[Fwd: Re: [bcn2004] Part-1: About the Sanskrit Word OM]

Dear Ram Varmha,

Greetings to all. Thank you for writing.  Here is my response to your last posting addressed to me.  It is lengthy but it is thorough. I hope you will read it carefully and patiently.  Since this is an historical essay and you are very much in it, you need to be careful in your response and not be hasty. This I say because in your last response you were quite hasty in your rejection of my definition of OM.  Somehow you did not dwell on all the things I said.  After seeing your response, I disagree with you regarding the concept of OM. I am very correct in my identification of OM contrary to your disagreement.  I still say that it is nothing but the Turkish word AM as I described it although it has been cleverly disguised. The fact that India has many religious temples of extraordinary depictions of sex merriments is a testimony to the fact that OM was AM but in a very disguised manner. In the Vedic descriptions, the concept of OM has been very well embellished and wrapped into other not readily identifiable entities, thus giving it an air of mysticism and a difficult to understand nature to its identity. Additionally, the symbol of OM, such as the one you attached to your response below, is very much a stylized representation of the union between man and woman, although some would hastily deny it. 

You said:  

"Dear Dr. Kaya,


You have done a great job of collecting material from various web sites regarding the subject OM. You have done that diligently and conscientiously. For that you are commended."

Polat Kaya:  Actually, my great job was not my collecting material from various web sites, but rather my demystifying the word OM which has been intentionally made ambiguous. You are not only being unfair to my explanations of OM but you are also belittling (probably intentionally) what I said and distracting away from my accurate identification of OM. Furthermore, my readings are not limited to "internet web sites". I have books about the subject of OM and the Indian pantheon. I gave some internet references because they are readily available to all readers.  In fact, you also gave internet references in your response to me.  So, searching through the internet is not all that "bad" research, is it? One only has to know how to separate the relevant material from the irrelevant ones. 

You said:

"The word OM is merely an English way of writing the original Sanskrit Word. In Sanskrit, it is just one letter, a symbol. It Is not written as O-M. (See below). Therefore, taking the English form of writing Om and connecting to AM is not appropriate. In that vein, one can also say that OM = MA, the Mother Goddess, the primordial divinity of all human kind, etc. Such interpretations do not make sense. "

Polat Kaya:  The important factor in this case is the sound OM whether it is written in English or in Indian scripts.  The fact is that whether it is the Indian symbol for OM or the English letters for OM, they represent the sound OM which is very close to the sound AM.  In fact, the on-line Sanskrit dictionary also said as its first entry that "OM = AM". That I showed in my original paper. It really does not matter whether one uses OM or OOOOOOOOMMMM. In either case, the concept is the same.

You say 
"connecting OM to AM is not appropriate". My response is that I am not using the sound connection alone for my identification, but also many aspects of OM as related to woman.  Therefore, my identification makes a lot of sense.  You also said: In that vein, one can also say that OM = MA, the Mother Goddess, the primordial divinity of all human kind, etc.  I say yes to your suggestion which is a correct one!. OM represents the Mother Goddess because "mother goddess" is a personification of the "mother" who is a "woman".  And, OM (AM) is the very essence of "womanhood" and the "creation" whether it takes place in the "womb" of a mother - or in "space" for the universe.  So you see Ram, on top of the table, OM represents space where the creation of the universe took place, that is, the Mother Goddess - so to speak. But underneath the table, OM represents the place where human creation takes place.  This was not public knowledge until I pointed it out. Furthermore, I want to add that the similarity between the creation of Man in a woman's body and the creation of the universe in space is a metaphor that the Brahman priests made up.  In fact, in my previous writing, I also gave a Turkish-Arabic word MESHIME meaning "Sky as a placenta around the world".  So this concept is not unique to Brahmanism alone.

The very fact that in the Indian pantheon, SARASVATI (SARASWATI) was the wife of BRAHMA - the God, is a testimony to my correct identification of OM. In this context, BRAHMA and SARASVATI are the personification of "man and wife". If  "man", that is, the priest gurus, did not know this "man and wife" concept in their own experiences, thy would most likely not have drawn a metaphorical picture of BRAHMA as man or the husband,  and SARASVATI as woman or the wife.  In other words, BRAHMA, as the male "god", was the personification of an ancient "male ancestor"; and similarly, SARASVATI, as the first goddess, was the personification of an ancient female ancestor for us all, in addition to some other concepts as well.  Thus, she was the first specimen of woman, that is, mythologically, "she was the grandmother of all women". In Turkish, she is "APA ANADUR" or "ATA ANADUR" meaning "she is grandmother", just like the so-called Greek" PANDORA whom I identified as "APA ANADUR" in Turkish..  We must also note that in Turkish, the word ARVAT means "wife" or "woman" which is the essence of the Sanskrit name SARASVATI. 

At this point I want to point out that the name BRAHMA, when rearranged as "BR-AHAM", in one sense, is the restructured form of the Turkish word "BIR AHAM" (BIR AGAM) meaning "my only lord", which is religiously a descriptive name for God in Turkish. In another sense, "BIR AHAM" (BIR AGAM) is an endearment term used for the "husband" by his wife. In ancient times, the understanding was that the husband was the ruler and provider of the family similar to God who was regarded as the ruler and provider of the universe.

Similarly, when the name SARASVATI (SARASWATI) is rearranged letter-by-letter as: 

a)    "SAS-ARVATI", we see the Turkish expression "SAZ ARVATI" meaning "woman who plays the SAZ (long necked stringed instrument) and sings along with it. SAZ is the name of Turkish long-necked stringed instrument.  SAZ is also the general name for stringed instruments.  This is relevant because SARASVATI is pictured playing a SAZ-like instrument.  SARASVATI is also known as the goddess of fine-arts.

In the book entitled "The World's Great Religions" by LIFE-TIME Incorporated, [New York, 1957, p. 20], SARASVATI is shown with a long-necked stringed musical instrument which is very similar to the Turkish musical instrument called "SAZ".  

b)    "SAS-ARVATI", we see the Turkish expression "SES ARVATI" meaning "the woman who is involved in voice based arts" (i.e., fine arts).  This is relevant because SARASVATI is known as the goddess of fine arts. Turkish SES means "voice" and ARVAT means "wife" or "woman". Endless number of women sing songs and enchant people with their beautiful voice.

c)    "SAS-ARVATI", we see the Turkish expression "SÖZ ARVATI" meaning "the woman who is involved in speech-based arts" (i.e., fine arts) where SÖZ means "word, talking, speech, language".  This is relevant because SARASVATI is known as the goddess of fine-arts.

d)     "ARVAT-SASI", we see the Turkish expression "ARVAT-SESI" meaning "the voice of wife" or "the voice of woman".   This is relevant because SARASVATI is a personification of "wife" or "woman" and she is the wife of God BRAHMA.  Turkish ARVAT means "wife" or "woman" and SESI means "the voice".  Being the wife of God BRAHMA makes SARASVATI the first woman.

e)    In the form "SARI-TAVAS", we see the Turkish expression "SARI TAVUZ" meaning "yellow peacock"  or "white peacock".  This is relevant because SARASVATI's favourite bird was the peacock.

f)    In the form "SIR-ARVAT-A", it is the Turkish expression "SER ARVAT O" meaning "she is the head (top) woman", "she is the head wife".  This is relevant because she represents the very first Goddess woman. 

