "syllable". The fact that "ek omkar" (or "ek onkar", "ik onkar" etc.) is the vernacular pronunciation of Sanskrit ekomkāra is one of those facts almost too trivial to find a decent reference for, but perhaps we can find something. here I find a 1997 reference saying omkara, literally meaning the syllable om' but also used as a name of the divine 'Ek-onkar' . here is another reference stating explicitly "Oankar corresponds to the Sanskrit term OM". Here is a 2000 reference translating "Ek-Omkar" as "single-Om- syllable". Here is The Sikh review referring to "the symbolic representation of God as the mystic syllable, or sound OM".

Basically, this is just taken for granted by everyone and I seriously think that is isn't doubted by anyone, either within or outside of Sikhism. Most authors probably just find it too obvious to mention explicitly. If you find any reference contesting this, I would be interested in seeing it. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"If you find any reference contesting this..." Ah, but that's the very point, isn't it? There really aren't any good sources either way. As I'm sure you know, the Sikh tradition on the interpretation on Gurbani is strictly kept within the religious circles (I've attended a few teaching sessions held at a few Universities, but most teaching is done within Gurdwaras). In fact, I would be very cautious with occidental interpretation, since the few that I've seen trace their facts back to Ernest Trumpp's translation of the SGGS. Of course, my evaluation on western accuracy is just speculation, but nonetheless I still contest and require stronger sources.

More specifically, I don't believe that "the fact that 'ek omkar'...is the vernacular pronunciation of Sanskrit ekomkāra is one of those facts almost too trivial to find a decent reference for," is acceptable. This assertion requires a source. The only sources you've provided that directly references onkara with onkar is the first one ("The book of enlightened masters: western teachers in eastern traditions" by Andrew Rawlinson: a book that appears to ostensibly be an exegesis on Buddhism and Sufism) and even here he follows with "...is the very first in the list of the names of God given in the Japji," which is an incorrect interpretation of the Japji; and the third one ("Vedic remedies in astrology" by Sanjay Rath). These are not good enough as sources: the article is supposed to contain a Sikh interpretation on references to aum, not Sufic or Vedic ones. Their interpretation may turn out to be correct, but in themselves they are not reputable as sources.

Again, I do not contest that onkara is referenced in the Vedas (you can correct me on this, if I wrong), or its meaning, or that onkar references aum. What I contest is the assertion that onkar is vernacular for onkara. Simply because the the concept of onkara may have influenced Guru Arjan in writing onkar does not mean that onkar is meant to mean onkara. In fact, every semi-reputable source that I know of confirms my own assertion that ek oora (which is the literal translation of the first word of the Mool Mantar) is read as ek onkar and means "creator of aum", as your second reference itself states (Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions, by Wendy Doniger).

Now, you may very well be correct in what you are arguing for, but my preference is to cut all material that cannot be referenced since Sikh traditions are virtually all oral and thus very subjective depending on the biases of the orator (even ones that I myself am sure about, like my own assertions on what ek oora means); so, unless proper sources can be found, I would still contest that removal is the only way to conform to wikipedia's standards.

Krea (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (with some corrections, Krea (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

um, I have just pointed you to a couple of perfectly valid sources. Pick the one you like best and insert it in the article please. The very pedestrian fact that ekonkar represents Sanskrit ekomkāra is now referenced perfectly satisfactorily. Before continuing this discussion, I would like to see some evidence that there is any debate at all on this point in the real world.

also, please read the article. "Onkara" is not "referenced in the Vedas". The term first appears in the Mauryan period or later. Omkara, Omkar, Onkar, Oankar, etc. are just spelling variants. You are basically asking us to prove that "omkar means omkar". this is silly.

but you are correct that Weniger's paragraph goes on to note that "some Sikhs object to any suggestion that Oankar is the same as Om", I had not read that far. This can certainly be duly noted in the article (be my guest), and it certainly would explain all the prancing around happening on this talkpage.

please note that nowhere on this article is it claimed that "Oankar is the same as Om". The article merely notes the fact that Guru Nanak has taken the Sanskrit term and turned it into a unique theological concept of his own, so that "some Sikhs" would really appear to object to a notion that nobody is even proposing in the first place. The difference lies in context, not spelling. It's not that "Omkara" is different from "Oankar", it's that Hindu Omkar is different from Sikh Omkar, for the simple reason that Hinduism and Sikhism are two distinct religions. Because of this, the article has two sections, one labelled "Hinduism", and the other "Sikhism". --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, you cannot just pick any source and claim that it's valid (as far as I know). I come from a scientific background and I know that sources must be evaluated on context and bias. The sources you gave are not good, I'm afraid. This is an encyclopedia, which means that the information has to be credible.

"Before continuing this discussion, I would like to see some evidence that there is any debate at all on this point in the real world." No. I don't have to provide this in order to question the validity of claims made in the article. If I were to change the article to what I think is correct, then I'd have to provide evidence for it, but not when I question factual content.

"...it's that Hindu Omkar is different from Sikh Omkar:" that's precisely my point! I'm merely questioning whether the interpretation that a Hindu would associate with omkar is automatically the same that Sikhism would attach to onkar. Any religion is free to take whatever concept they like and turn it into whatever they like (as the Nazis unfortunately did with the swastika) without retaining the original interpretations.

Put it like this: a Hindu may well see my objection as ridiculous, because from his/her background onkar and onkara (or whatever spelling!) is the same. OK, I don't refute that. Sikhism took the concept of the Hindu onkara/onkara: OK, I'm not going to question that here. Sikhism retained the similarity between onkara and onkar: this I don't believe, and would like to see a source for in the article. Just because in Hinduism the concepts are identical does not logically mean the same in Sikhism. My proof? Well, as I said before, I don't have to provide any evidence in order to question facts, but Sikhism never calls "ek oora" "ek onkara", and "one aum syllable" is never rendered as the translation; so how can it be claimed that onkara and onkar are the same in Sikhism?

I'm not here to start a fight. I have my own views on this, but my primary concern is factual accuracy. Maybe you are correct, and I know that it can be annoying enlightening the less educated, but it is a duty that all knowledgeable people must undertake; so excuse my ignorance, but I still want a proper source! Krea (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC) and Krea (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

you want a proper source for what exactly? You already said that it is "precisely your point" that there is a difference between the Hindu and the Sikh use of the term. Which is what I have said, and what the article says. Are you saying you want a source for what you and I agree upon? Then that source is the Doniger article.

Or is this just about romanization? Onkar and omkāra is the romanization for one and the same string of letters in Indic scripts. As far as I can see, one is the conventional romanization in a Gurmukhi context, and the other is the strict IAST. The difference in Latin spelling is purely an artefact of romanization. While there is only a single IAST spelling (hence "strict"), there isn't even any unity in the transliteration of the Gurmukhi. People variously spell it Omkar, Onkar, Oankar and possibly otherwise. Omkar incidentially would be the conventional romanization of the Hindi. Do we need a source explicitly listing that Omkar, Onkar, Oankar are variants of rendering one and the same string in Gurmukhi? If you can agree that the Sikh term can be romanized as Omkar, and that the Hindi term as Omkar, if you don't mind can we from now on just talk about Omkar for both the Sikh and the Hindu concept so we can get the superficial issues of romanization out of the way? --dab (𒁳) 20:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not an issue of romanization (I have my own gripes about this!) but of interpretation of the concept of onkar. In fact, in Sikhism the issue is trivial: it is always rendered (as far as I know) as ੴ, which is simply "1o" when transliterated, so in fact neither "onkar" nor "onkara" appear at all. Although maybe we should just call it one thing so as to get this superficiality out of the way; we can call it "omkar" if you like.

