Are We Made of Sound? - and argument for mantra

Spirituality
#26

We accrue knowledge in 2 ways. Ordinarily, through thoughts in the making of which we use our prior knowledge; so this becomes incremental knowledge. Very rarely, one comes along with direct knowledge, which is whole, total and devoid of ususl emotional baggage. Incremental knowledge is subjective and hence, deficient. But it creates a great comfort zone. From such a comfort zone to direct knowledge is a huge leap. It is traumatic, and not easy at all. That’s my take on the duel above (for those who care to know!)

The range of sound vibtrations we can ordinarily sustain in the physical world is called “vaikheri naad”. This has range and depth of vibrations of only 25% of “madhyama naad” in the astral world, which again is only 25% of “pashyanti naad” of the causal world.

AUM is the word/ sound of Ishvara, transcending the causal world which has only 25% vibrations of this fourth state, called “para naad”. At that level, the vibrations are extremely intense, appearing to be still but humongously potent. Sound is then a sparsh (touch). It is for this reason that the true AUM is heard in the meditation and any rendering on lower scales may neither bring its full vitality nor it is desired. That is also the reason why true AUM is taught only by our inner teacher.

#27

FlexPenguin,

“And spirit, whatever that is”

Then find out. In fact, one will have to investigate as deeply as possible into one’s being to discover whether such a thing is there or not. As it is, it remains simply a an idea, a hypothesis that has entered into one’s mind which one has borrowed from the outside.

#28

The Amen (Aum) is the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God …(Revelation 3:14)

By meditating upon Aum you can contact God (Patanjali)

#29

[QUOTE=oak333;52730]The Amen (Aum) is the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God …(Revelation 3:14)

By meditating upon Aum you can contact God (Patanjali)[/QUOTE]

I am not sure whether Amen and aum are connected :rolleyes: …in the spiritual literature, there are lots of juxtapositions and I grew sorta weary of this ‘every concept or idea has to be connected’ drill…

…guess what? They are actually not connected, per se; those connexions are due to linguistic fallacies born out of anticipatory forms of learning, [I]not[/I] to consequential interpretation of direct forms of learning.

#30

Much like the yogis figured out long ago modern science suggest everything has a vibration of its’ own

#31

It’s worth mentioning that, while Patanjali says that Om is the symbol (vAcaka or sacred word) that represents Isvara, this text says that the creator[I] is[/I] Om. I’m not sure whether that’s just semantics or whether it represents a difference of belief.

#32

“Om” is both symbolic and a direct expression of one’s own true nature. What is called “Om” is just an outward expression of something inner which is much more fundamental. That is why Patanjali has said that one should concentrate upon Om in order to understand it’s “meaning”. The mantra, when used as a symbol for the divine, is a gateway to something else entirely which cannot be transmitted through any sound or word. For that, any symbol will do if the association is strong enough in the mind - whether Om, it’s yantra, a chakra, or a mantra in any other language, an image of Shiva, Buddha, or Krishna, a Zen koan, or just about anything.

#33

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;52798]“Om” is both symbolic and a direct expression of one’s own true nature. What is called “Om” is just an outward expression of something inner which is much more fundamental. That is why Patanjali has said that one should concentrate upon Om in order to understand it’s “meaning”. The mantra, when used as a symbol for the divine, is a gateway to something else entirely which cannot be transmitted through any sound or word. For that, any symbol will do if the association is strong enough in the mind - whether Om, it’s yantra, a chakra, or a mantra in any other language, an image of Shiva, Buddha, or Krishna, a Zen koan, or just about anything.[/QUOTE]

You shure do waste a lot of time typing out a bunch of stafff that says absolutely nothing, and very often that nothing dances with processed bologne.