All this shows clearly that the name SARASVATI is a restructured and Sanskritized form of Turkish expressions.  This I also explained in an earlier paper of mine at url http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/281.

You said: 
"Such interpretations do not make sense." I disagree. What I said makes a lot of sense - if one reads carefully and open mindedly!

Below I will use some of the references that you indicated in your response and I will explain the identity of some Sanskrit words. From your reference, The UPANISHADS, Mundaka Upanishad: Part One, First Mundaka  Chapter I, we have the following as reference.  

Line {1} below;  BRAHMA is defined as the Maker of the universe and the preserver of the world.  This BRAHMA concept corresponds to Turkish "BIR AGAM" meaning "My Only Lord" which defines the "ONE GOD" concept in Turkish.  BIR means "one" and AGAM (AHAM) means "my Lord".  I explained the name BRAHMA above and showed that it was a name restructured from a Turkish expression "BIR AHAM" (BIR AGAM) meaning "my only lord".  In this case the suffix -M is the verbal possessive pronoun for first person singular in Turkish.  In actuality, in syllabic form, it is -AM, -IM, -UM (OM) in Turkish. Thus, OM (AM) has another meaning being attribyted to it from Turkish source.  

In addition to this Godly and "manly" aspect of BRAHMA, we also have the following attributions to Him. 

a)    When the word BRAHMA is rearranged as "BR-AH-AM", I find the Turkish expression "BIR AHA AM" (BIR AGA AM) meaning "One Lord AM", that is, "one Lord Female Genital".  This not only makes OM (AM)  a very powerful female entity, but it also refers to Brahma, the God as being a "female" being as well.

Thus, this meaning plus the previous one make BRAHMA a male/female entity which defines the duality aspect of the ancient Turanian God concept.  

b)    When the word BRAHMA is rearranged as "BR-MA-AH", I find the Turkish expression "BIR MA AHA" (BIR MA AGA) meaning "One Magnificient Lord" again referring to an all-capable "male" being. 

c)   When the word BRAHMA is rearranged as "MR-BAHA", I find the Turkish expression "aMAR BOHA" (EMER BOGA) meaning "suckling Young Bull".  This concept was used to manufacture the name "MARDUK".  Or in the form of "MOR BOHA" (MOR BOGA) it would mean "red/purple Bull".   All this describes the first creator ancestor, the BRAHMA, as a "bull" (Father)  identity.  

d)    When the word BRAHMA is rearranged as "BAHARM", I find the Turkish expression "BAHARaM" meaning "I am the spring" which refers to "springtime" when nature gives birth to all.  Again, in this context, it is a motherly preoccupation. 

Ram, in your response to Kamil Kartal where both of you talked about the Sanskrit term NETI NETI and you said:

"Yes, I believe you are correct.

Neti - Neti is used popularly by the Advaita school, started by Sankara. The source is in one of the Upanishads (Bradaranyaka Upanishads), when one of the sages is questioned by his students to decribe Brahman, he replies: Neti - Neti."

With respect to BRAHMAN, you said the name had the connotation of NETI-NETI. In the communication between you and Kamil Kartal, the mention of the words "NETI NETI" was made, and you concurred with his definition of NETI NETI. and the name BRAHMAN was related to NETI-NETI.  

I go one step further and explain that this term "NETI-NETI" is actually from the Turkish words "NE-OTI NE-OTI" ( NE-O-IDI NE-O-IDI) meaning "it was not that - it was not that", that is, "it was neither of them".  This again points to BRAHMAN having a duality nature, and shows that the source of this Sanskrit term"NETI-NETI" is from Turkish. 

I also want to point out that the Sanskrit name BRAHMA and the Semitic name ABRAHAM are very similar - curiously.  They are both variations of the same GOD concept that comes from Turkish "BIR AHAM" meaning "My only Lord". Thus both of these names (BRAHMA and ABRAHAM) have been made up from monosyllabic Turkish words and hence their source is in Turkish. 

At this point I must also bring to your attention the Turkish suffix -MA in another context of its usage.  In Turkish, MA is the suffix that has both the negative and positive meanings.  For examples, when we say OLMA, it means both "do not be", that is, "in the negative sense", and it also means "being, becoming" in the positive sense. As I have noted earlier, all Turkish verbs are used in the duality expressions, such as: "OKUMA" meaning "reading" and also "do not read" or "not reading"; GÜLME meaning "laughing" and also "do not laugh" or "not laughing", ÖLME meaning "dying", and aso "do not die" or "not dying",  etc..  The real usage of the word has to be understood from the way it is used in the sentence.  In this context, MA has the meaning of "it is" and "it is not", that is, "Neti-Neti".  In this regard also Turkish MA and Sanskrit OM has common meaning except that one is the reverse of the other. 

In your response, you said:

"Simply put, Om is the description of Brahman. Some where you confused Brahman with Brahma the creator, one of the Trinities of Hinduism, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, with Brahman. Brahman is not Brahma, but Brahman is the "undefinable, formless, entity that pervades the entire Universe, that which is the Universe and that which it is not". There is also the word Brahmin, who is a priest. So, there is Brahma, Bhramin and Brahman, all with different meanings."

Polat Kaya: This is an interesting explanation which seems to further mystify the concept of OM - particularly when Brahman is  
"that which is the Universe and that which it is not".  Somehow the Brahmin priests understood this "double" identity concept but the rest of us are left scratching our heads.  

Let us examine the name BRAHMAN. It seems that in VEDA writings OM has been taken as a symbol of BRAHMAN and accepted as being one with BRAHMAN. In your reference paper  about OM, at  http://www.jayarams.com/omchinmaya.html ) , we have the following statement: 

"From Vedic times until the present day the word 'OM' has been taken as a symbol and as an aid to meditation by spiritual aspirants. It is accepted both as one with 'Brahman' and as the medium, the Logos, connecting man and God. The entire history of the syllable is in the revelations of the Vedas and in the declarations of the Upanishads."