Let me explain my point by quoting from the article. Actually, one of my main objections was the first line: "Aum...or auṃkāra (also as Omkāra)...(lit. "auṃ syllable") is a mystical or sacred syllable in the Indian religions, i.e. Hinduism/Sanātana Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism." This has since been changed to remove "Sikhism", so that's negated my objection.

Similarly, the concept of om, called onkar in Punjabi, is found in Sikh theology as a symbol of God. It invariably emphasizes God's singularity, expressed as Ek Onkar ("One Omkara" or "The Aum is One"), stating that the multiplicity of existence symbolized in the aum syllable is really founded in a singular God.

I've highlighted in bold the parts that I think are misleading or wrong. The "concept of om" is too ambiguous. If I were to interpret "om" as symbolic of the ultimacy of God, then that would correspond to omkar as it appears in Sikhism; but if I were to interpret "om" as the triplicity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, then it is not synonymous with omkar. I agree that I'm being a bit pedantic in this, but I think it's important for an encyclopedia to be accurate.

Next, the translation of ੴ (ek oora) is not "one omkara". That's the point I've been trying to make. Sikhism's omkar may trace its lineage to the omkar in Hinduism (I don't know, but I'm not contesting this here), but its Hindu meaning as "om syllable" is not what Sikhism utilizes in its theology. As far as Sikhism is concerned, ੴ only means "omkar" whose meaning is "creator of aum". If it were suggested that Sikhism also understands "omkar" as just being a variant spelling of "omkara", whose meaning is "om syllable", then that needs a source. Similarly, "the aum is one" is also incorrect in my opinion as a translation of ੴ and will need a source if it is to remain.

That's basically my objection. I hope that's clear, but I'll be happy to elaborate further if not. Krea (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeez Krea, where were you when I needed you! good job taking on this hubristic admin who pompously fancies himself an intellectual who thinks he knows better than Sikhs, and any who challenge him have fringe allegiances. He knew finding good written sources from Sikhs for this sort of thing is tough, and in his last post even tried to quote some Hindu layman from some internet forum as citation, and attempted to tie me with fringe elements whose views didn't even remotely match the ones I expressed. He tried to smear and discredit me as being a revisionist when he kept screwing up, trying to learn Punjabi and Gurmukhi on the fly, and I exposed him as clearly not knowing what he was talking about. He got all defensively aggressive and brusque with me rather than admitting his comically numerous screw-ups (he conceded my point to another editor but refused to with me, probably out of injured pride), right from the get-go, presumably because of a perceived slight towards Hinduism. so I just gave up. Even here he seemed to be copping an attitude because you were not content with making (his) assumptions and just going with his version, and using sources written only by non-Sikhs, as well as by a self-admitted "Kesdhari Hindu." You were also more patient than myself in dealing with his arrogance as well, I admit, so good job all around. 3swordz (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that! There is so much misinformation and confusion about Sikh theology and no good written sources by actual Sikhs that this whole endeavour can seem completely pointless to me sometimes; so I kind of do this sort of stuff only intermittently. Sikhism badly needs a proper academic -- like Macauliffe -- to produce a definitive text on Sikhism and its scriptures, but who could also stand in defiance to the blind dogmatism of the granthis (E.g. the whole Dasam granth controversy). But, what punjabi is going to learn so many ancient languages and study under so many people in order to do this? Academia is not exactly our strong point! I'm going to go ahead a remove the references to Sikhism that aren't sourced, since this is a fairly trivial matter as far as wikipedia is concerned ("You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references."), and I still have not been given any credible sources. Krea (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Buddha didn't teach it"

Sorry about my edit summary, my computer fell mid-typing and submitted only like one word. The intro is not a place to split hairs about the veracity of the teachings of Vajrayana; Om is an important mantra-practice for many Buddhists and glossing over that for theologically-motivated reasons (uncited ones!) is missing the point. Or rather it's POINTing. Ogress _smash! 14:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Om and Ohm

I don't have any problem with the recent edit, but, the edit summary is not entirely correct. Seatch in Google and you'll find some results. Ohm is an alternative spelling of Om (not very much popular, not I pronounce it, but still, an alternative pronunciation).
BTW, Ohm may refer to Georg Ohm too. --Tito Dutta ✉ 22:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is my reasoning: Just because ohm has been used, even in print, does not make it correct. As a transliteration it is not correct, no matter what system you might use, and it seems fairly likely that the instances of the "ohm" spelling that can be found are simply from people mistakenly associated the word with the legitimate word "ohm" (just as people often mix up affect and effect or complimentary and complementary, though such persistent confusion does not now make it okay to switch around the spellings of these words). — the Man in Question (in question) 03:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the Man in Question's post is insightful, and not inciteful! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

this is part of the pronunciation tree:

अ+उ+म=ॐ -->ऑ-म/ओ-:-म.... (note it is not ह, it is :), see Wikipedia:IPA for Sanskrit, the transliteration was correct! --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is this pronunciation tree from? I can find no results for ओ:म on Google, and I feel like if there were any (as in the example you have given above, o-ḥ-m), they serve only to give an idea of the myriad pronunciations that can be given to the syllable, not to the actual spelling. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I was little bit lazy here, so typed ":/colon", since I d(o/id) not have Devanagari writer in my computer.. it should be Visarga (Devanagari), Replace : with Visarga sign and search,,..,

or better read this article– lead section: Om is also written ओ३म् (ō̄m [õːːm]), In Jainism section.. A+A+A+U+M (o3m). etc.. --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, but ओ३म् still has no H. And with a visarga (ओःम, sorry I didn't catch that myself) there is only one result on Google. I'm still not seeing evidence for the word being spelled ohm. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We have almost reached.... the pronunciation of the letter is soft h (something between saw and hawk– soft h), but that can not be written in IPA transliteration of Sanskrit. so, it is written Ohm.. BTW, as I said in the beginning, I don't have any problem with that edit, I am not sure what editors have tried to do here– sometimes they have used first letter cap (i.e. Om), some times first letter small (om).. all mixed up.. anyway, what I have been trying to say–the edit summary was not correct. Om can be pronounced Ohm (h is soft h) too. --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken link

The external link for Om in the Upanishads, Gita, and Yoga Sutras is outdated, and needs to be redirected to: http://www.ocoy.org/original-yoga/pranava-yoga/aom-in-the-upanishads-bhagavad-gita-and-yoga-sutras/

Tarakananda (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not keep it, but have it point to the correct URL? It is a valuable article showing how widespread, indeed ubiquitous OM is in these scriptures. Tarakananda (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Chapter Seven of Pranava Yoga" ? Wikipedia is not collection of external links! Add in DMOZ! In many articles these links are added just to get visitors. At least one another EL should be removed there! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Western equivalent

What is Om? Mystical, yes. Sacred, yes. But what is it? It is the sound of the Creation, Indian equivalent of the Big Bang. As per Swami Krishnananda's exposition of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: "In the Manusmriti, and such other ancient texts, we are also told in a symbolic manner that Prajāpati, the Creator, conceived the whole cosmos in the pattern of 'Om', or the Praṇava. The Praṇava, or Omkāra, is supposed to be the seed of the whole universe." (see here). Hrishikes (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose to add the below content into om page. I feel that this is very significant thing which has emerged because we have a doctor and neurosurgeon who talks about existence of "om". Kindly give your feedback on the same.

