# Sanskrit: ॐ श्री परमात्मने नमः



## Au101

Hello, I was wondering if anybody could help me with the translation of the following Sanskrit sentence, which appears in some copies of the Bhagavad-Gita, prior to the first chapter:

ॐ श्री परमात्मने नमः
(Om śrī paramātmane namaḥ)

My translation of this would be something like:

"In praise of the Supreme Spirit"

But I wonder if anybody could confirm?

Many thanks,
Au101


----------



## drkpp

It means "A salutation to Supreme Spirit"


----------



## Au101

Perfect  Thank you drkpp, I was going for a poetic translation, but I really appreciate the confirmation of its literal meaning


----------



## marrish

In these translations ''OM'' has remained untranslated. Is there any way to translate OM (and since I've noticed dear Au101 is online (auM), in this context?


----------



## Au101

Hi 

Well, I don't think so for two reasons: Firstly it is very much the representation of a sound. What I mean is, it is a sound of high liturgical importance and very much a sacred and important part of the religious tradition, but it is simply to be read as the sound [õː] (exact pronunciations vary). It is more an intonation (if one of symbolic importance) than a word. Secondly, as I say, it is a very important symbol. You could write a footnote in your translation briefly explaining what the oṃkāra is and what it's used for, but one couldn't really translate it and it is of importance that it be recognised by a reader for what it is and read as Oṃ. Sir Monier-Williams, in his dictionary, simply gives the translation: "ind. the sacred syllable of the शूद्रs".

To get round this problem, I can think of a few solutions. It is possible that some authors have managed to find more ingenious solutions. I suppose, since it's used to mark the beginning of a recitation or religious text, one coud use an approximate English equivalent (linguistically and/or culturally) but it would be difficult to convey the appropriate religious elements. For example, in English texts it's common to mark the beginning of a text with a large drop cap, as in newspapers, and in Christian religious texts in European traditions, manuscripts often begin with an ornately decorated initial letter (e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Mainz_psalter_detail.jpg). This is a vague approximation of the idea of symbolically marking the start of a religious text, but it obviously has none of the theological intricacies of the oṃkāra and your reader would likely not realise what you were trying to represent. And of course, it's important to stress that the oṃkāra is supposed to be read out at the start of the text. So, as far as I can see, the only real options (apart from omitting it, which is perfectly reasonable as it contributes nothing to the meaning, even if it is an important symbolic part of the original) are to transliterate the oṃkāra or use ॐ. As ॐ is a symbol that's likely to be well-understood by your target audience, I think I would probably do the second, but there might be good reasons to transliterate it, such as font compatability, or simple consistency.

You might be interested to know that the translators of the Bible had a similar problem and I bring it up as an interesting example of how an analagous situation is handled in other publications. Obviously for the translators of the Bible, fidelity was of great importance, and they could not make do with approximate solutions. In the Psalms of the Old Testament, there is a Hebrew word Selah (סֶלָה) which seems to roughly indicate that a pause is called for in the reading of the psalm. It is a very tricky word to translate. In the King James Version, I know that they simply transliterated the word when it appeared. In the New Internation Version I believe they give a footnote at the end of the verse explaining that the Hebrew original has this word giving a very short discussion about its use.


----------



## marrish

Indebted for the reply, as ever. You have mentioned the Bible, would ''logos'' be appropriate to ''translate'' auM or to put it in a footnote?


----------



## Au101

That's an interesting thought, and it's a possibility. I would have two concerns, firstly: the ॐ is, as I say, a specific religious and cultural symbol with very specific connotations and functions and a pronunciation unique to itself that is intended to be read aloud but also is a way of beginning a text. It is, therefore, very difficult to find an analogous word/symbol/form, but even if you could do so, it would not have the correct connotations and pronunciations and could be misleading, or even offensive. To my mind, it would be similar to translating Kāmadeva as Cupid. Although they are analagous deities, they are not different names for the same thing, in the same way that पुस्तक is a different name for book, which is a different name forكتاب and so on. To adopt another example, Allāh is almost always left untranslated in English, even though (in this case) God could be considered an acceptable translation. But in the case of Oṃ, it is even worse, because there is really no good approximation in English that I am aware of and many English speakers (especially those reading Sanskrit texts) are likely to be vary _au fait_ with the ॐ.


----------



## Qureshpor

^ I agree with all you have said about ॐ. It is a symbol with a unique sound which for Hindus is nothing short of linking man's soul with his creator. With this significance, it should be left untranslated.