Polat Kaya:  This is one of those sweeping unsubstanciated statements that says, take it or leave it.  It leaves no room for questioning the concept of OM or BRAHMAN.  This puts the concept into a category of dogma which cannot be questioned by ordinary people.  But I will question it.  First of all, OM is an assumed and accepted MAN-MADE symbol of a concept that it is not well defined.  In fact, the above is not a definition at all.  It is defined only by metaphors and in riddle form. The question that comes to mind is; how come, those religious people who formulated these sayings could somehow understand what OM or BRAHMAN are all about, but the rest of us do not have the capacity to understand the concept?  Are we sure that we are not being taken for a ride by some religious people? One of the most untrustable links in the above so-called definition is the term "medium".  Additionally, it is said that Brahman and the "medium" the Logos, are one and the same which is really implying a "union" of two separate parts. This attaches another meaning to the name BRAHMAN.  It is very much like the Turkish OGUZ and AGUZ concept, that is, God and Word.

It is also stated that OM is accepted as connecting man and God in which again "GOD" is not defined. What do they mean when they say "GOD"?  This is also a very nebulous idea. I can understand varieties of GOD concept changing almost from person to person. What one might hear from a religious cleric (such as a Brahmin priest) is just his "own interperetation" of GOD and can be right as well as wrong. So our reference is untouchable, unreachable, indescribable, etc.  This way, since we have no idea of what GOD is and how GOD looks like because the concept is so deeply mystified, even if we may reach Him/Her/It by chance, we would not be able to recognize Him/Her/It.  So again we are left wandering all alone and bewildered even though we may see Him/Her/It every day.  If something is so neboulus as GOD, how and why would the word OM or OOOOM be able to represent that concept?  Who made that judgement and based on what conditions? It just seems to me that we ordinary humans have been taken for a really long ride!  It seems that religious "leaders" have played the public as a herd and themselves as "sheperds".  Now you may reject me because all this may be contrary to your belief - or you may feel offended, but, believe me, that is not my intention.  We are just two friends having a friendly philosophical discussion. 

The above reference statement also says that OM and BRAHMAN are connected, additionally OM is a means of communication with God and connecting man and God.  The name BRAHMAN, when examined as "BR-HANAM", reveals two relevant Turkish expressions: 

a) "BIR HANAM" meaning "I am one lord" which refers to a "manly" or "Godly" being; in this case the final suffix -AM in the word HANAM represents a case of "being", that is, "OLMA" in Turkish.  As a verbal suffix, it is the personal pronoun for the first person singular meaning "I AM".  As it is seen from this expression, the English language has also usurped this Turkish suffix "AM" as meaning "being". 

b) "BIR HANUM" meaning "One woman" (One goddess) which refers to a "female" being.  

Thus the name BRAHMAN has a double identity.  It is "man" like and it is also "woman" like. It is neither one nor the other, that is, Brahman is "Neti Neti" - to use your terminology.

Furthermore, when the name BRAHMAN is examined as "BR-MA-HAN", it is the Turkish expression "BIR MA HAN" meaning "One magnificent lord" referring again to a "manly" being;  on the other hand, "BIR MA HAN" also means "one magnificent palace (room) which refers to not only to the "sky dome" but also a "womanly palace".  If the name BRAHMAN is examined as "BR-AM-HAN" or "BR-HAN-AM", it is the Turkish expression "BIR AM HAN" or "BIR HAN AM" meaning "One lord woman" referring to a "womanly" being where AM means "woman".  Again, we have a double identity in the nature of BRAHMAN, that is, more "Neti Neti". 

Further, OM is related to LOGOS, that is, "word, speech, language, means of communication". The Greek  word LOGOS, meaning "speech" or "word", is either from Turkish "AGUZLA" meaning "with mouth", or,  from "AL AGUZ" meaning "red mouth" - which is both "red" in color and is also an "opening" in the head where the WORD (LOGOS) is generated. But Turkish word AGUZ also means "word, speech, language" as well as meaning "mouth, opening".  Language does not have a "male" or "female" identity.  WORD (aguz, söz) does not have gender but WORD indeed connects man and God. Here we must note that the term "GOD" has two meanings: 1) God - the human "brain" which generates the "thoughts" that lead to the "words"; and 2) GOD the "universal creator being" with whom man tries to communicate with "words and thoughts". Of course, man also connects himself to GOD by saying that "GOD made man in his own image". 

Again in your reference paper about OM, at  http://www.jayarams.com/omchinmaya.html ), we have the following statement: 

"There is a verse in the Vedas: 'Prajapathi vai idam agra asit' (In the beginning was Prajapathi, the Brahman): 'Tasya vak dvitiya asit' (With whom was the Word): 'Vag vai Paraman Brahma' (And the Word was verily the Supreme Brahman).** This sphota has its symbol in the word OM. The sound of OM is also called 'Pranava', meaning, that it is something that pervades life, or runs through prana or breath."

Polat Kaya:    First of all, it is most likely that this PRAJAPATHI, the Brahman did not talk to any one of the religious gurus about himself/herself/itself.  It was the religious gurus who formulated this ancient Indian philosophy of creation or got it from another source.  In other words, it was the Brahmin priests with their own thinking capability that generated this concept on their own.  Or, they copied it from another culture. However, once they conceived or copied the idea, most likely, they did not want to share it with anyone in clearly defined terms. They kept the concept vague and mysterious and - advised people to try and find that very same concept on their own, or, they said that the human mind is not capable of understanding it - although they themselves somehow understood it and reached the conclusion that they did.  In other words, the Brahmin priests, being the only ones who understood these concepts, elevated themselves to a superior position while the rest of the people who did not understand were left as subordinate peasants.

In this reference, "the Vedas verse: 'Prajapathi vai idam agra asit' (In the beginning was Prajapathi, the Brahman):" implies that PRAJAPATHI, the Brahman must be the "ancestor" for us all because he was with WORD since "word" is generated only by "man".  

PRAJAPATHI VAI IDAM AGRA ASIT (that is, "in the beginning was PRAJATHI, the BRAHMAN")

When the Sanskrit word PRAJAPATHI in the expression "PRAJAPATHI VAI IDAM AGRA ASIT" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "PIR-APA-JAHT", I find the Turkish expression "BIR APA CET" (BIR APA CED) meaning "One Father Ancestor".  Turkish BIR means "one", APA means "father" and CET (CED) means "ancestor".  After all, the above quote in red does say, 
In the beginning was Prajapathi.  This is just like saying, In th beginning, there was an ancestor (BIR APA CED).  Thus  the Sanskrit word PRAJAPATHI is actually a word made up from a Turkish expression that means "One Father ancestor" or "One Creator Ancestor".  In fact this is what the Indian creation philosophy says that PRAJAPATHI became a source of "creation" for all of us and everyting.  Somehow, PRAJAPATHI (he/she/it) is also called "BRAHMAN". 

Now let us examine the Sanskrit expression "VAI IDAM AGRA ASIT" as four separated parts of a source text.  The Sanskrit expression "VAI IDAM AGRA ASIT" when rearranged as "TASAGI-A-AMI VARDI", I find the Turkish sentence "TASAGI VA AMI VARDI", meaning "it had testicles and female genitals".  This is most interesting and also relevant to the concept described by the "Indian" philosophy describing the creation. 