I want to add the below content to Om page. Kindly give your comments on the same.

Eben_Alexander_(author) III (born December, 1953 in Charlotte, North Carolina) is a neurosurgeon and the author of the best-selling Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, in which he shares his thoughts on his near-death experience and whether science can explain that heaven really does exist. In his book Eben says " "I will occasionally use Om as the pronoun for God","OM" was the sound I remembered hearing associated with that omniscient,omnipotent,and unconditionally loving god".

Shiva321 (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've told you more than once that we don't just pick out quotes from books because we like them or think they illustrate some point (see WP:NOR. What sources meeting WP:RS comment on this sentence of Alexander's? What do they say? Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

well, om has by now an extended reception in western pop- and counter-cultures. There can well be a section about that, within WP:DUE and with proper attribution, ideally to secondary sources about this reception. Alexander is not necessarily part of the quantum quackery cyber-Hindu crowd, he just wrote a deeply personal account of his dear-death experience, which is certainly fair enough for me, the question is, why does this warrant inclusion (show some secondary references on his work which I am sure must exist somewhere). --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

a glance at Eben Alexander (author) shows that this is, after all, pseudoscience (quantum quackery), but also that it has in fact been widely received, reviewed and criticized, so it should be no problem to briefly mention it here. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Aum and not OM

Why is this article named OM? Where is the pronunciation of "U" in "OM"? In ॐ three sounds "A" "U" "M" are present. "U" is completely absent in OM, so this spelling is incorrect.

• "Technically, Aum is the more correct spelling." J. Donald Walters, ‎Swami Kriyananda [1],
• "An alternate and more phonetically correct spelling of Om is Aum." Swami Shankarananda [2]
• "The AUM is spelled A-U-M, and each of the letters stands for a component" [3] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct spelling of this term, as commonly used, is AUM

This is an article for the Hindu sound and mantra. It starts at the back of the throat, A, moves to mid-mouth, U, and finishes with a nasal stop, M. This progression from the back of the throat to the tip of the lips allows the sound and mantra to be expressive of the 'entirety of creation'.

The spelling Om starts in mid-mouth and ends at the front of the mouth. It fails to represent or embody that which the sound and mantra is intended to represent. It's a bastardization.

Try pronouncing the two styles for yourself. The difference is quite clear.

The spellings are present in roughly equal measure in English texts, though, for instance a google search for AUM returns 5,400,000 hits on google, whereas one for Om returns 542,000. Both of their image search results are completely full of the AUM symbol, with nothing else.

So as to WP:COMMONNAME, the two spellings are currently used in comparable amounts in the English language. This is a great opportunity then for Wikipedia to side with the one representative of the original tradition. AUM is the previous title of this page, and for good reason.

We stand at the breach of two paths. In one direction we can continue a bastardization that saps the original tradition, misleads our users, and contributes to the degradation of this spiritual mantra, or we can side with the name equally favored by the WP:COMMONNAME standard and actually help people educate themselves.

Far from being original research, this position is the only one well-supported with specific information about why this spelling in particular is correct. There are no reference supported article sections that show in extensive detail why and how the name of the word is spelled Om. There are multiple that support the AUM spelling.

• "Technically, Aum is the more correct spelling." J. Donald Walters, ‎Swami Kriyananda [4],
• "An alternate and more phonetically correct spelling of Om is Aum." Swami Shankarananda [5]
• "The AUM is spelled A-U-M, and each of the letters stands for a component" [6] Ganesh J. Acharya[7]

I have cleared the way for a move to AUM, which now is just a redirect to AUM_(disambiguation). Om should become the landing point for what is currently [Om_disambiguation]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogbert579 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I agree, but this has been discussed previously at Om not Aum where a decision was made that it should be "Om". Evidently our view is Hindu-centric. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand it has been discussed before, but I see no reason a poor decision made long in the past should stand in the way of a proper one being made now. Unless someone can provide a specific explanation, in a primary text, for using the spelling 'Om' in any context, besides simply, "That's what was done by some people." then this article move should be executed immediately, as both spellings are used in comparable amounts in the English language, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Dogbert579 (talk)

If you initiate a requested move then I'll support it. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hearing ॐ

There is something I must bear witness for : it's the little known "esoteric" behind the OM sound. Somebody who has an active kundalini literally hears the sound AUM after a while. I insist on the fact it is a "physical" sound - everything happens as if an energy flow was letting the inner ears resonate. Testimonies in dedicated support groups on Internet seem to indicate it is common that one usually begins to hear this sound in the right ear, and latter both ears. The easier the energy flows in the body due to the cleansing of the channels and chakras, the subtler becomes this sound.

I can testify to that because I have had a spontaneous kundalini awakening two years ago; about height months later I heard one morning the sound A-U-M very distinctly in my right ear, like an articulated syllable; I was very surprised and I asked a Yogi student of Swami Dev Murti Ji about the meaning of this phenomena, and his answer was "It is considered as a sign of achievement in meditation." A Buddhist master from a Chan tradition insisted to me on : "This is just phenomena. Do not attach to it," which is a wise advice. This phenomena has evolved with the adjustment of my body to the flows of energy; now one year later I perceive it in both ears as a subtle modulated background warm breath. I guess a Tantrika would say he hears the Voice of the Goddess singing. Since reaching this stage has necessitated a lot of work, I offered myself a ॐ necklace to symbolize that - if somebody deserves to wear one it's me. ;-)

This AUM sound is modulated, hence the names "pranava," which literally means "the articulated sound of the life force." (the Sanskrit root "va" means "articulated sound", it is to be found in the English word "voice" also.); or of course the name "omkara," the OM syllable. Based on my experience I can confidently assert that writing "A-U-M" is a lot more correct than "O-M", and certainly not "O-H-M."

This phenomena is clearly non-denominational. I suspect it is the origin of the word "amen."

Please consider that behind the "theory" there is something real.

