Talk:Om/Archive 1

message: Is there a Wikipedia convention about where to put disambiguation links that don't merit a separate disambiguation page? I agree that Aum Shinrikyo isn't relevant to the topic, but I have frequently seen "Aum" used as a shorthand for it, and I don't know whether casual browsers (who might not know, or be able to spell, the full name) would scroll as far as the bottom. I thought I'd generally seen these links at the top, but then I'm relatively new here. Mike Capp 21:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is/are only one or two different meanings, why not like the Linux or Tungstenpage,  place an italized paragraph on top? This may not be the official Wikipedia way (don't know).--Jondel 23:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just moved it to the top. Btw, Wikipedia:Disambiguation does recommend this method as one of the ways to deal with disambigs, so I suppose it is an official Wikipedia way. -- Zawersh 00:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The page looks really screwed up in IE 6. Anyone else?
--mjwilco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.36.211.11 (talk • contribs).
:Screwed in my IE6 too.--Jondel 08:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it I think. Is is better now?--Jond
el 06:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE 6 

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

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

message: The origin section says:
:The OM symbol's left part, which looks like a figure 3, looks like the form of the ū vowel used as a syllable with no attached initial consonant (in the Devanagari script ऊ (Unicode U+090A); but it is actually based on a Brahmi version of ओ (the vowel ō as written without an initial consonant). The nasal sound is indicated by a chandrabindu (U+0901).
But the introduction says:
:The Aum symbol  is a ligature of Devanagari ओ+ँ (oṃ, encoded in Unicode at U+0950 ॐ, the Tibetan script variant ༀ at U+0F00).
How can it be a ligature of the Devanagari version if it is based on the Brahmi character? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in Origin 

message: Would getting a tattoo of the Om symbol be a sacreligious action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.128.180 (talk • contribs) 
:That depends on the religion of the person who is getting the tattoo. User:Transentient 07:00 8 July, 2006 (UTC)
:I have a tattoo of this symbol on my upper back and I don't think that  my action of putting it there is  sacreligious. I got this symbol as a tattoo because of the importance of the symbol and my need to improve my life spiritually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.214.246 (talk • contribs) 
:It depends who you're talking to about it ;)  It depends where you had the tattoo done.  It depends why you had the tattoo done.    Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacreligious? 

message: Since the page is at Aum perhaps all of the "Om"s in the text should be changed to Aum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.135.228 (talk • contribs) 
I agree... please discuss this proposal.
Sfacets 04:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

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

message: Could there be any chance that the Hindu 'Om' is linked to the Latin 'Homo' (both of them being IndoEuropean languages, after all) ? I'm asking this because I'm a Romanian, and in my language the word for 'man' is 'om' (from the Latin 'homo'). Also the similarity to 'Aum' is (for me, at least) intriguing, due to the fact that the 'o' in 'om' is preceded in speech by a mild, semivocalic 'u'. ['O' is read as the 'o' in 'coin'; and 'u' is read as the 'oo' in 'moon', only shorter]. Anyone any ideas/suggestions? Thank You. 
P.S. : Is it true that the alternate/secret name of Zeus/Jupiter was 'Homo' ? (I'm asking this because I somehow got the idea that 'Aum'/'Om' is a deity, not just simply a mantra/sound suited for meditation). Thanks.
-- Lucian.
:no, iot couldn't be; the Sanskrit equivalent of homo would be kshamya. dab (𒁳) 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a silly question 

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

message: Some source  mention that this symbol was used in Indus Valley. Even if everybody may not agree with it, I feel it is worth mentioning.
                                203.197.96.50 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OM in Indus Valley? 

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

message: According to 82.3.79.187, Aum would be the Sanskrit equivalent of Amen and Hum (Bhuddhism) - I have removed the sentence unless sources can be provided.
It seems unlikely though: Amen is an affirmation, commonly placed at ning of a prayer.
Also the fact that the Buddhist mantra is  "Om Mani Padme Hum" shows that "Hum" and "Om" are very different.
Sfacets 22:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aum=Amen?! 

message: Many Shia Muslims belief that there first Imam Ali_Ibn_Abi_Talib is also Om.
Om and Ali are the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.59.69 (talk • contribs) 
I was a Shia and I never heard that before. Armyrifle 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Om in Islam 

message: This is the first time I have seen Om written as Aum. In my life I had never seen any spelling other than Om. Is there any source for Aum being a real word? (that is being more relevant than Om). Just curious. -Krazy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.153.105 (talk • contribs) 
: The reason is that all the authoritative Hindu texts, like the Upanishads, speak of AUM as characterized by as a sublimation of three distinct elements, Ah-oo-muh, A-U-M, AUM... each part representing in turn Brahma (creation), Vishnu (preservation), and Shiva (destruction). Also, the A-U-M follows a Sanskrit phonetic tradition of moving the tongue through the entire range of possible vocalic positions, thus composing a full circle (get it? circle of life?)... the three sublimate into the unified four, brahman, sat-chid-ananda (truth-consciousness-bliss). --128.59.26.54 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Om or AUM 