With this revelation, we now have the total Sanskrit expression "PRAJAPATHI VAI IDAM AGRA ASIT", which when  rearranged as "PIR-APA-JAHT  TASAGI-A-AMI VARDI", we see the Turkish sentence "PIR-APA-JAHT  TASAGI VA AMI VARDI" ("BIR APA CED TASAGI VE AMI VARDI) meaning "there was One Father Ancestor who had testicles and female genitalia". In other words, this creator God PRAJAPATHI, the Brahman, that is, "BIR APA CEDwas man but was not man; was woman but was not woman; it was neither man nor woman; It was both man and woman. Somehow, this Brahman was both male and female!  This again indicates the duality nature of the ancestor GOD as it was in ancient Turanian understanding.

There is a so-called "English" word "HERMAPHRODITE" expressing this duality nature.  This English word is supposedly from Greek word "ERMAPHRODITOS" meaning "an individual having both the male and the female reproductive organs". I must note that even this so-called "Greek" word and hence the "English" word, is made up from a Turkish expression.  When the Greek word "ERMAPHRODITOS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "ERMI-APHROTDO-S", I find the Turkish expression (in a question form of the Azeri dialect of Turkish): "ER MI AFRATDI O?" (ER MI AVRATDI O?) meaning "is it a man or a woman?"  The Greek double letter PH  is an F  or V sound. 

So we find that both the Sanskrit expression "PRAJAPATHI VAI IDAM AGRA ASIT" and the Greek word "ERMAPHRODITOS" were manufactured from Turkish expressions describing the duality concept of PRAJAPATHI and HERMAPHRODITE.

Additionally, we find that one of the first cornerstones of the Indian religious concept as expressed with the Sanskrit expression of: 'Prajapathi vai idam agra asit' (In the beginning was Prajapathi, the Brahman) was in fact originally an expression in Turkish which was then restructured, Sanskritized and disguised, thus alienated from Turkish. This revelation is an eye opener for the rest of the Vedas verses in Sanskrit!. It makes the nature of the Sanskrit language like Greek and Latin languages which have been manufactured from Turkish. 

All of these revelations make this ancestor source a "duality entity". This is what the ancient Turanian concept of Sky-God tells us, that is, God has a duality entity about itself.  It is both "mother and father".  It is both "white and black" (Ak/Kara), it is "good and bad" (iyi/kötü), "it is day and night" (Gün/Gece), it is "hot and cold" (sicak/soguk) , "it is fair and unfair" (hak/haksiz), "it is order and disorder" (düzen/düzensiz), etcetera.   

This very same concept must have also been originally applicable to the name BRAHMA, although BRAHMA is represented as "Man" with a consort SARASVATI in the Indian Pantheon.  

You also said that "Brahman is not Brahma, but Brahman is the "undefinable, formless, entity that pervades the entire Universe, that which is the Universe and that which it is not". 

This concept of BRAHMAN is very much like my definition of SPACE  which I called "EM SPACE" in my own creation theory that was published in 1997, "EM-space and Renewal-at-Pi Cosmology (a revisit of space and gravity)"  [Physics Essays, Vol. 10, No. 2, pages 204 to 247, June 1997 issue].

In my definition of EM-SPACE (where E stands for ENERGY and M stands for MASS), I described a "space" that has both energy and mass" contrary to the present understandings of space.  In this concept, my EM-Space is the one that creates the universe, yet in the visual aspect, space is not visible but everything else that it created as light and material are visible. If we compare my EM-SPACE with BRAHMAN, we find them very similar in nature.  Curiously and coincidentally, and not knowing anything about the Hindu "OM" (AM) connection, I even have an "EM" in front of the word SPACE in my own concept of creation. 
Reference also states 
"The sound of OM is also called 'Pranava'".  This is interesting because when PRANAVA is rearranged as "PR-ANA-AV", we find the Turkish expression "BIR ANA EV" meaning "one mother home" which refers to "a home" where one is born and where one hears the sound of life. This refers not only to the actual house or home where one is born, but also to the woman's OM (AM) where one was conceived, nurtured and born out of. This again ties Sanskrit OM and Turkish MOTHER together. 
Furthermore, we are given the expression: 
"The sound of OM is also called 'Pranava', meaning, that it is something that pervades life, or runs through prana or breath" which also leads to another meaning.  When the sanskrit word PRANAVA is rearranged letter-by-letter as "PRAN-AVA", I find the Turkish expression "BURUN-HAVA" (nefes) meaning the "air that we inhale and exhale through the nose". Turkish BURUN means "nose" and "HAVA" means "air". Thus the Saskrit PRANAVA is a composite word that is made up from Turkish BURUN and HAVA representing the air that we breath. The Sanskrit "PRANAVA" and Turkish "BURUN HAVA" (nefes) is something that pervades life and runs through the BURUN (PRANA).  In this case "sound of OM" refers to the "sound of breathing".  Breathing is the sign of life. So even in this context the Sanskrit word PRANAVA is made up from a Turkish expression.          

The reference states: 

"Speaking of OM, the Taittiriya Upanishad  says: "Thou art the sheath of Brahman." That is, OM  is the container for the Supreme and, therefore, invoking OM is invoking the Supreme." 

Polat Kaya:   This gives another meaning to the name OM. Since OM is a "sheath" or "container", it can readily be said that so is the AM. If OM is the container for the Supreme GOD, then it must be the "Sky Dome" (DAM), that is, SPACE; yet, if the Supreme god is "man", then OM refers to AM where he/she/it was born and contained. 

The reference also stated:
 Therefore, this sphota is called the Nada-Brahman, the sound-BrahmanIn Turkish NIDA (SES) means "voice". So when the word NADA-BRAHMAN is rearranged as "BR-NADA-MANAH" or "BHR-NADA-MANA", I find the Turkish expression "BIR NIDA MANA" (BIR SES MANASI) meaning"the meaning of one sound" referring to vocal words and their meanings. Thus BRAHMAN, in one sense, is the "meaning" that is attributed to any concept generated by the human mind and represented with a word.  Thus in this context, WORD (SÖZ) and its meaning (MANA) are the only ones that can give life to any concept generated in the mind and this applies to all conditions and concepts. 

From The Upanishads: Mundaka Upanishad: Part One: First Mundaka Chapter I, Line {1} below also describes BRAHMAN as the foundation of all knowledge.  In this regard, the word BRAHMAN when rearranged as "R-BAHNAM", where H is I, the word becomes "eR BAINAM" which is the Turkish expression "ER BEYINAM" meaning "I am man's brain" which is the real foundation of  all knowledge. Furthermore, when the word BRAHMAN is rearranged as "BHR-MANA", it is the Turkish expression "BIR MANA" meaning "one meaning" attached to the name of each concept.  Without meaning and names, concepts cannot be discussed.  Hence, "names and meanings" are at the foundation of all knowledge. 