In all humility I hope this helps. 176.188.203.178 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sikh section

@Dharmalion76: The " Guru Nanak and Om-maker" is in the Doniger source, see second line of second paragraph in Ik Oankar entry on page 500. I have no particular preference whether it should be included in this article, so leave it to you to decide. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: You are absolutely correct. I was mistaken and I apologize. If you readd it, I would recommend you alter the wording slightly as you had "Guru Nanak attributed the term to be the Om-maker" whereas the source says "Guru Nanak...attributed the origin and sense of speech to the Divinity, who is thus the om-maker" which, to me at least, read as two completely different things. The first seems to claim that Om is the om-maker whereas the second says the Divinity is the om-maker. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Your call whether it adds any useful information, and whether to add it or not. I will go with your judgment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think adding it would be fine (with a refinement of the text) as my sole reason for removal was my mistaken impression that it wasn't in the source. I should have read it more carefully (the text is quite small on my screen). Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Various issues

Excellent, I see that there is already a discussion on the Sikh section. Now, I would like to make a few observations. Quoting the first paragraph:

Ik Onkar, iconically represented as [ੴ] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language tag: p (help) in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (although sometimes spelt out in full as ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ) is the statement of singularity in Sikhism. The phrase is a compound of the numeral one (ik) and onkar, states Wendy Doniger, canonically understood in Sikhism to refer to "absolute monotheistic unity of God" [1]. Ik Onkar has a prominent position at the head of the Mul Mantar and the opening words of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib. [emphasis added]

[1] Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions, Wendy Doniger, 1999, p. 500. Link.

Firstly, the word "singularity", which I have emphasized in the text, has replaced the phrase "the uniqueness of God". Why? What does the word "singularity" mean here? It was much clearer before. Secondly: the words "states Wendy Doniger" has replaced "which can be translated as creater of om". As far as I know Wendy Doniger is not an authority on Sikhism to warrant an especial reference, and furthermore the exegesis of the word "onkar" has been removed. Again: why? It is specifically mentioned in the reference provided on that line for one thing, so it cannot be because it is unsourced.

However, it is really the second paragraph that is more problematic. It goes as follows:

The Onkar of Sikhism is related to Om – also called Omkāra – in Hinduism. Some Sikh scholars disagree that Ik Onkar is related to Om [1]. Other Sikh scholars suggest that there is deeper, historical relationship between Ik Onkar to Omkāra [2] – in Hinduism.[1][3] as well as to the metaphysical concept of Brahman, particularly as nirguni Brahman – attributeless, formless, eternal Highest Reality.[4][5][6]

[2] Jean Holm and John Bowker, Worship, p. 67. Link

[3] Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction, Eleanor Nesbitt, 2005, Chapter 4. Link

[4] The Sikh and Sikhism, Surinder Singh Kohli, 1993, p. 39 Link

[5] The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies, Hardip Syan, 2014, p. 178. Link

[6] Time, History and the Religious Imaginary in South Asia, Anne Murphy, pp. 188-190. Link

The first line is redundant: it was already clear earlier in the text that onkar means "creator of Om". The second line, which says "Some Sikh scholars disagree that Ik Onkar is related to Om", is not what is said in the reference (Webster's encyclopedia of world religions, Doniger, 1999, p. 500), which says: "Some Sikhs object to any suggestion that Oankar is the same as Om."

Then the line: "Other Sikh scholars suggest that there is deeper, historical relationship between Ik Onkar to Omkāra [2] – in Hinduism.[1][3]" is vague and is not well sourced. Reference [2] on Google omits the page in the reference — page 67, and so it cannot be checked. Can the originator of this reference please provide a quote to backup the reference? and then perhaps I can verify it. Reference [2] makes no explicit mention of any "deeper, historical relationship", and reference [3] is simply to a whole chapter titled Turban, Khalsa, and code of conduct, which, again, I cannot verify. Could the originator of this reference, again, please provide an exact textual quote to backup the article text?

The final sentence: "as well as to the metaphysical concept of Brahman, particularly as nirguni Brahman – attributeless, formless, eternal Highest Reality." is equally vague, possibly original research, and is not well sourced. Reference [4], again, omits the source page quoted, so the reference cannot be checked. Similarly with reference [5], which again omits the source pages, and reference [6], which seems unconnected to Sikh theology but regardless contains only the start of the chapter. Firstly I have misgivings as to the reliability of these sources WP:SOURCE, but at the least I think it would help to have the actual quotes from these references so that it can be evaluated how well these lines in the article are sourced. I will leave the article as it is for the time being, but I think these lines need to be verified, and I would appreciate some help since I don't have direct access to these texts. Krea (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: See WP:COPYVIO; "disagree with" is a reasonable rewording for "object to". On rest of your comment, p. 39 means page 39 etc? What do you mean by "omits the source page quoted"? For help locating a source, try WP:RX. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Same and related to language

Hello Sarah. My contention was actually with the change to "Ik Onkar is related to Om" from "Ik Onkar is the same as Om". There the two sentences are not synonymous. With regard to the sources, I meant that the Google Book search, which for the time being is the only resource open to me, does not preview any of the pages mentioned in the references (unluckily for some of them since they do have previews for page ranges besides them). Thank you for the link to WP:RX; I was not aware of it and may have to resort to a request there. But before that, did you add the references yourself? If you have the material at hand, then can you simply provide the exact quotes from the books in question? This would not only add to the information in the article, but also, more importantly, I can attempt to verify them. Thank you again. Krea (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: The "related" wording is more accurate summary, than "same". You will have to rely on WP:RX. Otherwise WP:AGF. I recall checking those references for WP:V, and they verified fine. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't see how "related" could be a more accurate summary since nowhere else in the source is it mentioned the opinions of the Sikh community. Those members of the Sikh community can very well hold that Om is related to Ikonkar and still strongly oppose the suggestion that they are the same. The two are completely different statements to hold. Perhaps I am mistaken, though, and you can correct me?

No offence, but you seem to be giving me short shrift here. It is because of WP:AGF that I have not reverted the article and have asked for help on the sources here. If you have the texts at hand, why not supply me the quotes and then I can add them to the article? I find your attitude unhelpful and evasive, to be honest. You should not be offended, because accurate sourcing and quoting is to give proper respect to the authors you have referenced.

If you did "check those references for WP:V, and they verified fine" then could you point me to the particular bit of chapter 4 of Sikhism: A Very Short Introduction by Eleanor Nesbitt (2005), because I have acquired access to the text and I am struggling to find where it says anything about a "deeper, historical relationship between Ik Onkar and Omkāra". I'm sure I just missed it because I gave it only a quick read, and I would appreciate the help. Simply the page number and the start of the sentence should be enough for me to locate it. Thanks very much. Krea (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: Let us take one thing at a time. Are you proposing we change "related to" with "same as"? Do you have a reliable source for this suggestion? The "related to" is better because the Doniger source, on page 500, in the Ik Oankar article's second para reads, "Oankar corresponds to the Sanskrit term OM, which in the Hindu tradition is regarded as a sacred, mystical syllable (...), and represents the totality of the universe". But if you present another reliable source that states "same as", we can consider it as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to go through things carefully. The Doniger source (literally) says two things: "Oankar corresponds to OM, which is...", which I interpret to mean: that how Om is understood in Hinduism (which is "regarded as a sacred, mystical syllable...") corresponds to how Oankar is understood in Sikhism. The word "corresponds" is the key word here. Then Doniger states that "Some Sikhs object to the suggestion that Oankar is the same as Om". We can say in the article both those statements, but we should be careful not to mix them up because one is making a statement on how Oankar and Om correspond in their respective religions, and the other is about how members of Sikh community take offence to the suggestion that they are literally the same. Am I being clear, here? Krea (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: Indeed. Fixed. Note "object" does not necessarily mean "offense", it also means "disagree, challenge, quibble". I embedded quotes you asked for. Let us discuss one by one, anything you want revised, added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm glad that I'm making myself clear! (It is important that everybody is understood and we not make assumptions about what the other person is saying.) You're quite correct that the word used was "object" and that can, indeed, mean "disagree, challenge, quibble". Doniger says "Some sikhs object to any suggestion..." and the "any suggestion" makes the objection a little firmer. From my experience I know many Sikhs (that I've encountered in the UK and India) are in fact are quite vocal in their "objection" on this point to be at the verge of "offense"! So, I conflated the two. We should stick to the phrase "object any suggestion" as Doniger has it since I think it suffices.