----------



## desi4life

[Moderator note: Merged with the previous thread. Please, everyone, don't forget to search the forum before opening a new thread. Thanks. Cherine.]


What is the correct transliteration of the Hindu sacred syllable/sound? Is it *om *or *aum*? I've seen both Romanized spellings, but surely they both can't be correct. Is *oṃ/auṃ* more accurate than *om/aum*?

Thanks


----------



## Au101

Well it sort of depends what transliteration scheme you're using. ॐ is very much a specific symbol, but it can otherwise be spelled ओम् or ओं or ओ३म् so I tend to favour o. As for whether to use ṃ or m, there is a candrabindu in the symbol itself. Moreover, the actual pronunciation is generally ओ, which is pluta, and nasalised for its duration, followed by the stop म्. So the transcription oṃ makes the most sense to me since the vowel is nasalised for its duration. However the syllable ends in a full consonantal म् so om would also make sense. Wikipedia gives oṃ and auṃ as acceptable IAST transliterations.

Otherwise Om will do in normal usage, but also in technical usage, since ॐ is a symbol, it's a glyph, representing the sacred syllable. It is not so much a spelling. It therefore makes sense to use the familiar-to-most rendering Om which has entered the lexicon of almost everyone who's likely to be reading what you've written 

As for where the aum/ṃ spelling comes from, I'm not really that sure. The Wikipedia article seems to be talking about ओ with extensive reference to the fact that Sanskrit ओ is a monophthongisation of a historical diphthong *au. This history of Sanskrit ओ shows itself very plainly in Saṃdhi rules, but not, to my knowledge, the pronunciation of ॐ. No more is ओ anywhere else transliterated as au because of its history. I don't favour it, but maybe I am insufficiently educated.


----------



## desi4life

Thanks. I know ३ is 3 in Devanagari, but does the ३ in ओ३म् really represent the number 3 as the Wikipedia article states or is there a different reason for using it? Are there any other words in Sanskrit where a numeric symbol is inserted into a word? It's an odd but unique spelling.


----------



## Au101

It marks that the vowel is _pluta_, it is marker of length. Quoting William Dwight Whitney:

78. Besides these two vowel-quantities, the Hindus acknowledge a third, called _pluta_ (literally swimming), or protracted, and having three _moras_ or three times the quantity of a short vowel. A protracted vowel is marked by a following figure 3: thus, आ३ ā3.

a. The protracted vowels are practically of rare occurrence (in RV., three cases; in AV., fifteen; in the Brāhmaṇa literature, decidedly more frequent). They are used in cases of questioning, especially of a balancing between two alternatives, and also of calling to a distance or urgently. The protraction is of the last syllable in a word, or in a whole phrase; and the protracted syllable has usually the acute tone, in addition to any other accent the word may have; sometimes it takes also anusvāra, or is made nasal.

b. Examples are: adháḥ svid āsī́3d upári svid āsī3t (RV.) _was it, forsooth, below? was it, forsooth, above>_ idám bhū́yā́3 idā́3m íti (AV.) _saying, is this more, or is that?_ ágnā́3i pátnīvā́3ḥ sómam piba (TS.) _O Agni! thou with thy spouse! drink the soma_.

c. A diphthong is protracted by prolongation of its first or a-element: thus, e to ā3i, o to ā3u.

d. The sign of protraction is also sometimes written as the result of accentual combination, when so-called kampa occurs: see below, 87 d.

Noted by the way 78c. "A diphthong is protracted by prolongation of its first or a-element: thus, e to ā3i, o to ā3u." Which actually, now I actually go back and read, would explain the Auṃ transliteration. However, it is not actually usually pronounced this way in my rather limited experience. Well, anyway, there's your answer I suspect.


----------



## Au101

Yes the symbol is to be found used this way in the Vedas. For example, in the famous Nāsadīya Sūkta, verse 5: Rg Veda with Sayana's Commentary Part 4

Also, if you go to the English wikipedia page for Sanskrit, you will find an image of a _Pada-Pāṭha_ manuscript with an interesting hybrid spelling of ॐ in the first line: Sanskrit - Wikipedia


----------



## Dib

There is, of course, very little to add to the very detailed and thorough exposé from Au101. I'd, however, like to throw in my 2 pence about this part:



Au101 said:


> As for where the aum/ṃ spelling comes from, I'm not really that sure. The Wikipedia article seems to be talking about ओ with extensive reference to the fact that Sanskrit ओ is a monophthongisation of a historical diphthong *au. This history of Sanskrit ओ shows itself very plainly in Saṃdhi rules, but not, to my knowledge, the pronunciation of ॐ. No more is ओ anywhere else transliterated as au because of its history. I don't favour it, but maybe I am insufficiently educated.