Again from Line{1}, we have the name ATHARVA the eldest son of Brahma, and Brahma told ATHARVA about the Knowledge of BRAHMAN, the foundation of all knowledge.  

When the name ATHARVA is rearranged letter-by-letter as "HAVATAR", I find the Turkish expression "HAVATIR" meaning "it is sky; it is Air; it is Space".  In Turkish Oguz Kagan Epic, the name of one of the six sons was known as "GÖK HAN" (HAVA HAN) meaning "Sky Lord" or "Air Lord" or "Space Lord".  So, this name "HAVATAR" is very much a restructured Turkish expression "HAVATIR" restructured into Sanskrit. Air is an essential requirement for the existance of life.  Additionally, it is an essential requirement for speech to take place.   Speech (Word) is the  modulation of "air" as it passes through the mouth cavity under the control of the "brain".  Without "air" neither living, speaking or voicing is possible.  Thus Sanskrit ATHARVA has also been made up from a Turkish expression.

Line {6} below of the same source states:
 "By means of the Higher Knowledge the wise behold everywhere Brahman, which otherwise cannot be seen or seized, which has no root or attributes, no eyes or ears, no hands or feet, which is eternal and omnipresent, all-pervading and extremely subtle; which is imperishable and the source of all beings."

In all of these meanings attributed to the word BRAHMAN, we note one important but untold principle: that is, all meaningful Turkish words and/or expressions that can be produced with the letters of the word BRAHMAN are listed by the Brahmin priests and their meanings are attributed to the word "BRAHMAN". This way the name BRAHMAN becomes a word of mystical qualities with many godly and non-godly meanings attributed to it. 

From the above definition of BRAHMAN, "space", which makes up the universe, would meet the given definition.  In this context, when we rearrange the word BRAHMAN as:

a)    "BR-HANAM", we have the Turkish expression  "BIR ANAM" (BIR HANAM, BIR GÖKEM) meaning "I am one sky" which includes the space that contains the universe. Turkish BIR means "ONE", AN  (HAN) means "sky" (also the word for "sky" in Sumerian), and suffix "AM" is the Turkish verbal suffix for first person singular meaning "I AM".  This Turkish suffix appears at the end of many Sanskrit words that seem to have the meaning of "be it", that is, "it is" which is Turkish suffix "-AM".

b)   "BR-HANAM", we have the Turkish expression "BIR HANAM" (BIR SARAYAM, BIR DAMAM) meaning "I am one palace" and "I am one immense dome" which again describes the sky / space around us.  Turkish HAN is a palatial complex with huge rooms and establishments and DAM means "roof".   Wherever we live on earth, we are in "a domed one room house" and "a DOME like sky-roof" exists above us" - which is the Sky or Space.  This reminds us of the so-called Pagan Pantheon Temple in Rome which is a representation of the Sky-Dome.  The large circular opening at the top center of the one-domed circular room of the Pantheon temple, that is, the "OCULUS" represents the Sun.  The Pagan Pantheon Temple in Rome has been modelled after the Turkish yurts. See my paper at url: http://www.polatkaya.net/pantheon_yurt.htm .

c)    "BR-ANAHM), we have the Turkish expression  "BIR ANAYAM" meaning "I am one mother" which again is an accurate description of "space" the sky, because all things in the universe are born in space and from space. In that context, SPACE or the BRAHMAN is "one mother".

d)    "BHR-AN-AM", we have the Turkish expression "BIR AN AM" (BIR GÖK AM, BIR ANA AM)) meaning "One sky genitalia". Again even in this context, "Space" the sky is a huge "genitalia" where conceptions and births take place all the time. In this regard, I had noted in my previous paper that there was the Turkish word "MAȘIME-I DÜNYA meaning "placenta around the earth" which is the space. This also likened sky  to a genitalia and/or womb. Of course this is very much the same as the human "mother" concept which is again a place of conception, containment, nourishment, development and birth. Again in this context, OM the BRAHMAN and AM the MOTHER is identified with Turkish words ANA and AM.  It is very interesting to note that the so-called "English" word "MOTHER", when rearranged as "OMTHER", is the disguised form of the Turkish word "AMTIR" meaning "it is genitalia", "it is mother".  So, from many directions, I am finding words of "Indo-European" languages, that is, including Sanskrit, all made up from Turkish words and expressions.

The UpanishadsMundaka Upanishad: Part One: First Mundaka Chapter I

{1} OmBrahma, the Maker of the universe and the Preserver of the worldwas the first among the devasHe told His eldest son Atharva about the Knowledge of Brahman, the foundation of all knowledge

{2} The Knowledge of Brahman about which Brahma told Atharva, Atharvain olden timestold Angir. Angir taught it to Satyavaha, belonging to the clan of Bharadvaja, and the latter taught itin successionto Angiras 

{3} Saunaka, the great householderapproached Angiras in the proper manner and saidRevered sirwhat is that by the knowing of which all this becomes known

{4} To him he saidTwo kinds of knowledge must be known-that is what the knowers of Brahman tell usThey are the Higher Knowledge and the lower knowledge

{5} Of these twothe lower knowledge is the Rig-Vedathe Yagur-Vedathe Sama-Vedathe Atharva-Vedasiksha (phonetics), kalpa (rituals), vyakaranamgrammar), nirukta (etymology), chhandas (metre), and jyotis (astronomy); ( and the Higher Knowledge is that by which the ImperishableBrahman isattained

{6} By means of the Higher Knowledge the wise behold everywhere Brahmanwhich otherwise cannot be seen or seizedwhich has no root or attributesno eyes or earsno hands or feetwhich is eternal and omnipresentall-pervading and extremely subtlewhich is imperishable and the source of all beings

{7} As the spider sends forth and draws in its threadas plants grow on the earthas hair grows on the head and the body of a living man-so does everything in the universe arise from the Imperishable

{8} Brahman expands by means of austerityand from It primal matter is producedfrom matterPranafrom Pranamindfrom mindthe elementsfrom the elementsthe worldsthence worksand from the workstheir immortal fruits

{9} For him who knows all and understands everythingwhose austerity consists of knowledge-from Himthe Imperishable Brahmanare born Brahmanameformand food.

As another example for what I am saying, I have the sample below from url :  http://www.sankaracharya.org/chandogya_upanishad.php
"Part One   
Chapter I — Meditation on Om  

1.   The syllable Om, called the Udgitha, should be meditated upon;  for people sing the Udgitha, beginning with Om.  Now follows the detailed explanation of the syllable:  

2.   The essence of all these beings is the earth; the essence of the  earth is water; the essence of water is plants; the essence of  plants is a person; essence of a person is speech; the essence of  speech is the Rig—Veda; essence of the Rig—Veda is the  Sama—Veda; the essence of the Sama—Veda is the Udgitha  which is Om. " 

Now let us examine this paragraph in a different light.