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

message: Writing "Aum" for Om is not an alternative spelling, it is simply *wrong*, as aum is a completely different Sanskrit syllable to om. As I'm familiar with Sanskrit grammar I feel it would be helpful for me to clarify this. In Sanskrit, the vowel o (always long) is grammatically (and in the writing system) equivalent to short a + u, and in fact if these coalesce in a word the result is o. The vowel au is considered to be composed of long a + u.
This explains the frequent allusion in Indic sources to om being a+u+m in relation to the correspondence of these with gods or states of consciousness. The bija mantra aum is also encountered, particularly in tantric contexts, though far less frequently than om. 
The confusion of om with aum is particularly prevalent in works by new-ager dilettantes.
Prime Entelechy 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. aum is perfectly accurate if you interpret the a and u as each being short-a and short-u ("the vowel o (always long) is grammatically (and in the writing system) equivalent to short a + u")... the writing of aum underscores the traditional a+u+m... there really doesn't exist a separate 'āum' bija mantra except as a Tantric practice for emphasizing the creative aspect of reality contained within the Pranava Mantra (aum or ōm). Indeed, if you want to use capital O and capital A as referring to a long vowel sound, instead of ō and ā respectively, then just make sure to write Om=aum. This brings me to the 'new-ager dilettantes' comment.... as something of a purist, I prefer 'aum' to 'om' because it highlights the inherent and extensive philosophical discussion of aum and emphasizes the linguistic construction that you yourself highlighted as important to understanding much of Hindu/Yogic symbolism. How the Buddhists use 'aum/om' is not relevant to a discussion of the original Hindu construction. --128.59.26.54 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This page needs way more on 'Aum'/'Om' symbolism, which is mainly seen within Hinduism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.207.39.62 (talk • contribs).
: Added external link to a collection of Om graphics (Sanskrit type) -- 80.128.171.50 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism 

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

message: AUM has nothing to do with the universe,
but with three gods Agni, Varuna and Marut. The misleading nonsense
in this article is due to a war between the gods and the christian
(islamic) god,which is just another wargod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.37.226 (talk • contribs) 
The meaning of Aum is different between people. For example, from to a Vaishnava perspective, AUM means "Vishnu" as proven in the Bhagavad Gita:
''
I am the taste within water, the radiance of moon and sun; I am Om in all the Vedas, sound in ether, manhood in men. (Bhagavad Gita 7.8) Armyrifle 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The true meaning of AUM 

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

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

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

message: Just because the title of the article was "Aum" and not "Om" does not automatically meanthat the person was white. They could have been yellow, red, blue, or brown.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.199 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't usually edit other people's comments but I removed an offensive remark here. -- Q Chris 09:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Om/Racism 

message: The origine of all peoples is the middle-east. As peoples spread to all points of the compass they brought holy words with them. From Sumeria the word EN = LORD. AM or OM = being/existant. For example, ENKI = Lord of the Earth (KI = Earth), ENLIL = Lord of the Air. So AM+EN = Eternal Lord. The voice from the burning bush said: I AM. So saying OM is the word/name/essence of God crosses ALL of our religious affiliations.161.40.17.51 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take your conspiracy theories somewhere else.Bakaman 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OM is found in Christian, Judism, Islam in the word AMEN 

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

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

message: Fails B-criteria:
* The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. 
: citation needed tags.
* The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. 
: Identifications with deities like Ganesha, Shiva called Omkar, not present.
Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Hinduism reassessment: C 

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

message: While I’m no expert on Sanscrit transliteration, though aum may or may not be the more “correct” way to write the syllable, om is almost certainly the more common way to write it in English. Shouldn’t the article be moved to reflect that? —Wiki Wikardo 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can second that. Never saw "Aum", just "Om namah Sivaya" at hindu temples. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The current text makes it sound like this is a core part of Buddhism, which is clearly not the case. Could somebody who knows more about the subject than I do add which variants of Buddhism use it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.120.89 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My own somewhat limited research on Buddhism also seems to indicate that Aum is not a major component of Buddhism either, but articles like these try to be as all-responsible for as much as it can claim. The practice itself may be more common in Theravada Buddhism meditation, more common in Hindu-influenced South and Southeast Asia, or it may simply be the meshing of Indian Buddhist beliefs with local Hindu beliefs. I'm not solid on this, I won't add it. As for its merit in an Aum article, I can't answer that, but you know how this goes... someone definitely will vouch for its validity, lol.3swordz (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism 