Now, following your excellent suggestion to take things one bit at a time, let's go back, if you will, to my very first point: "Ik onkar...is the statement of singularity in Sikhism." Is this not a little unclear? You and I might understand what it means, but would others? Indeed, do we understand this in the same way? I think we should be careful not to overload the reader with deep metaphysical concepts since there is a specialist ੴ wiki page. We need only sketch things for readers here and go into deeper details on that page. ੴ is primarily the statement that Sikhs regard there to be one "God" and we should simply say — in my opinion — that this is a statement of the monotheism of Sikhism: we should replace "singularity" with "monotheism". In terms of sources, we have Doniger: "Referring to the Sikh understanding of the absolute monotheistic unity of God...[ੴ] is the central symbol of Sikhism."

Your thoughts? (Yes, I'm being pedantic, but this is not a major point of contention for me: I just think there's the risk of misleading the reader if we say "singularity" because that word can have different meanings for different people and we should aim to be unambiguous. We can skip this point if I'm being too tedious for you and move onto the part that I highlighted above that goes: "states Wendy Doniger", which I think is more important...) Krea (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Singularity

@Krea: How about keeping both: "....singularity in Sikhism, that is 'there is one God'." The term 'singularity' is in both the cited sources. The 'there is one God' is well supported on page 114 of the Kitagawa book. Before we move on to 'states Wendy Doniger', read WP:PLAG. The in-text attribution is prudent per wikipedia guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I think that works well. Thank you for pointing out the in-text attribution policy: it was not something I was aware of. Generally, academic citations do not do this, and it's not something I'm used to: it reads clunky and unnaturally to me, but if that's the policy then I won't argue. In that case I think we only should add the quote from Doniger explaining that Oankar means "Om-maker": it is a useful bit of information that the reader would probably not otherwise know. We can either try to integrate it into that sentence, a later one, or create a new sentence especially for it. What do you think?

If you allow me the transgression to move forward a little quicker and make my next point, it's simply that I think the line "The Onkar of Sikhism is related to Om – also called Omkāra – in Hinduism." is redundant. Haven't we already said essentially the same thing before with "Oankar corresponds to OM..."? Or have I missed some subtle point? Krea (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: That is not redundant. Om is found in Buddhist context as well, particularly Tibetan text and culture. We need to state the context, which in this case is the Hinduism, then explain with evidence of how, where, in what way, what scriptural evidence is there, what is the difference, what evidence establishes the difference, etc. But, I am jumping ahead. Let us take one thing at a time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's get to that point after we settle this one. As I said above, I think we should also state that Oankar means "Om-maker". This was in a previous version of the article but removed. I don't know why, but it is information that should be included I think. Krea (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: "Om-maker" is there. Look at the end of the paragraph. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources, sound, divinity, om-maker

Oh, I see that the section has been modified; I'm sorry I missed that. OK, so we have: "Guru Nanak wrote a poem entitled Oankar, which attributes the sense of speech to the Divinity, suggesting him to be the 'Om-maker'". What does "attributes the sense of speech of Divinity" mean? (I can't even see where the poem implies this.) ੴ is God and the poem is clear that ੴ — i.e. God — is the font of everything. It does not "suggest" Him to be the "Om-maker": Onkar means exactly "Om-maker" and there is no ambiguity about that. I think this point is very important. Krea (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: On 6 October, above, you wrote, "I think it would help to have the actual quotes from these references so that it can be evaluated how well these lines in the article are sourced." Now you have the source, you have the quotes, but now you have switched to arguing against the source with "I don't see where the poem implies this". This is puzzling WP:OR. Let us just faithfully try to summarize, in this article, what the source states. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't switched to arguing anything different. I still would like sources and quotes so I can check things. It is poor form to accuse the other side when they make further critiques. A person's position should be evaluated on whether there is merit to it. I simply don't see where in the poem there is anything attributing "the sense of speech to the Divinity". First this is vague to me and I don't understand what it means. Did I miss the line where it said "Onkar said..."? And second, you didn't answer my questions and enlighten me on where I might be wrong, you just attacked my motives again. Please stop this and let us try to resolve these issues. I mentioned above that my background is academia, and this sort of behaviour would be unacceptable there, and it should be unacceptable here. Now, again: the Doniger source states clearly that Onkar means "Om-maker" and nothing we should write should suggest there is ambiguity in that. This poem doesn't "suggest Onkar to mean 'Om-maker'"; again, where does it say that? Krea (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: But you are. Where does Doniger say, "Onkar means Om-maker?" Like you, I like sources and quotes too. So it is your turn. Please quote Doniger here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Doniger says: "Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh tradition, wrote a long composition entitled Oankar in which he attributed the origin and sense of speech to the Divinity, who is thus the "Om-maker". Now, even though Doniger says Guru Nanak attributes "the origin and sense of speech to the Divinity" this is clearly not be found in that poem, which is very clear and easy to understand. Here it seems that Doniger is blindly paraphrasing a secondary source, which is not unexpected since Doniger is not claiming to be producing an exegesis on Sikhi. To me, Doniger is saying this: "Guru Nanak wrote a poem titled Onkar in which he equates Onkar with God ('Divinity'), who is therefore literally the "Om-maker". Is she not saying Onkar is "Om-maker"? for otherwise where did this expression come from both within what Doniger wrote and the poem itself? Let's put it another way: she is stating that Onkar means "Om-maker" and then explaining that God ('Divinity') is what is meant by Onkar, who is thus the "Om-maker".

(But besides, surely you're not suggesting Onkar doesn't mean creator of Om? Of course you are right in demanding sources from me, and before we put this in the article we should source it, but outside of the article text, everyone, or at least every educated Sikh, knows that that's what it means. Why are we arguing this point rather than looking for good sources?) Krea (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: When you write, "even though Doniger says...", that is where you have switched to arguing against the source, doing WP:OR, and interpreting the primary source. That is against wikipedia policies. I want to keep the "attributed the origin and sense of speech...", because that is due and links it to ancient texts of other Indian religions where Om is described in those words (as summarized in the main article). How about we just quote Doniger exactly and in-text attribute her as well, to avoid WP:PLAG issues? In other words, we can leave the text as it is, or replace it with, "Guru Nanak wrote a poem entitled Oankar in which, states Doniger, he "attributed the origin and sense of speech to the Divinity, who is thus the "Om-maker"." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with that. But I still don't exactly know what "origin and sense of speech" means exactly. I'm missing the context that explains it, I suppose. If I don't get it, then so might the reader. Maybe we can add something to provide context as to why Doniger is using that phrase? Krea (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: You claim "you don't exactly know what origin and sense of speech means exactly". This is not an article to exactly define "Speech" or "God" or other terms. Speech and sound, in the context of Om, are discussed in other sections of this article. We cannot add unsourced interpretations, with WP:OR, as that violates wikipedia content policies. Let us move on to the next sentence you have concerns about. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's take stock here and build a prototype of how the section should read. The first paragraph should go:

Ik Onkar, iconically represented as ੴ in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (although sometimes spelt out in full as ਏਕੰਕਾਰੁ) is the statement of singularity in Sikhism, that is "there is one God". The phrase is a compound of the numeral one (ik), and onkar, which, states Doniger, is canonically understood in Sikhism to refer to the "absolute monotheistic unity of God". Doniger continues: "Guru Nanak wrote a poem entitled [Onkar], which attributes the sense of speech to the Divinity, suggesting him to be the 'Om-maker'". The importance of Ik Onkar is signified by its prominent position at the head of the Mul Mantar and the opening words of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib.