The syllable Om, called the Udgitha:

1.    The essence of all these beings is the earth;     
UDGITHA (rearranged as "GAIDU-TH") is from Turkish word "GAYADU" meaning "it is large rock" which is a description of earth. Earth is a large rock rotating around the sun in space with some living beings on it which include the man.

2.    the essence of the  earth is water;     
UDGITHA (rearranged as "AGITHDU") is from Turkish word "AGITDU" (AKITDU) meaning "it is that which flows" which is "water". Turkish AKIT meaning "that which flows" is from the verb "akmak" meaning "to flow" which is a characteristic of water.  The Romans used this Turkish word "AKMAK" to come up with the word AQUA meanining water.  

3.    the essence of water is plants;           
UDGITHA (rearranged as "UTAGHDI") is from Turkish word "OTAGHDI" (OTAGDI) meaning "it is place where plants grow" which is generally watery place.

4.    the essence of  plants is a person;     
UDGITHA (rearranged as "GITHADU") is from Turkish word  "GIDADU" (GEDADU) meaning "he is a young man". I explained this word in my BILGAMESH paper. This word appears in Bilgamesh (Gilgamesh) epic in the name ENKIDU, that is, Turkish "HAN GEDA" meaning "The Lord Youth", "Lord Young Man". 

5.    essence of a person is speech;           
UDGITHA (rearranged as "DAGHITU") is from Turkish word "DEYIDU" (SÖZDÜ) meaning "it is speech", "it is word", "it is what is spoken" which is speech.

6.    the essence of  speech is the Rig-Veda;   
RIG-VEDA (rearranged as "GIR-VE-DA") is from Turkish word "GÖR VE DE" meaning "seeing and speaking" which is the essence of any book such as Rig-Veda. Thus, by the statement "the essence of  speech is the Rig-Veda", reference is made to "eye" and "mouth" of man. 

Seeing is possible only with "light", that is, with SUN. Thus, by the statement "the essence of  speech is the Rig-Veda", reference is also made to SUN.  Turkish KOR, KÖZ  and GÖR are all names for SUN.  SUN is KOR because sun is one "glowing fire" (KOR); Sun is KÖZ because sun is one "red fire" (KÖZ); Sun is GÖZ (KÖZ) beacause sun is one "eye"(GÖZ)  in sky; and Sun is GÖR because sun makes things "visible" (GÖR).  

Turkish word VE means "and" and DE (DA, DI) means "tell, say, speak". It was also DE in Sumerian. The French word DITE, DIRE comes from this Turkish word of DE.  

7.    essence of the Rig-Veda is the  Sama-Veda;   
SAMA-VEDA (rearranged as "SEMADA-U") is from Turkish word "SEMADU O" meaning "it is the sky". Thus SAMA-VEDA speaks about the SKY.  Additionally, "SEMADA-U" is the Turkish expression "SIMADU O" meaning "it is the (human) face". Thus, in this context, SAMA-VEDA also speaks about the human head and it capabilities, because the human head is the collector, creator, sorter, rearranger and speaker of knowledge.  Hence, it is a god. 

All of these again brings back to surface the ancient Turanian OGUZ (O-GÖZ) and AGUZ concepts that made up the "Sky-God" and "MAN" concepts being one and the same. That is why in ancient times, God was described with the Turkish words AL, APA-AL, BAAL, ALBASh, KIZILBASh, ALTUNBASh, and others.  All of them defined Father-God (ATA-TANRI), Sun (GÜN-TANRI), Moon (AY-TANRI) and Man.

8.    the essence of the Sama-Veda is the Udgitha  which is Om.  
UDGITHA (rearranged as "DUGATHI") is from: a) Turkish word "DOGADI" meaning "it is nature". Nature is "mother" and gives birth to all kinds of beings, hence, it is OM. Additionally, b) Turkish word "DOGUDU" meaning "it is birth" or "it is birthplace".  This again makes the so-called Sanskrit word UDGITHA as OM (AM). 

And last but not least, UDGITHA, rearranged as "AGH-UDTI", is the Turkish expression "AG ODDI" meaning "it is white fire", and "AGA ODDI" meaning "Lord Fire". Both of these expressions refers to the SUN which is the source of everything on earth and in our solar system. Turkish word UD (OD, OT, UT) means "fire", "sun" or "bull", and the Sumerian word UTU was the Sun God and GUD meant "bull".  The Sun and the Bull concepts are the two most important icons of the ancient Turanian Sky-God deity. And even in Sanskrite, UT is the Sun. [See P. 3 of this reference].

From all this, we see that the UDGITHA is a composite word where we find Turkish words GAYADU, AKITDU, OTAGHDI, GEDADU, DEYIDU, GÖR-VE-DE, SIMADU, DOGADI, DOGUDU, AGA-ODDI and UDDI -  all meaning as I explained above and as described in the Sanskrit text.  So the Brahmin priests who came up with this composite "Sanskrit" word UDGITHA concept, along with its mysterious and vague verbology, knew Turkish very well and they also knew what Turkish words were embedded in that composite word.  And in all these Sanskrit expressions, that is what they were reciting without actually identifying the Turkish source.  Those Brahmin priests were artificially elevating themselves above everyone else and pretending that they were priveleged enough to talk to "God" - while others were not.  This provided the perfect excuse for them to exploit the rest of the public.

We also have another similar example for what I am saying.  I have the following sample below from url :   

CHHANDOGYA UPANISHAD, Part Three, Chapter XII — Meditation on the Gayatri  
1.   The gayatri is everything, whatever here exists. Speech is verily  the Gayatri, for speech sings forth (gaya—ti) and protects  (traya—te) everything, whatever here exists.  

2.   That Gayatri is also the earth; for everything that exists here  rests on this earth and does not go beyond.  

3.   In man, that Gayatri is also the body; for the pranas exist in this  body and do not go beyond.  

4.   That body, in man, is again the heart within a man; for the  pranas exist in it and do not go beyond.  

5.   That Gayatri has four feet and is sixfold. The same is also  declared by a Rik—verse:  

6.   "Such is its greatness (i.e. of Brahman as known through the  symbol of the Gayatri). Greater than it is the Person (Brahman).  One of Its feet covers all beings; the immortal three feet are in  heaven (i.e. in Itself)  
7—9.   The Brahman which has been thus described is the same as the  physical akasa outside a person. The akasa which is outside a  person is the same as that which is inside a person. The akasa  which is inside a person is the akasa within the heart. The akasa  which is within the heart is omnipresent and unchanging. He  who knows this obtains full and unchanging prosperity.   