#34

[QUOTE=YogiDiva;50475]From an article by Sol Luckman: “One school of thought insists that humans are actually made of sound and that DNA itself may be a form of sound. After conducting meticulously documented research, Harvard-trained Leonard Horowitz expertly demonstrates that DNA emits and receives both phonons and photons, or electromagnetic waves of sound and light. In the 1990s, according to Dr. Horowitz, “three Nobel laureates in medicine advanced research that revealed the primary function of DNA lies not in protein synthesis … but in the realm of bioacoustic and bioelectric signaling.” In recent years a new artistic field called DNA music has even begun to flourish. It therefore seems appropriate, at the very least, to compare DNA to a keyboard with a number of keys that produce the music of life.”[/QUOTE]

Could you tell us which Nobel laureates research suggested that “primary function of DNA lies not in protein synthesis … but in the realm of bioacoustic and bioelectric signaling”? I did quick search but couldn’t find anything related.

#35

@Amir

Processed bologne indeed. There are a few billion Hindus and Buddhists who would disagree with Amir’s statement. You do not hear them chanting “Amir” or “Fred”. The syllable “Om” has been used for millenia because it is vācaka, a significant or sacred word. It signifies or symbolizes or expresses something very specific, and has a particular resonance. The yantras and tantric deities used for visualization also have specific meanings. They are not a substitute for “Om”. Likewise, the imaginations of our own mind are not a substitute for real knowledge.

#36

[QUOTE=Asuri;52846] the imaginations of our own mind are not a substitute for real knowledge.[/QUOTE]

Nice line. Mind if I use it sometime? Reminds me of the time someone tried to tell me about kids without ever having any of his own.

#37

@FlexPenguin

Thanks. Go for it.

#38

Asuri,

"There are a few billion Hindus and Buddhists who would disagree with Amir’s statement. You do not hear them chanting “Amir” or “Fred”. "

Even if the whole world had done it, that does not mean the whole world is correct. In the Way, it is not a matter of strength with numbers or conforming to a certain pattern of thinking. While there are many working towards the Way, very few ever come to it’s realization simply because they are far too entangled in their own discipline, clinging to their belief systems, religions, and philosophies. And being part of a tradition, before you even enter into the search for Truth, your mind has already become prejudiced.

Yes, any symbol which represents the divine can be used as a means towards one’s enlightenment, concentration upon “Om” is not the only method. For the Hindu, it may be Shiva or Krishna, for the Zen disciple it may be word “Mu” - which is the essence of the whole training of Zen, for the Pure Land Buddhist it is the Nembutsu - the name of Amitabha Buddha, for the Sufi it may be Allah, for the Qabalist it may be the divine name Eheieh (I am), which is the highest divine name in their system, and you can go on and on finding as many different approaches towards the same phenomenon. And that is just with mantra yoga, one is not considering any of the other approaches. In bakhti yoga, again, any object of devotion will do - it does not have to be the symbol “Om”.

“It signifies or symbolizes or expresses something very specific, and has a particular resonance.”

It does. But it is not the only approach.

“The yantras and tantric deities used for visualization also have specific meanings.”

They will mean whatever one wants them to mean, they are just a skillful means. In Tibet, you will not find a shadow of any of the Hindu deities left, and their methods work perfectly well. Whether you are using a deity of some particular tradition is not the essential phenomenon. You can even invent your own, and in fact in tantra there is a whole science as to how to create your own thought and energy forms which can function independently of one’s own consciousness.

“They are not a substitute for “Om”.”

They can be.

“Likewise, the imaginations of our own mind are not a substitute for real knowledge.”

Knowledge by it’s very nature is relative. And the moment you cling to knowledge as though it were the ultimate, you are already suffering from your own hallucinations.

#39

The bija mantras, of which OM is one(ajana), are not words or names, they are simply sounds. Sounds which have no meaning. These are said to be root sounds that the chakras make and hence why they are intonated to vibrate a particular chakra. If this is true, then it does not matter if you are Hindu, Buddhist, Christian or Muslim, you will hear those sounds.

