OM

OM is a conjunct of three vowels. They are ‘a’ (as ‘u’ in ‘cup’), ‘u’ (as ‘u’ in ‘put’) and ‘m’ (as ‘m’ in ‘calm’). According to the rules of conjunction in Samskrtam, ‘a’ + ‘u’ is ‘o’ (as second ‘o’ in ‘provoke’). So ‘a’ + ‘u’ + ‘m’ is ‘OM’.

The sound ‘a’ is generated from the deepness of the throat. Below that position of throat, no sound (audible sound called ‘vaikhari’) can be produced. The sound ‘m’ is generated from the two lips fully used by touching each other. Beyond that position of mouth no sound (vaikhari) can be produced. So the first sound ‘a’ and the last sound ‘m’ of OM are produced from the innermost position and the outermost position, respectively, of the sound-production-system of our body. ‘u’ is produced from somewhere between the throat and lips, using both. So ‘u’ represents the middle.

All audible sounds in this universe are produced between ‘a’ and ‘m’ with intervening ‘u’. So OM represents all audible sounds. Every object in this universe, including energy, time and space, are ‘padartha’s. ie. Meanings of ‘pada’ or word. If all padas are produced between ‘a’ and ‘m’ then OM would represent the whole universe, because anything and everything of the universe is the meaning of a word produced with sounds between ‘a’ and ‘m’ with intervening ‘u’.

The moment we chant OM we create the whole universe in our mind. OM is considered complete with the following silence after OM. If you keep on chanting OM repeatedly, the silence between two OMs is noticeable. In chanting OM, the time taken to utter ‘a’, ‘u’, ‘m’ and the silence after them, should be the same. I have heard people chanting with short a,u and long m. Like ‘aummmmmmm’. This is wrong.

‘a’ is also considered to be the creation (srshti), since that is where all sounds originate. ‘m’ is considered to be destruction (samhara) since that is where all sounds end. Between them is ‘u’ the sustenance (sthiti). The silence followed is considered to be that which cannot be comprehended (anakhya). These four are also considered to be the waking (jagrat), dream (swapna), deep sleep (sushupti) and turiya stages respectively.

So that is why OM is considered to be the universe in its totality.

Knowledge and Self

This is an interesting argument of Indian Epitstemology, Nyaya. It is like this:

In any knowledge situation there are four components.

1. the knower or subject (pramAtA)
2. the known or object (pramEya)
3. the means of knowing (pramANA)
4. the final resultant knowledge (prajJNAna)

The knower gets the knowledge of the known, through some means of knowing. Nyaya gives detailed discussions about the different means of knowing. I will not discuss them here. My focus here is on another aspect of knowledge. Knowledge is the property of the knower and NOT the known. When I know that "this is a pot", the knowledge of pot, is in the knower, in me. The pot is not qualified by that knowledge.

This is an important distinction. Every pramEya should and will have one or more properties, like color, height, weight etc. Knowledge is also a property, which subjects only can have and not objects. Even when I know that "this is Rama", Rama the object of this particular knowledge, is not qualified by that knowledge; only I am. It is pointing your finger towards an object.
When I know that this is my hand, hand is the object not qualified by knowledge but I am.
When I think of my heart or lungs, they are the objects and I am only qualified by prajJNAna.
When I meditate on my mind, I know about my mind. So my mind is the pramEya without the knowledge and I have the prajJNAna.

So at no point I can make statements like “this is me” “this is the knower in me” “this is the pramAtA”, because the moment I say so, the knower and known get separated. Why? Because we have seen that in no situation the object can be qualified by knowledge.

So how do I know me? Obviously none of the four pramANA’s like pratyakShaM, anumAnaM, upamAnaM and shabdaM can be a tool for that knowledge, simply because the known becomes separate which can be pointed at.

Also, if it is possible to know the self, (the ‘me’), then the object also will possess the knowledge. Apparently there won’t be a means of knowing. In other words, the knower, the known and means of knowledge BECOMES knowledge! All the 4 components of a knowledge situation converges. Without a means of knowing, it would be an aha feeling. Everything becomes knowledge. That is why the Upanishads say “prajJNAnaM brahma” and “ahaM brahmAsmi”. If the first can be represented by

j = b where j is jnAna and b is Brahma

And the second by

i = b where i is the self (aham) and b is Brahma then,

i = j (I am knowledge)

That is something like the energy paradox. Long time back energy was a property of matter which is the capacity for doing work. Potential energy is posessed by a body. A body of mass is qualified by kinetic energy. But the moment we say that the mass itself is energy, the situation changes. It is no more a quality posessed by a body of mass.

The point remaining to ponder is, isn’t then the object, knowledge?