Sunday, 15 April 2012

Confused about OM

So how does this work... Brahman is the one non-dualistic basis of all existence. It is timeless, featureless and unchanging. Om is called Shabda Brahman - the representation of Brahman in sound. But OM is O-M, or even A-U-M. How can something with two, or even three parts represent the single Brahman?


  1. or four:
    'a', 'u', 'm' & '_' the silence.
    in one of the upanishads, i can't remember which one off the top of my head, there is a direct answer to your question. one way to think about it is that 'a' represents the waking state, 'u' the dreaming state, 'm' the deep sleep state and '_' the invariable illumining supreme consciousness which underlies the previous 3.

    aum shanti,

    sannyasi brhaspati

    1. Hari Om Brhaspati,
      Yes, I think it is Mandukya?
      It speaks a lot about the nature of OM (or AUM) and how the different aspects of OM relate to different aspects of Self etc.
      But I don't recall that it resolves the issue that Brahman is singular, featureless, unchanging and timeless, and yet OM is composed of two parts, and so is dualistic, has multiple features, and changes with time (O becomes M).
      Not that I mind.
      But it's something that just occurred to me to wonder why it is not a singular, unchanging sound such as 'O' that is Shabda Brahman...


Thank you for leaving a comment. It's nice to know someone is reading.

I moderate all comments, so you won't see it immediately. I do endeavour to read and publish comments within a day or two.

Hari Om!