I think the "Om-maker" explanation should logically follow the explanation of ik. This opening paragraph now works nicely as a literal introduction to the meaning of ੴ, and we can use the second paragraph to interpret it and provide context etc. I have reworded the last sentence. Sources are as follows:

1. The Encyclopedia of Sikhism, H. S. Singha, p. 103. Link. "Quite appropriately Ik Onkar are the opening words of the Guru Granth Sahib — in fact the opening words of the Mul Mantra with which every section of it based on a raag begins."

2. Religions of the World: Sikhism, Sewa Singh Kalsi, p. 32. Link. "The opening phrase, Ek Onkar, of the Mul-Mantra summarizes the fundamental belief of Sikhism."

Poem

@Krea: I will like to keep references to Hinduism Om along the lines of Doniger's text and other publications. But before we discuss how the section should read overall, do you have any verifiability or wording concerns with any other sentences, or the poem, in rest of the section? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, in that case we can follow Doniger more closely by explaining the symbols in "ੴ" and then go into explaining the word "onkar". It might not be a bad idea, in fact.

As for wording concerns:

1. the translation of the Onkar poem: is Pashaura Singh the translator or the general editor? In any case "Oankar ('the Primal Sound')" is not correct. Onkar is not literally 'the Primal Sound'. Some good, complete, English translations can be found here, and some context on translations can be read here.

1. "The Onkar of Sikhism is related to Om – also called Omkāra[82] – in Hinduism." seems to suggest a link between Onkar and Omkara. This discussion I had before and I've never seen a good source that asserts this, so we should not make this inference without a source.
2. "Ek Onkar is the "Mul Mantra" in Sikh teachings...": ੴ is a part of the Mul Mantar, not the Mul Mantar itself.

That's all I can see for now in terms of errors, but there needs to be a lot of work on rewording and tying things together so it flows nicely and logically. There's also the fact the we must be careful not to mislead by selectively choosing what we put in. Krea (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: The poem translation is by Pashaura Singh (who is also one of the editors) - and "the primal sound" language is in the Oxford University Press text at 3rd line of the 2nd last paragraph, so we must stick with it (we must use scholarly WP:RS, not website translations). Agreed on deleting "also called the Omkara" insert for now, and adding "Onkar and Omkara" only with a source that makes that link. Agreed on "a part of the Mul Mantar" language. I will revise the section. I like "nicely and logically flowing", but that should not introduce interpretation and OR. Please read the section and suggest "rewording and re-ordering". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Pashaura Singh's assertion that Onkar is a "Primal Sound" is the only source that I've come across that says that. (Plus the fact that it is wrong.) In fact, many of the sources we've talked about have carefully said that Om and Onkar correspond and they didn't say that they are the same. There are also lots of sources that never make the assertion that Onkar is a "primal sound":

• Doniger: "Oankar corresponds to the Sanskrit term Om"
• The Seeker'S Path: Being An Interpretation Of Guru Nanak's Japji. Sohan Singh, p. xvi ff. Link.
• A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism: Sikh Religion and Philosophy, W. Owen Cole, Piara Singh Sambhi. p 64 ff. Link.
• Sikhism. Kristen Haar, Sewa Singh Kalsi. pp. 32, 41. Link.
• Sikhism. Jon Mayled. p. 23. Link.
• Sikhism. Geoff Teece. p. 16. Link.

Also the primary source — the Guru Granth Sahib — never says ੴ is a primal sound, neither in the Mul Mantar or in the Onkar poem. Guru Nanak never used ੴ in that sense.

From WP:RS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field." The consensus view of Sikhism is that onkar is not to be understood as a primal sound. If we publish Pashaura Singh's interpretation, we should make it clear that his is a minority opinion and also point out the other sources that never make that assertion for otherwise we would be misleading the reader into thinking that all Sikhs think that.

Also note in WP:RS:

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Published does not mean physical copies only. The websites Sikhs.org and Sikhnet.com are reliable sources. The BBC resource even points them out: Religions: Sikhism. In fact, these website will be more reliable than some printed sources. Bhai Manmohan Singh's translation is a recognized translation of the Guru Granth Sahib (for example, it is referenced here) and it would be better to use that rather than Pashaura Singh's less established translation, and certainly we should not present it as mainstream. Krea (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I should also add to my point made above (that the Guru Granth Sahib does not assert Onkar to be a primal sound) the important point that Sikhism regards the Guru Granth Sahib as the religious authority, being the living Guru. Ultimately, every Sikh may have his or her own opinion but what the Guru Granth says is what goes. This is why there are hardly any texts (none that I know of, actually) on Sikhism by Sikh authorities such as jathedar's and granthi's: they regard themselves as having nothing to add to the authority of the Guru Granth Sahib. If the Guru Granth Sahib never mentions Onkar as a primal sound, then ultimately Sikhism doesn't hold that to be so either. However, it may be worth pointing out that some Sikhs, such as Pashaura Singh, think of Onkar in that way. Krea (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, this may be the only proper way in which we can represent this topic. Perhaps we should do this: first make the point above that I made about the authority of the Guru Granth Sahib and then provide direct quotations from the Guru Granth Sahib. Then we can add all the many viewpoints by Sikhs on how to understand this topic, presenting all viewpoints, properly qualified and unbiased. Krea (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: That is a wall of text. Just because some authors do not assert positively something, does not mean they are asserting that something negatively. Sorry, Oxford University Press publication and Pashaura Singh translation is WP:RS. The websites you mention have unknown/unclear editorial oversight and so are WP:QUESTIONABLE. I am willing to include and embed a note that mentions alternate translation(s), from scholarly books or other RS. But, I am not willing to add "Pashaura Singh's translation and Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies is a minority view or is wrong" into this article, unless you provide a reliable source stating that. We can't add OR or interpret primary sources into this article. We need to rely on Pashaura Singh-type scholars, and summarize their interpretations of Sikh scriptures.

@Joshua Jonathan:, @Kautilya3: any thoughts on @Krea's comment on Oxford University Press books versus Sikh websites? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wall of text? It is simply my position. How long or short it is makes no difference!