1.    In Item 1 above, it states that "The GAYATRI is everything".  The word GAYATRI, when rearranged as GAYTIR-A, we have the Turkish word "GÖYTÜR O" meaning "it is the sky".  "Sky is everything" and "everyhing is in the sky".

In Item 1 above, it states that "Speech is verily  the Gayatri". The word GAYATRI, when rearranged as TIYARAG, we have the Turkish word "TIYEREG" (DIYEREK) meaning "by saying" or "by speech" which connects this Sanskrit word to Turkish. In Turkish, the word DE / DI (TE / TI) means "say, saying, words that we speak".  DE is the root word from verb "demek" meaning "to say, to speak".  We find this  Turkish word in the form of TI and TE in the words "GAYA-TI" and "TRAYA-TE".  DE is present in the Turkish word ADI meaning "its name" and AD meaning "name".  AD is the "WORD" (speech entity) that identifies everything and also protects everything.  Even the Sanskrit word "TRAYA-TE", when rearranged as "TE-YATAR", is the Turkish word "TEYITIR" (DEYIDIR) meaning "it is speech", "it is word". So the concept is coming from Turkish.

2.    In Item 2, it states that 
"Gayatri is also the earth".  When the word GAYATRI is rearranged as "GAYATIR", we have the Turkish word "GAYATIR" (KAYATIR) meaning "it is large rock" which is a description of the "earth" in Turkish.  This word is identified as KI meaning "earth" in the Sumerian texts.  Of course KI is a shortened version of the Turkish word KaIa (KAYA).  Similarly, in Hesiode's creation epic THEOGONY (B.C. 800), this word is mentioned in the form of "GAEA" or "GAIA" which is again nothing but the Turkish word "GAYA / KAYA". Earth is a "big rock" circling around the sun in space.  It must be noted that the suffix "-TRI" is nothing but the restructured form of the Turkish suffix "TIR"(TUR)  meaning "it is".  

Alternatively, when the Sanskrit word GAYATRI is rearranged as "AGA-YIRT" or "AG-YIRTA", we see the restructured form of the Turkish expression "AGA YERTI" meaning "it is Lord Earth" which describes the earth.  Turkish YER means "soil, earth, firmament". Thus again the source is Turkish.

All of this explains that the Sanskrit term GAYATRI meaning "earth" is a restructured Turkish word or expression.

3.    In Item 3, it states that  "In man, that Gayatri is also the body".  In this context, when the Sanskrit word GAYATRI is rearranged as "IR-GAYTA", I find the Turkish expression "ER GÖYDE" ("ER GÖVDE) meaning "man's body". Turkish ER (IR) means "man" and  GÖVDE (GÖYDE) means "body".  So, even in this sense, the Sanskrit word GAYATRI is a restructured and Sanskritized Turkish expression. 

4.    In Item 4. it states that "That body, in man, is again the heart within a man".  In this context, when the Sanskrit word GAYATRI is rearranged as "YIRAGTA", I find the Turkish expression "YIREGTI" (YÜREKTI) meaning "it is heart".  Thus again this so-called "Sanskrit" word "GAYATRI" is a restructured and distorted and disguised form of a Turkish expression.

The fact that I can find Turkish words "DE" meaning "say, saying, words that we speak", "GAYATIR" (KAYATIR) or "AGA YERTI" meaning "earth", "ER GÖYDE" ("ER GÖVDE) meaning "man's body", "YIREGTI" (YÜREKTI) meaning "it is heart" all in one Sanskrit word GAYATRI, (as they claim in the reference text that this word was all of these entities), is unquestionable proof that Sanskrit-reading Brahmin priests knew the Turkish language very well and when they were chanting in "Sanskrit", they were actually using a broken up and restructured Turkish so that most listeners would not understand what was being said.  This is also proof that Sanskrit was a language made up from restructured Turkish words and phrases - which was a much earlier language than Sanskrit.

Hence, it becomes clear that the BRAHMIN priest was a diligent but untruthful person who knew the Turkish of his time very well and altered the Turkish words and expressions at will to come up with a language called "SANSKRIT".  Thus Sanskrit, just like Greek and Latin and all the other so-called "Indo-European" languages is an artificial language manufactured from Turkish.

The term SANSKRIT is defined as: 
"Also SANSCRIT. [From Sanskrit "sam'krta", literally, prepared, cultivated, from SAM meaning "together" + KR meaning "to do, make".]  The ancient Aryan language of the Hindus of India, of special interest to philology because it retains many of the supposed characteristics of the parent Indo-European language." [Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 881.]

In this description, the fact that the name SANSKRIT means  "
prepared, cultivated" implies that the Sanskrit language was prepared and cultivated from another language.  So SANSKRIT is an "artificial" and "manufactured" language just like Greek, Latin, all other Indo-European languages and the Semitic languages are.  Additionally, the given "etymology" is not truthful. It misleads the readers in order to cover up the reality regarding the make up of the name "Sanskrit". 

The etymology of SANSKRIT becomes totally different when we follow the analysis of this word . When the name SANSKRIT is rearranged letter-by-letter as: 

a)    "KINASSTR", I find the Turkish expression "KINAShTIR" (KÜNE
şTIR) meaning "it is SUN".  Hence, the Brahmin priests who "cultivated" the TURKISH language in "preparing" the "SANSKRIT' language, also usurped the Turkish name "KÜNEşTIR" and gave it as the "name" to the the artificially made up language of "SANSKRIT".    In a garbled format,  they were saying that SANSKRIT was the SUN LANGUAGE - but only in Turkish.  In other words, it was Turkish that was the SUN LANGUAGE.

b)    "KANISSTR", I find the Turkish expression "KANIShTIR" (GANI
şTIR) meaning "it is understanding", "it is knowledge", "it is wisdom". 

c)    "KANISSTR", I find the Turkish expression "KONIShTIR" (KONU
şTUR) meaning "it is speech", "it is language", "it is word". 

In view of all this, it would have been more truthful if the above definition for SANSKRIT had said: 
Sanskrit, the ancient Aryan language of the Hindus of India, of special interest to philology because it retains many of the characteristics of the parent TURKISH language." There was no so-called "parent Indo-European" language, but rather there was Turkish from which they manufactured the so-called "Indo-European" languages.  

All of these three meanings of Sanskrit, I explained in another earlier paper of mine where I explained the linguistic relations between Turkish words GÜNESh (GÜNE
ş)  meaning "sun", GONUSh (GONUş) meaning "speech, language, word, talking, and saying", and GANISh (GANIş)  meaning "understanding, knowledge, wisdom, mind" and the Turkish language being "the Sun Language" (GÜNEş DILI) . This paper is in the Polat Kaya Library.  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/209 .


