Comment from Loknath Chugh
Time: August 26, 2007, 1:27 am

As far as I understand the word ‘o’ was first came out from the first man on this earth. He used to utter this as it comes out naturally. The next word ‘m’ was uttered as it also comes after that naturally. Even today when a child start speaking he or she utter very naturally ‘o’ and then ‘m’. The logic state that these two words had created so many magic at that time. Even today when a child takes birth he or she start crying and a hidden voice comes out of it is ‘o’ and then after few months the second first word comes out of each child is ‘m’. It means calling mother for some help or something. The ‘o’ second natural meaning is the father or holder of the whole universe and ‘m’ means mother. The first human creature must have uttered this word and the God had started obliging with its power. The God does not mean here any in any specific form it only means the whole nature. The whole nature is our mother. This symbolic word at that time must have given so many power to the new creature on this earth as the nature was pleased that it is listening some vioces from its creature. As today all the human activities are part and parcel of the nature. The natural elements if mixes up with purity then Good soul on this earth is born and that good soul try to show the path of good deeds and finally regarded as a recarnation of God.

Comment from Bodhipaksa
Time: August 26, 2007, 7:22 am

That’s a nice story, although the first vowel sound that babies make is actually “aa”. And “m” is a more complex consonant that comes after “b” and “d”.

I’m no linguist, but my own sense of why “OM” is so important is that “o” seems to be the most physical of the vowels. When you make a sustained “o” sound the whole chest vibrates. When you add a nasalized “m” to that “o” you also get vibrations in the head as well as overtones (the production of more than one note at one time).

I can imagine that having the body vibrate might have seemed very significant in early Indian culture, and that overtones would also be very significant — when you’re making more than one sound simultaneously it’s almost as if you’ve created something “out of this world” (i.e. supernatural).

Where do those extra sounds come from, people might have wondered? Is it the gods making them? Are they joining in with our chanting?

Comment from Xan
Time: January 8, 2008, 10:19 pm

The words in the Tara mantra do have meanings related to her qualities. Om begins many mantras, and represents the unspoken sound of creation’s origin. The name, Tara, means pure primordial wisdom or Buddha consciousness. Tuttare is the power to give liberation… from the ego-mind. Ture means quick… not waiting or holding back. Soha is a prayer closing, sort of a “so be it”.

Comment from Jayarava
Time: May 7, 2008, 4:08 am

re the oṃ mantra. If we were to follow the rules of Sanskrit pronunciation then sounding oṃ would not involve the lips at all - the tongue falls back and re-directs air up through the nasal passages. The ṃ used in romanisations of the anusvāra gives the wrong impression. (Bodhipakṣa: it is a nasalised /o/ not a nasalised /m/). The word should rhyme with the French “bon” with the lips maintaining the rounded shape of /o/. That said it is pronounced with an /m/ sound at the end even in India.

However if you sound a rounded nasal vowel and sustain it, then you do indeed experience most of the physical vibrations in your head. The tongue blocks off air flow to the mouth and the sound resonates in the sinus cavity. It’s an interesting sensation. The thing about overtones may have contributed, but I have not seen it mentioned in literature on mantra.

The speculation on the significance of oṃ occurs at a time when priests were starting to experiment with doing their sacrificial rituals in imagination rather than on a real fire - thereby inventing meditation! The whole focus of awareness moves from the external world - the fire, food offerings, and the elements - and into the self and imagination. Out of this came the Śramana movement and their texts the Upaniṣads which are where we first read about oṃ. BTW we know that the Buddha had some familiarity with those texts because he parodies them on a number of occasions. However several times in the Pāli Canon the Buddha makes it clear that he doesn’t put much store in Vedic mantra.

Oṃ at the beginning of Buddhist mantras is almost entirely abstract. It can mean simply “this is a mantra”; or, as Xan suggests, it can take on pretty much any symbolism that Buddhists require it to. Although Xan your suggested meaning of Tārā’s name is not at all related to the Sanskrit. Literally Tārā means “star”.

A great deal of what is basically superstition has built up around mantra chanting which makes trying to understand what is going on quite difficult. I like Bodhipakṣa’s approach. I’ve recently made an attempt to summarise what is a Buddhist mantra on visiblemantra.org.

Comment from Bodhipaksa
Time: May 7, 2008, 12:12 pm

Hi Jayarava,

Thanks for another thoughtful and informative post.

There does seem to be some variation in how ṃ is pronounced (as you point out in India there’s an “m” at the end).

One textbook we used in my Pali class, Gair and Karunatillake’s “A New Course In Reading Pali”, says the following (page xvi):

The symbol ṃ is more complicated in that it occurs in two places in the system we use here: between the vowels and consonants, and also as the nasal in the velar column. At the end of a word it is pronounced like the ng in English ’sing’ (to the phonetitican, this is one sound, represented as ŋ)>. Within a word, it does not occur alone between vowels, but always immediately preceding a consonant. It then takes on the position of that consonant, and it is this ‘chameleon’ character, together with the fact that it is the only nasal occurring at the end of a word, that accounts in part for its treatment as a ‘pure nasal’ and thus for its special placement.

Whether they’re talking about a distinction that exists in Classical Sanskrit, or only in Pali, or only in the contemporary pronunciation is something I just don’t know.

Regarding overtones and vibrations, I find that chanting a “nasalized o” leads to pronounced vibrations in the chest cavity that I can feel with my hand on the ribcage. It’s not unlike stroking a purring cat. Sometimes I’m aware of the sensations only faintly, but as I sustain the note they become stronger — presumably I’m altering the flow of the air in order to strengthen the vibration.

Thanks for the link to your article, as well. It’s most interesting, and I’m really glad to hear that you’re pursuing your insight into mantras and sharing it with the rest of us. What a gift!