"Just because some authors do not assert positively something, does not mean they are asserting that something negatively." A pithy statement that is sometimes true, but you are simplifying the situation and need to be more careful. When an author is explaining a concept, then anything that is excluded should be taken to mean they are positively asserting it to be not true. Consider: if I explain the meaning and significance of classical electrodynamics, I am conducting an exercise in which it my responsibility to state everything that I know about it. Anything that I do not mention is implied to mean is not valid to the topic. The authors also do not explicitly state that Onkar can also mean "the collective consciousness of all humanity": does that mean that onkar can be taken to be such? No. Your position is mistaken. Pashaura Singh's opinion should be mentioned. But to assert that it is the mainstream Sikh position is WP:OR, since the other valid sources do not corroborate him.

The translations on the websites are copies of published translations. Getting physical copies (let alone for libraries to scan) will be difficult because of the nature of their publications. I have tried to search for copies, but all I have found so far is this reference: Translations of the Guru Granth Sahib. I hope that source at least convinces you of their authority.

Whether Pashaura Singh's view is a minority view or not will depend on what other respectable sources there are, and not simply on anybody saying as such. As editors we must present an unbiased view of the body of work. For you to take one source and imply that it is universal would be editorially irresponsible.

"We can't add OR or interpret primary sources into this article." Indeed not. We should endeavour not to include OR both explicitly and implicitly by presenting only the views of one author. Also, the fact remains that Sikh authorities do not publish interpretations of the Granth Sahib and Sikh concepts because they hold the Guru Granth Sahib as ultimate. I'm not suggesting we interpret the Granth Sahib: we should simply quote it with several reliable translations and then we can quote different author's interpretations. Krea (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ms Sarah Welch, you are absolutely right. @Krea: your argumentation seems to based on original research and non-scholarly sources that are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. Please engage in policy-based discussion. The welcome message at the top of your talk page has links to the central Wikipedia policies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya: could you please explain and elaborate on your position. I am also concerned about a conflict of interest. Are you able to represent a dispassionate position? You took three minutes to evaluate my position. Do you believe you have given justice to my position? Let me state again the sources that I am presenting (those presented on the website) should not be dismissed simply because they are on a website. Indeed, I found this written source which at least attests to their publication by the SGPC, which at least would mean that they should not be dismissed as unreliable out of hand. I would appreciate a measured reply. Thank you. Krea (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya: In particular, could you enlighten me as to where you think my "argumentation seems to based on WP:OR"? I don't believe I have ever advocated making any additions that were OR. I believe what I have tried to do is caution against some of the statements being made based on my own knowledge and then acknowledged that we should find sources for them before they could be added to the article. Otherwise, what I have been arguing for is not to take one source as authoritative. Krea (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Now, concerning the source The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies, ed. Pashaura Singh, Louis E. Fenech. Note on p. 12:

Let us now turn to the Handbook itself...In most cases we have allowed the authors liberty to pursue their ideas without dramatic editorial intervention, a fact which accounts for some of the divergent views both within individual papers and from our own distinctive stances as scholars of Sikh tradition.

Krea (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not take "three minutes". It was probably more like thirty. You had written a message while I was composing mine, and so I ended up with an "edit conflict," as noted in my post. I was basing my comment on your remarks like The websites Sikhs.org and Sikhnet.com are reliable sources. The BBC resource even points them out: Religions: Sikhism. In fact, these website will be more reliable than some printed sources. None of them are reliable sources as per policy. As far as the article text is concerned, it is clear that "the Primal Sound" is the translator's explanation of the source. Since it is attributed to the translator, it is acceptable for Wikipedia. It does not imply that all Sikhs believe that Onkar is the primal sound. If there is another scholarly source that explicitly contradicts that interpretation, it can be mentioned. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A simple Google Books search gives more than one reference to Onkar as "primal Sound." But if it is important to the Sikh-community not to call Onkar the "primal sound," than that should be mentioned too. And maye it's possible to give another translation of the poem? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

How many of these are reliable, I wonder? Certainly I will take Pashaura Singh's opinion as acceptable. The first source that comes up is: A Treasury of Mystic Terms: The divine eternity. John Davidson (M.A.), Science of the Soul Research Centre (New Delhi, India). "Lit. the One (Ek) sound of Om (Onkar)...Onkar is the sound of Om". This is contradicted by other sources, but that is OK: we should evaluate its reliability. The Science of the Soul Research Centre says this about itself:

Science of the Soul Research Centre is a registered charitable Society based in New Delhi, India. Its main objective is to promote a sense of brotherhood and communal harmony for the betterment of humanity. One of the ways the Society tries to meet this objective is to conduct research into the spiritual literature of various systems of belief and schools of thought. The Society's aim is to help eradicate bias, prejudice, ill-will, and acrimony between people by revealing their common spiritual heritage and thus forging bonds of empathy and fellowship, the building blocks of love and understanding. The Society undertakes the dissemination of these principles through the printing, distribution and sale of books. The SSRC Booklist continues to grow with new publications being added periodically. Science of the Soul Research Centre also acts as the international mail order book seller for Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB). A non-profit charitable Society, RSSB publishes books about a path of inner development under the guidance of a spiritual teacher. The path is non-sectarian and incorporates a meditation practice, adherence to a vegetarian diet, abstinence from intoxicants, and a moral and ethical lifestyle.

Personally, I wouldn't take their publications to be acceptable because they are not conducting unbiased research as per their mission statement. To me, the other eleven sources in this search seem either to not make this assertion or look even less reliable than this source. But maybe I being unfair, here?

Let me iterate again: I'm not against stating that Pashaura Singh equates Onkar with the "primal sound" in that translation, but I think we should be careful not to present that as the only (or even mainstream) view in light of the other sources that never make that claim. Krea (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

[Response to Kautilya3]

"I did not take 'three minutes'. It was probably more like thirty. You had written a message while I was composing mine, and so I ended up with an 'edit conflict,' as noted in my post." OK. I'm particularly interested in your authority or experience to place judgement on this discussion, but we can leave this for now as long as you justify your position and not simply make pronouncements. Generally speaking, if you would like the responsibility to judge, you must also justify your position. Scholarly referee reports follow this principle and so should you and everyone else here, myself included.

"The websites Sikhs.org and Sikhnet.com are reliable sources. The BBC resource even points them out: Religions: Sikhism. In fact, these website will be more reliable than some printed sources." You would like a source for this? Well, I'm not suggesting we put this in the article! We should evaluate these sources: Sikhs.org: About Us, Sikhnet.com About Us, Sikhnet.com Annual Report. Admittedly, it looks like Sikhs.org looks less trustworthy than I initially thought, but there are some references to the website in published sources, interestingly, including the The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies: Link. But I can't access the rest of the page to evaluate what is being said. WP:RS says: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." Do you think those websites have a poor reputation for checking facts or no editorial oversight? Regardless, we are strictly talking about the published translation by, for example, Manmohan Singh, and not the articles appearing on those websites. Here is the Manmohan Singh translation being used by a published source: Sikhism. Kristen Haar, Sewa Singh Kalsi. Finding the published translation itself is still proving difficult online, however.

"It does not imply that all Sikhs believe that Onkar is the primal sound." Are you saying that is what I have stated? Because that is not so: I never said the source states that. However, do you accept that if you place that opinion in the text without qualification, then that is what you are editorially doing yourselves?

