The sad problem with TM'ers is most never strayed far from the extremely limited teachings of MMY (or "yoga lite" as I call it). I swear he learned early on the "white folks" were just damn too stupid or ignorant to give much knowledge to and when he did they would SO misunderstand it as to get it backwards. However other teachers such as Sivananda didn't seem to have this problem. He had "white folks" followers and I often kick myself that so many times in the 1980s I was killing time in Spokane, Washington. If I had know one of his disciples lived there and wrote a book on mantras I would have contacted her. Sivananda and Devananda share much on the subject of mantra shastra (at least info that can be made so public).
It is interesting to note that "Om" is considered a mantra for use for vata imbalances (though "Ram" is more frequently used). It has a grounding influence and that is why it precedes mantras. As I've mentioned here before I once read in a book by an Indian whose father was a guru and who he described as being like a baby who had to be attended by his devotees (and most likely by his son). He had a section on TM which he seemed to be familiar with. He noted the lack of Omkara in the techniques and said that he felt it was making TM'ers "uncentered" which I think is true. Depending on the physiology of the individual this may or may not arise. It probably would not in people who are kapha but terribly in people who are vata. In fact most people I know who had problems with TM have been vata or pitta in nature. I live in the SF Bay Area and there are quite a few Indians in the communities around here. Many of the Indians who run shops around here are ex-engineers who wanted to work for themselves. They are of Brahman caste and know a lot about mantras, pujas, etc. They always revile at the idea of mantras being given without Omkara and think the idea that Om will make someone impoverished is nonsense. They may say that "Om" by itself might do that and keep in mind what happens as one becomes more kapha. Having walked away from TM 25 years ago I am now enjoying the instruction of a tantric samrat who resides in the Bay Area and has taught me much about simple village tantra where is none of the intellectual masturbation that accompanies so many teachings to obscure things. His teaching includes mantra shastra, a guru mantra and powerful tantric siddhis (one very useful for shutting up yappers in movie theaters). nadarrombus wrote: > i think if you say or hear om properly you will be hearing or saying the hum > of life. you could also think it properly and experience the source of > life... agni -inga aing aima shyama shiring shreem kring and so on -whatever- > the point is yoga the sutras of patanjali and bhagavad gita mention om as the > source of all sounds and extol its use, the other bijas, tantric gods to > fetch favor, maharishi thought were better because of course god and the > founder of yoga needed his holiness to straighten things out, ha...like jesus > needs a pope freakin ignorant... > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Premanand" <premanandp...@...> wrote: > >> What do you think about the 'praNava' Card? What is the etymological base of >> this word? People take it to mean 'OM' or 'AUM' but as I understand it, it >> means 'humming', the sound of life. >> >> >> >> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <no_reply@> wrote: >> >>> FWIW, the "main component" of many biija-mantras, ing(a) seems >>> to be 'agni' backwards. >>> >>> In my understanding the main purpose >>> of Agni is to be the messenger of gods, or stuff. >>> >>> So, perhaps pronouncing 'agni' backwards reverses >>> the direction of the messages, heh... >>> >>> > > > >