I have shown throughout this essay that words of the Sanskrit language have been manufactured from ancient Turkish words and phrases by way of alteration, restructuring and anagrammatizing.  It is clear that the scientific world of "linguistics" and history have been conned by a group of secretly operating priests who altered everything in Turkish in order to create a mysterious and vague language and a falsely earned high status for themselves. With this cultic and secretive trick used to manufacture words from the world-wide spoken language of Turkish, these wanderer priests created "new languages" - so-called Indo-European languages that were said to be related to a non-existant "parent Indo-European language".  They used their "new languages" to exploit people everywhere with their vague and nonsensical verbology which they called the words of "God".  At the same time, they confused that one language (which was Turkish) that the world spoke and hoped to wipe it away from existence.   

The so-called ancient ARYANS were groups of wandering peoples who had no country of their own and they wandered place to place until they rooted themselves in an area populated by other peoples.  The name ARYAN comes from the Turkish word "ARAYAN" meaning "wanderer".  They were the wandering gypsies of Babylon.  They were the RUM gypsies of the so-called "Byzantium". They were the wanderer Romans who became the "ruling class" of the Roman Empire after they captured the Etruscan founded Turanian city of "KIZIL ALMA" or "ALTANRI" City which they changed to "ROMA" from the Turkish word "ARAMA" meaning "searching". The Roman "Aryans" had no relation to the native people of Italy - so-called "LATIN" people, who were the native Turanian Turkish speaking and Turkic stock of ALTAI people in Italy as well as the rest of "Europe".  These wanderers, wherever they went, destroyed the native peoples and their cultures. Alteration, destruction and usurpation of the native civilization has been their way of history making and culture making throughout history. They have been most effective in their "religion making and operating" practices which have always been a profitable business technique to operate.

The Brahmin priests would read the Turkish words and expressions that they could find embedded in a manufactured SANSKRIT word, or, they could fit into a manufactured SANSKRIT word, and then they pretended to talk about each case as if they were talking about a mystereous concept which only they could understand.  In this  way the would appear to the rest of the public as being smart, full of wisdom, and godly so much so that they could talk to GOD himself - thereby conning the ordinary people and exploiting them in every sense.  As I have shown in this essay, they were not "godly" at all but rather were "exploiters" who wrapped themselves into "godly" cloaks. 

Sanskrit also being based on Turkish words and expressions makes Turkish the so-called "proto" language, that is, the first "model" language contrary to "linguistic" denials. 

From some sample readings of Upanishads, one gets the feeling that there are lots of non-sensical sayings in them.  They are either truly non-sensical verbology, or intentionally garbeled secretive sayings that have no use for anyone except the Brahmin priests who composed them.  Evidently Brahmanism is another secretive cult based on "religion" in which the essence of the religion is never defined and described. There all kinds of "it is" and "it is not" kind of talk presented in them. The writings are the same kind as the so-called "Greek Mythology" writings or the writings found in other mythological writings.  Every thing is written in riddle form or in metaphors or allegories.  Such writings are conducive for exploitation of ordinary peoples.

All of this also makes Turanian civilization the much earlier world-wide civilization in the Indian sub-continent before the arrival of the "Aryans" (Arayans). The ancient Turanian civilization in India was destroyed by the later coming Aryan priests who replaced it with a reformulated one called BRAHMANISM.  

My very best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

Jan 30, 2007

Ram Varmha wrote:

Dear Dr. Kaya,


You have done a great job of collecting material from various web sites regarding the subject OM. You have done that diligently and conscientiously. For that you are commended.


Unfortunately, you have missed the primary meaning of Om or Omkara or Pranava or Udgitha or Mula Mantra. According to the Upanishads there are 108 definitions for the word Om. It will take an enormous amount of work for you to encrypt all these definitions of Om to Turkish equivalents. Your suggestion that Om came from AM will not suffice.


The word OM is merely an English way of writing the original Sanskrit Word. In Sanskrit, it is just one letter, a symbol. It Is not written as O-M. (See below). Therefore, taking the English form of writing Om and connecting to AM is not appropriate. In that vein, one can also say that OM = MA, the Mother Goddess, the primordial divinity of all human kind, etc. Such interpretations do not make sense. 


Simply put, Om is the description of Brahman. Some where you confused Brahman with Brahma the creator, one of the Trinities of Hinduism, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, with Brahman. Brahman is not Brahma, but Brahman is the "undefinable, formless, entity that pervades the entire Universe, that which is the Universe and that which it is not". There is also the word Brahmin, who is a priest. So, there is Brahma, Bhramin and Brahman, all with different meanings.


To get a better understanding of the meaning of Brahman read the Upanishads:




The Meaning of Om


Before the beginning, the Brahman (absolute reality) was one and non-dual. It thought, "I am only one -- may I become many." This caused a vibration which eventually became sound, and this sound was Om. Creation itself was set in motion by the vibration of Om. The closest approach to Brahman is that first sound, Om. Thus, this sacred symbol has become emblematic of Brahman just as images are emblematic of material objects.

The vibration produced by chanting Om in the physical universe corresponds to the original vibration that first arose at the time of creation. The sound of Om is also called Pranava, meaning that it sustains life and runs through Prana or breath. Om also represents the four states of the Supreme Being. The three sounds in Om (AUM) represent the waking, dream and deep sleep states and the silence which surrounds Om represents the "Turiya" state.

Because the first of the three states of consciousness is the waking state, it is represented by the sound "A" pronounced like "A" in accounting. Because the dream state of consciousness lies between the waking and the deep sleep states, it is represented by the letter "U" which lies between the "A" and "M". This "U" is pronounced like the "U" in would. The last state of consciousness is the deep sleep state and is represented by "M" pronounced as in "sum." This closes the pronunciation of Om just as deep sleep is the final stage of the mind at rest. Whenever Om is recited in succession there is an inevitable period of silence between two successive Oms. This silence represents the "fourth state" known as "Turiya" which is the state of perfect bliss when the individual self recognizes his identity with the supreme.


The Symbol Om

Description: Sanskrit OmJust as the sound of Om represents the four states of Brahman, the symbol Om written in Sanskrit also represents everything. The material world of the waking state is symbolized by the large lower curve. The deep sleep state is represented by the upper left curve. The dream state, lying between the waking state below and the deep sleep state above, emanates from the confluence of the two. The point and semicircle are separate from the rest and rule the whole. The point represents the turiya state of absolute consciousness. The open semicircle is symbolic of the infinite and the fact that the meaning of the point can not be grasped if one limits oneself to finite thinking.


What I am writing here is just one more definition of Om. There are 107 more, some of which you have taken from other web sites. But, the absolute meaning of Om is indefinable. It can only be meditated upon. Actually, the meaning of Om has no meaning other than those conceived by different people in their own way.


Another description of Om is given below:



Here is one more.



And yet one more:



All this does not come out of the Turkish word AM! Sorry, but your theory is rejected.


Your interpretation of Tantra also is incorrect. But, I have no time to get into that. Some time later.


It was good communicating with you.


With all due respect and good wishes.