"If there is another scholarly source that explicitly contradicts that interpretation, it can be mentioned." Here you are making the same mistake as Ms Welch. We do not need another source to say "it is not a primal sound" explicitly. We need only say that other sources do not interpret Onkar to mean "primal sound" and that is true enough since they, indeed, do not ever mention it being a "primal sound". It is not the author's responsibility to list all the things it is not, they need only include what they think it is. Krea (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As the title of the book clearly states, it is a book on "Sikh studies," not "Sikhism" as practised/believed by Sikhs. Scholars can present their own scholarly analysis of the scriptures, which may or may not agree with widely held views of the believers. They are permissible to be included on Wikipedia, irrespective of what the believers say. It is also permitted to report what the believers believe in, as long as they are sourced to scholarly sources. We do not censor the scholars because the believers disagree. Neither do we censor the believers because the scholars disagree. All viewpoints are welcome. Please see WP:RNPOV for guidance.

I am here responding to Ms Sarah Welch's ping to offer my opinion on the debate based on policy. I am not offering any view on the merit or demerits of the source or its opponents. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"I am here responding to Ms Sarah Welch's ping to offer my opinion on the debate based on policy. I am not offering any view on the merit or demerits of the source or its opponents." Well, this is not always a clear distinction. Evaluating whether somebody is behaving as per policy means making a judgement on the sources they have presented.

"Scholars can present their own scholarly analysis of the scriptures...All viewpoints are welcome." Again — again! — where have I suggested otherwise? Again I will say this: we should be careful not to present the idea (especially implicitly) that a stated position is mainstream. Regarding the current discussion on Pashaura Singh's quote, including it as is would give the impression that there is nothing to contest in his position that Onkar means "primal sound". This is not a position taken by other sources.

"As the title of the book clearly states, it is a book on 'Sikh studies,' not 'Sikhism' as practised/believed by Sikhs." Well, that is hardly concrete evidence. I think the introduction (and the fact that Pashaura Singh has been called to the Akal Takht to explain his position on Sikh history for previous assertions) suggest that he may only presenting his personal views (which may well be shared by others) and not purporting to represent a mainstream position. We need to ensure that we present his quote without imbuing it with qualities that it never pretended to posses. Krea (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Krea's proposal for Sikhism section

@Krea: I too, like @Joshua Jonathan above, found several scholarly sources discussing Sikhism's Omkar/Onkar/Oankar link to "cosmic sound", "primal sound", etc. all discussed in the context of "Om" in other Indian religions. So the Pashaura Singh translation stays, as does all of the well sourced content currently in Sikhism section. If you wish to suggest reordering, or add more text to the section to clarify or improve the section, make a proposal. With your proposal, include reliable sources and quotes, for anything new you propose, just like you asked for, on October 6 above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I think the whole section needs to be reorganized. I think first we should simply explain the symbol ੴ and then directly quote the Mul Mantar and the Onkar poem without commentary. Then we can talk about how the various sources interpret ੴ.

Incidentally, how do you see Pashaura Singh's position when he equates Onkar to a "primal sound"? That is, do you think he is only expressing his own personal opinion or do you think he is presenting the mainstream (or even just not insignificant) Sikh position? I ask because I thought he was claiming the latter, but having read the introduction of The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies, he may just be presenting his own ideas as one point of view amongst many. We should discuss this because it bears on how we present his opinion. Krea (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to help answer my own question above by looking to see if Pashaura Singh had published any other material where he might explain what his views are and I came across this news report from a Sikh-speciality online news website. The most important point is: "In 1994, he was summoned to Sri Akal Takht Sahib and was punished by the then Jathedar." which may point to the former position above (that in The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies he is only presenting his own views and not attempting to reflect a wider opinion). I will try to find out what this "punishment" was, and what exactly for. Krea (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Another story here. I hope that you can appreciate how difficult a task it is to edit Sikh articles, which stems from some of the points I made above: that mainstream positions are difficult to find published. We need to be very careful not to promote any one viewpoint as necessarily being "correct" or "widely accepted". Hence why I suggest first presenting the Mul Mantar and the Onkar poem without commentary, and then adding the various interpretations to it. Pashaura Singh's entry should certainly contain the statement that not all Sikhs agree with his position and that he was censured by the Akal Takht in 1994 for a previous thesis which they regarded at the time as apostatic. What do you think? Krea (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: Your posts are getting forum-y, see WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM. The 1994 summon and the rest is irrelevant to this article. Pashaura Singh is a scholar and Oxford University Press is a reliable publisher. WP:NPOV means summarize all sides of a given topic, and not pick a side. If you find new reliable sources and propose new content from them, I will work with you to include views not yet included. Reliable sources are not websites and publications with no or unclear editorial oversight. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"The 1994 summon and the rest is irrelevant to this article." I don't believe it is. The question is whether Pashaura Singh is presenting his own personal position (backed up by his research) or whether he is representing a community position. This affects how we present the quote. Him being a scholar or the publisher being reputable makes no difference, here. It's a question of understanding what he is presenting. As I said, the summons doesn't negate what he said — it is only evidence that his position may not be shared by all Sikhs.

"Reliable sources are not websites and publications with no or unclear editorial oversight." Those websites have editorial oversight, I believe. Do you think they don't? Please research and evaluate them and don't just dismiss them out of hand. I can tell you haven't done this because further researching one of them led to a more mainstream news site that they had taken the story from.

"WP:NPOV means summarize all sides of a given topic, and not pick a side." Heed the same advice! It appears to me like you are emphasizing a deeper connection between Sikhi and Hinduism than is supported by evidence. I am only cautioning that we do not emphasize that that is a mainstream position by most Sikhs, because you certainly haven't provided evidence for that. Remember that you asserted that because other sources did not explicitly say Onkar was not a "primal sound", then that meant that they may have believed it to be so! Do not push your own position just because you would like it to be so.

"I will work with you to include views not yet included." I don't need you to do that! I can add without your permission! I am trying to make sure the article does not claim a mainstream position (even implicitly) without explicit evidence. Consider Pashaura Singh's quote: to leave his assertion that Onkar means "primal sound" in the translation without qualification gives the misleading position that that is a mainstream position and unquestionably true. This is simply incorrect because of the sources and reasons I have given above.

WP:NOTFORUM: "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages." Tell me, what did I post that is "forum-y"? My posts are information relating to the discussion at hand. Or, shall we forget this and you can answer the questions that I've posed in this post and my last one, which you did not answer. Krea (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Krea: Wikipedia summarizes scholarly positions such as those published by Oxford University Press, not community's position nor unreliable sources. You are free to believe in anything you want, but in wikipedia we don't suppress scholarly sources, we summarize them. So far, despite requests, you have not offered a proposal for revised Sikhism section, with references and quotes like the way you demanded from me. If you do, I will work with you to include Sikhism-related views not yet included in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015

117.248.252.205 (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2015

117.248.255.195 (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

AUM symbol

It appears that the AUM symbol in ancient times was drawn with the U or O symbol drawn like in the picture. Any information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.34.248 (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Really attractive symbol Ujwal Parajuli (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Farhan Wilayat (Pakistani Philanthropist) showing the Symbol of Om.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)