- -
- -
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 'OM' OR MORE APTLY "AUM".
Thats why it's written so.
It's when the syllable 'Om' is followed by 'Kara'(meaning sound,breath, pulse, manifestation etc.)
that Om + Kara become one word, 'Onkara'.
Any conjunct nasal consonant can be represented by a 'm',
but in pronunciation, must match the consonant group to which the
proceeding consonant belongs.
In Sanskritic texts Om + Kar (sound, pulse, breath stc. of AUM) when joined together
to form one term it becomes 'Onkar'.
'Om' is always written as 'Om'(thats what it is)
Om + Kar is whats written as Onkar.
( Didn't Na + Anak become 'Nanak' ? )
- -
if it was supposed to be om, then why wasn't it written as om?
why was 'n' used instead of 'm'? can you please explain that
and also in my post i had another question, what about its answer?
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 'OM' OR MORE APTLY "AUM".
Thats why it's written so.
It's when the syllable 'Om' is followed by 'Kara'(meaning sound,breath, pulse, manifestation etc.)
that Om + Kara become one word, 'Onkara'.
Any conjunct nasal consonant can be represented by a 'm',
but in pronunciation, must match the consonant group to which the
proceeding consonant belongs.
In Sanskritic texts Om + Kar (sound, pulse, breath stc. of AUM) when joined together
to form one term it becomes 'Onkar'.
'Om' is always written as 'Om'(thats what it is)
Om + Kar is whats written as Onkar.
( Didn't Na + Anak become 'Nanak' ? )
ॐ इत्येतदक्षरमिदँ सर्वं तस्योपव्याख्यानं
Om ityetadaksharamidam sarvam tasyopavyakhyanam
AUM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. A clear explanation of it is as follows:
Om ityetadaksharamidam sarvam tasyopavyakhyanam
AUM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. A clear explanation of it is as follows:
भूतं भवद् भविष्यदिति सर्वमोङ्कार एव
bhutam bhavat bhavishyaditi sarvamOnkar eva
That which was, is, will be, all that is ONKAR
bhutam bhavat bhavishyaditi sarvamOnkar eva
That which was, is, will be, all that is ONKAR
यच्चान्यत् त्रिकालातीतं तदप्योङ्कार एव ॥ १ ॥
yachchanyata trikalatitam tadapyOnkar eva
And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is truly ONKAR.
माण्डुक्य उपनिषद् ( Mandukya Upanishad )
yachchanyata trikalatitam tadapyOnkar eva
And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is truly ONKAR.
माण्डुक्य उपनिषद् ( Mandukya Upanishad )
- -
- -
- -
Could you please re-phrase your other question ??
You certainly haven't taken into you that what I suggest is every
sanskrit name is Hindu ??
(Hinduism is not about Sanskrit or it's script and neither is Sikhi.
Though the Islamic God speaks nothing but Arabic.)
You certainly haven't taken into you that what I suggest is every
sanskrit name is Hindu ??
(Hinduism is not about Sanskrit or it's script and neither is Sikhi.
Though the Islamic God speaks nothing but Arabic.)
Thanks
- -
- -
- -