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

message: Finally, some light on where 3swordz' obstinate behaviour in this is coming from is shed by an article found at the "Institute for Understanding Sikhism": Devinder Singh Chahal, OMKAR The Misunderstood Word  
:"Guru Nanak explains to the Pundit that there is no Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) of God to which the word, Omkar, implies."
Chahal calls the ੴ  ligature an "original and unique logo [sic] coined by Guru Nanak", describing it as "1 + Open Oora with its open end extended". The "open end extended" corresponds to the "peculiar modification" mentioned above. 
Weirdly, Chahal goes on to claim that it "should be pronounced as ‘Ek Oh Beant or Anant’. The mispronunciation as Ek Oankar or Ek Onkar or Ek Omkar or Ek Oamkar or Ek Aumkar ... should be forsaken" Chahal thinks that it is "an irony that it is mispronounced as Ek Oankar or Ek Onkar or Ek Omkar and is misunderstood to be originated from OM (Oam/Aum) by majority of the Sikh scholars and the Sikhs at large."
We seem to be looking at Sikh theological speculation attempting to "correct" the Sikh mainstream. 
It helps a lot to at least understand the motivation of religionist editors. But most of the time, they won't provide the references putting their own view into context themselves, because they are, of course, simply Right. 
At least we will now have the "Institute for Understanding Sikhism" to quote for the opinion that the ੴ  glyph is an "original and unique logo" and has nothing to do with om whatsoever, and that all Sikhs scholars since the 17th century are plain wrong.
The article goes on to state 
:"It was Dr Parminder Singh Chahal (personal discussion) who gave very simple and convincing logic that ੴ  is composed of two parts, i.e. numeral '1' and the first letter of Gurmukhi alphabet,  ਓ [sic, not ੳ], with an open end. The numeral '1' should be pronounced as 'Ek' and the letter ਓ (Oora) with open end as 'Oh'. It was also observed by Kalsi [ Kalsi, Nirmal Singh. 1996. Beej Mantar Darshan (Punjabi). Kalsi Technologies]  that ੴ should be pronounced as Ekoooooo. Our further research lead us that the letter open 'Oora' means 'Oh' in Punjabi-English Dictionary  and in Mahan Kosh of Bhai Kahn Singh . 'Oh' of Punjabi and 'Oh' of English means 'That' in English [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary [sic, wth?]]. The open end of 'Oora' has been extended to characterize it as Beant (Infinite) or Anant (Infinite). Thus, it should be pronounced as ieku Ek + Oh + Beant  (One Oh ∝ [sic, apparently intending ∞] = One and Only, Oh, the Infinite). Or  Ek Oh Ananat  as suggested by Harchand Singh of Calgary, Canada suggested that ‘Anant’ is equally good for ‘Beant’. (Personal Communication)." 
this is intriguing, and it streamlines perfectly with the incoherence due to  above. It is also cranky OR: thanfully, the article also gives the solid references of Sikh mainstream who are all "ironically mistaken", admitting that
:"Now it has been become an established fact in the Sikh psyche that ੴ is Ek Oankar, Ek Onkar, Ek Omkar, Ek Oamkar, was originated from OM. It is mentioned in the same way on the Hindu Internets [ sic! ]. For example, Prem Sanjeev, member of Sikh Diaspora and Learning Zone Internet Discussion Groups, says “Om is the essence of the Vedas. The Upanishads and the Geeta glorify It. It with this one sacred syllable all Vedic mangalaacharans are considered done. By remembering and invoking the Lord as Om, Shri Guru Nanak Dev dutifully maintains the Vedic paramparaa or 'tradition', for that new philosophy which disregards age-old wisdom can never bear fruit. When new thoughts or ideologies are based upon the wisdom of the ancient, they have not only the fragrance and freshness of the new but also the strength and tenacity of the old. Saints never come into this world to destroy the link with the ancient; rather, they come to fulfill the wisdom of the past. Shri Guru Nanakji did the same. The approach was new, but the knowledge was not. The language was different, but the essence the same.” The Dharam Parchar Committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), Amritsar has gone a step further to structurally misconstrue ੴ into ‘Ik Oamkar’ as it appears on the title page of the April-May-June 2002 issue of Gurmat Gian (Fig 1 [which casts ੴ  into Devanagari, clearly including anusvara, but failing to interpret the "peculiar extension" as equivalent of chandrabindu] semi-circle])."
Depending on the notability of the "Institute for Understanding Sikhism", we can now explore this issue at the Ek Onkar article (not in this one of course). The upshot seems to be that Gurmukhi ੴ  is generally read as equivalent to Devanagari १ॐ (IAST 1oṃ) but that there are some articles floating around on the Internets claiming that this is an ironical misunderstanding.  --dab (𒁳) 09:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institute for Understanding Sikhism