There is probably a lot of validity behind this, because bear in mind Sanskrit is the only language where the letters are classified by what area of the body they are produced from, but in Panini grammar this is mostly the face region. I did, however, notice some remarkable observations myself when playing with the bija mantras one day. I noticed OM was naturally produced when keeping the mouth gaping wide open and breathing to make a sound, then gradually closing it. The sound made is as follows: Ahhhhh oooouuu mmmmmm. I also found it very interesting that the mmmmm sound at end vibrates exactly the part it is suppose to vibrate: the ajana.

I have tested the other bija mantras and have indeed found that they vibrate the area of the body they are suppose to vibrate. Ham vibrates the vishudda. Apparently, it is common knowledge in professional singing, that different sounds come from different areas of the body.

#40

What makes my body truly vibrate has always been Mozart’s Requiem, C minor Great Mass, and Bach’s Organ work Fantasie in Gminor, Bruckner’s 4th symphony… I get my out of body experience and elevation via these sort of classical pieces. These sort of musical pieces activate incredible amounts of spiritual energy in me, believe it or not!

#41

That’s not quite right. They are syllables, not words, so they don’t have meaning in the same sense that words have meaning. But they are symbolic, they are symbols of something. The short passage that I quoted from Tripura Tapini explains the symbolism of both “hrim” and “Om”. A large portion of that Upanishad is devoted to explaining the symbolism of a sixteen syllable mantra that it contains. Every syllable means something. You don’t have to believe me, you can read it for yourself.

#42

You continue to convince me that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. There are many tantric deities used in Tibertan Buddhism that have Hindu counterparts. And there is a definite symbolism connected with each one. In the Sri Vidya school, there are nearly a hundred deities. Each one represents a particular aspect of the goddess. They definitely do not mean whatever you want them to mean.

In Tibetan Buddhism, they have a concept of a Yidam deity, which is one that you choose because it has particular qualities that you would like to develop in yourself. The Yidam deity is a mental construction, and has no real existence outside of your own mind. This kind of practice is different than contemplating the pranava.

For someone who is supposed to be realized, you seem to have a cynical attitude toward these things.

#43

I have recently become a lot more relaxed in my views regarding personal gods(Saguna Brahman) and mythology(puranas) after discovering a flaw in my reasoning that Nirguna Brahman is the real Brahman and Sadguna Brahman is pure imagination, that even Nirguna Brahman is based on a linguistic definitions like self, essence, being, infinite, absolute, so why are they anymore valid than personal definitions like creator, preserver, destroyer, almighty, god, father, mother, son, daughter, teacher, friend, lover.

I have also realised that Saguna Brahman is not completely arbitrary at all. That it refers to actual roles and functions that exist in reality. There is definitely a creation principle, a preserving principle, and destroying principle. There is definitely something that has a fatherly aspect, a motherly aspect, a son aspect, a daughter aspect, teacher aspect, friend aspect and even love aspect. Otherwise, they would not exist. Thus my understanding of the ultimate divine reality has grown to encompass personality as well, and thereby also relaxed my attitudes on bhakti and the mythology that bhakti demands.

I now maintain that bhakti, jnana, karma, raja and kriya are all essential on the path of ones holistic spiritual development.

#44

That’s good. I noticed the change. Seems like a more healthy way to go. I don’t know why you have to maintain anything.

#45

Asuri,

“There are many tantric deities used in Tibertan Buddhism that have Hindu counterparts.”

If you want, you can find counterparts everywhere, not just in the East.

“And there is a definite symbolism connected with each one”

There is, and each one is a skillful means, just as all symbols are skillful means - a finger pointing to the moon.

“In the Sri Vidya school, there are nearly a hundred deities. Each one represents a particular aspect of the goddess. They definitely do not mean whatever you want them to mean.”

As all of these are human invention - created as devices to access certain aspects of the energy of nature, they will mean whatever you want them to mean because it is the mind which has given them meaning. You can even invent your own, and with the proper spirit flowing through the discipline, one will find them to be just as effective.

“For someone who is supposed to be realized, you seem to have a cynical attitude toward these things”

Most of the problems lie not in the methods, but in the disciple.