Au101 said:


> Noted by the way 78c. "A diphthong is protracted by prolongation of its first or a-element: thus, e to ā3i, o to ā3u." Which actually, now I actually go back and read, would explain the Auṃ transliteration. However, it is not actually usually pronounced this way in my rather limited experience. Well, anyway, there's your answer I suspect.



These are, of course, quite likely possibilities. But additionally, Hindu scriptures also tend to analyze it as "a-u-m", as can be seen in Aitareya Brahmana 5.32 (also refered to by the English wikipedia article on Om), where the chain of creations by प्रजापति is described:

"तेभ्योऽभितप्तेभ्यस्त्रयो वर्णा अजायन्ताकार उकारो मकार इति तानेकधा समभरत्तदेतदो३मिति।"
On heating (? अभि-तप्‌), from these (three शुक्र-s: भू, भुवः, स्वः) three letters/sounds (वर्ण) were born - a*, u and m. He (=प्रजापति) brought them together, and that is this Om.

The same "a-u-m" analysis occurs in Mandukya Upanishad.

*Strictly speaking, the text is ambiguous as to whether it is a or ā.



desi4life said:


> Thanks. I know ३ is 3 in Devanagari, but does the ३ in ओ३म् really represent the number 3 as the Wikipedia article states or is there a different reason for using it? Are there any other words in Sanskrit where a numeric symbol is inserted into a word? It's an odd but unique spelling.



Again Au101 has quite adequately answered the question. However, for the sake of completeness, though it is irrelevant to the spelling of ओ३म्, let me add that the numerals ३ and १ have another function in the Rigvedic orthography. They are used to mark the pitch accent in some marginal cases, namely when an independent svarita (an orthographic falling tone without a corresponding preceding orthographic high pitch) appears right in front of an udātta (high pitch). Yes, Vedic had grammatical pitch accent.


----------



## desi4life

Thank you both for the excellent answers. 

I noticed Monier Williams has entries for both *om *and *aum*. For the latter, he defines it as "the sacred syllable of the Shūdras". What particular association does *aum* have with Shūdras or is it a misinformed definition?


----------



## Au101

Dib said:


> Again Au101 has quite adequately answered the question. However, for the sake of completeness, though it is irrelevant to the spelling of ओ३म्, let me add that the numerals ३ and १ have another function in the Rigvedic orthography. They are used to mark the pitch accent in some marginal cases, namely when an independent svarita (an orthographic falling tone without a corresponding preceding orthographic high pitch) appears right in front of an udātta (high pitch). Yes, Vedic had grammatical pitch accent.



For examples see verse 3 of Atharva-Veda Saṃhitā 30 over here.

And Ṛg-Veda 1.4.10 over here.


----------



## desi4life

^ Any opinion about my question above regarding the definition of *aum*?


----------



## Au101

desi4life said:


> ^ Any opinion about my question above regarding the definition of *aum*?



Hehe not_ really_. For his flaws as a man, and for the flaws in his work, Monier-Williams' dictionary is a tour-de-force and the fruits of extensive researches. I'm not in any way educated on the shortcomings of his dictionary, but it's not that easy to imagine him getting this wrong. He also wrote a bit about Hinduism, and while he didn't _like_ it, and his writings about it would probably be pretty offensive to most Hindus, it's hard to imagine that he didn't know what he was writing when he gave that definition.

However, I had a look at the time, and I can't myself see an obvious explanation. Chasing the references around the dictionary doesn't get you very far either. In his definition of औम् it says "(see 3. _au_)". If we do indeed see 3. _au_, we have "the Setu or sacred syllable of the Ṡūdras", his reference being the _Kālikā-purāṇa_. So there we have the assertion again. If we check the definition of Setu, it reads "the Praṇava or sacred syllable Om (which is said to be mantrāṇāṃ setuḥ)". The reference is the same. But here the definition of Setu leads us to Om, not Aum. And the definition of Om makes no reference to Śūdras at all.


----------



## Dib

I am also in the same boat as Au101. I had also arrived at the dead-end of the _Kālikā-purāṇa_. But lacking a more pointed reference or a consultation with someone intimately acquainted with the text, I could make no more headway.


----------



## desi4life

Thank you both. It'll be interesting to find out what the _Kālikā-purāṇa _has to say.


----------



## el mosquito

desi4life said:


> I noticed Monier Williams has entries for both *om *and *aum*. For the latter, he defines it as "the sacred syllable of the Shūdras". What particular association does *aum* have with Shūdras or is it a misinformed definition?


MW is quoting from PWG, which is quoting from ŚKD, which is quoting from (Bṛhat)Tantrasāra, which is quoting from Kālikā-purāṇa.

In KP, ch. 56(58) we can read:

*mantrāṇāṃ praṇavaḥ setus tat setuḥ praṇavaḥ smṛtaḥ |
kṣaraty anoṅkṛtaḥ pūrvaṃ parastāc ca viśīryate ||* 72/70

Praṇava (*Om*) is a dam for mantras, therefore praṇava is known as dam.
Without making *Om *before, it flows away, and [without it] at the end - it perishes.

*niḥsetu ca yathā toyaṃ kṣaṇān nimnaṃ prasarpati |
mantras tathaiva niḥsetuḥ kṣaṇāt kṣarati yajjvanām || *77/75

And like in a flash the water without a dam flows downwards,
similarly in a flash a mantra without a dam flows away from sacrificers.

*caturdaśasvaro yo'sau śeṣa aukārasaṃjñakaḥ |
sa cānusvāracandrābhyāṃ śūdrāṇāṃ setur ucyate ||* 76/74

Which is the 14th vowel, the last [vowel], termed 'sound *Au*',
this [vowel] with candrabindu (with semicircle and dot) is said to be dam for śūdras.

Few more quotations from somewhere:

*svāhāpraṇavasaṃyuktaṃ mantraṃ śūdre dadaddvijaḥ |
śūdro nirayagāmī syādvipraḥ śūdratvamāpnuyāt || (devīyāmale)*

[When] a brahmin is giving a mantra together with *svāhā *[and/or] praṇava (*Om*) to a śūdra,
then the śūdra will go to hell and the brahmin will turn himself into śūdra.

*śūdrasya praṇavasthale caturdaśasvaro vindusaṃyuktaḥ |*

For a śūdra the 14th vowel (*Au*) with [candra]bindu takes place of praṇava (*Om*).

*mantrāṇāṃ praṇavaḥ seturdvijānāṃ parikīrttitaḥ |
caturdaśasvaro'nyeṣāṃ candrānusvārasaṃyutaḥ |*

Praṇava is known as a dam for mantras for twice-born,
[while] for others it is the 14th vowel (*Au*) together with candrabindu.

So, there are some texts which in the case of śūdras recommend to use औँ Aum̐  instead of ओँ Om̐. These are two different bījas, that´s why Monier has both in his dictionary.
(NB! It is different from the illiterate NewAge tradition to spell OM as AUM. By sandhi rules अ A + उ U + म् M give always ओम् OM, not AUM.)


----------



## desi4life

Thank you @el mosquito for providing the examples and explaining everything so clearly! It all makes sense now. 



el mosquito said:


> Few more quotations from somewhere:



Do you know what these additional sources are?


----------



## el mosquito

desi4life said:


> Do you know what these additional sources are?



I've found them in Google. Don't think the names are very important. But if you wish - 

svāhāpraṇavasaṃyuktaṃ mantraṃ śūdre dadaddvijaḥ |
śūdro nirayagāmī syādvipraḥ śūdratvamāpnuyāt ||
-- (Devīyāmale) -- quoted in Śrīvidyārṇavatantra & Tārābhaktisudhārṇava & Puraścaryārṇava

śūdrasya praṇavasthale caturdaśasvaro vindusaṃyuktaḥ | 
-- (Aṣṭadaleṣu ?) -- quoted in Bṛhattantrasāra

mantrāṇāṃ praṇavaḥ seturdvijānāṃ parikīrttitaḥ |
caturdaśasvaro'nyeṣāṃ candrānusvārasaṃyutaḥ |
-- (Merutantre) -- quoted in Puraścaryārṇava


----------



## desi4life

Thanks again.


----------



## Dib

Wow, this is outstanding work. Thank you so much, el mosquito!!


----------

