Subject: More-Mantra-Query (for Sarbani)

[Guest guest]

Dear Sarbani,

 

The common habit of writing "namo" separately (with a space before and

after) is just for the convenience of reading and does not mean that namo is

a separate word. For the convenience of reading, many people write compound

(samaasa) words also as two or three different words when printing books,

but that does not make them multiple words. "Paramagurubrihaspataye", for

example, is a single word even though people may write it as "parama guru

brihaspataye" for the sake of readability. You will see a lot of samasas

written as multiple words in printed books.

 

You will see "namo" in books only before a limited set of consonants. For

example, you will never see "namo shivaaya" or "namo chandikaayai" anywhere.

If it is an independent word, why can't it come before them?

 

The fact is that namah takes various forms after sandhi, based on the sound

coming after it. Refer to visarga sandhi rules in Sanskrita textbooks.

Examples:

 

namah + raamaaya = namoraamaaya

namah + te = namaste

namah + devaaya = namodevaaya

namah + krishnaaya = namahkrishaaya

namah + aruNaaya = namoruNaaya

namah + shivaaya = namashshivaaya

namah + indraaya = namaindraaya (transliteration confusion: ai here is a and

i, not ai)

namah + govindaaya = namogovindaaya

namah + pavitraaya = namahpavitraaya

namah + satyaaya = namassatyaaya

namah + bhagavate = namobhagavate

namah + ujjwalaaya = namaujjwalaaya (transliteration confusion: au here is a

and u, not au)

 

Based on the sound following "ah", ah and the next sound go through a

transformation and the two words become one word as a result. Namo is a

derivative form that comes in some cases above.

 

In all the cases where you saw "namo" in books, the sound following it must

be b, bh, d, dh, g, dh, r, l, v etc which make "ah" become "o" during sandhi

(joining). Show me "namo chandikaayai" or "namo indraaya" or "namo te" or

"namo satyaaya", "namo krishnaaya" etc in any book coming from an authentic

publisher (some publishers using average scholars for editing end up

publishing books with plenty of mistakes like "namo krishnaaya" etc). This

should make you realize that "namo", wherever it comes, is a post-sandhi

(post-joining) form of "namah". That proves my point that it is not an

independent word by itself.

 

BTW, I did not say "namah shivaaya" is wrong. It is right and

"namashshivaaya" is also right. But if you write, for example, "namash

shivaaya" and say that it is two words, I will tell you that it is wrong. It

is either "namah shivaaya" (2 words, without sandhi) or "namashshivaaya" (1

word, after sandhi). Similar logic applies to "namobhagavate". It is either

"namah bhagavate" (2 words, without sandhi) or "namobhagavate" (1 word,

after sandhi).

 

Sanjay is a great scholar of Jyotish. I discussed these things with Sanjay.

He was convinced on samaasas and seemed to understand the point on sandhis

also. "Namobhagavate" is one word if "visweswara" and "brihaspati" are one

word each. There is no difference.

 

I will give an example of a sandhi that I gave to Sanjay (he liked it and

wanted to add it to the next revision of VRA). My daughter has Rahu in Vi

lagna and Jupiter in Sg. She has AK Venus, Saturn and Ketu in Pisces giving

Malavya, Lakshmi and Tapaswi yogas. But Rahu in lagna makes her cranky at

times (she's running Rahu dasa till 16 years of age). When I was in the

pooja of my ishta devata, a mantra suddenly came to me for giving to my

daughter. I gave it to her. It is "guruh paatu" (means "may Jupiter save").

Because Jupiter is in a kendra in moolatrikona and aspects Rahu, he can

control Rahu. He is also the dispositor of all the planets in Pisces and

quite strong. This 4-lettered mantra goes into the 4th house of happiness

and comfort (containing Jupiter) and so I thought it would give her

happiness and remove crankiness. Even though I told me daughter "guruh

paatu" (with a small break between the two words), she was pronouncing it as

"guruhpaatu" (without a break). I tried to correct her, but she did not

listen. I left it at that because both the forms are valid. After sandhi,

"guruh paatu" becomes "guruhpaatu" (1 word). Visarga stays as visarga even

after sandhi (joining) if k and p follow it. Grammatically, what she was

reading was also correct.

 

This mantra worked wonders on her. Whenever she read it, she was a

transformed person for several hours. She would be so sweet, happy and

peaceful. My wife and some relatives who saw this were so surprised.

 

After I learnt about the devata sthanas mantras, I applied it to the mantra.

The mantra "guruh paatu" has source in 2nd, fruits in 4th and Guru sitting

in 6th (Aq). That is not so good. OTOH, the mantra "guruhpaatu"

(post-sandhi, one word) has source in 1st, fruits in 4th and Guru sitting in

the 7th house (in own sign and the sign containing AK and nice yogas!). When

my daughter instinctively chose the post sandhi form and did not pronounce

it the way I taught her, she was doing the right thing! Sanjay correctly

said, "That example of Sriharini is superb use and you have seen how the

mantra had the power to self adjust in the tongue of the little girl whose

heart is clean. It is this which is the clue to attaining Yoga. We must

learn from this little Sriharini that Brihaspati would rather help a little

girl than help us grown ups who have our hearts full of all kinds of wrong

things and feelings."

 

Anyway the point I am making is that the division into words etc based on

how we pronounce. How people write does not matter. The only correct way to

pronounce "namo" and "bhagavate" is to pronounce them as one word, i.e.

without a break. If you pronounce "namo" and "bhagavate" with a minute break

in between, it has no meaning. If you want to split it into two words, it

ought to be "namah bhagavate" and NOT "namo bhagavate". Even if a million

people make a mistake, a mistake is a mistake.

 

Between April and June, I am planning to bring out a white paper on the

common mistakes in Sanskrita pronunciation. I will put it on my homepage

with mp3's of wrong and correct pronunciations. You'll be surprised - some

of the common mistakes are so wide-spread.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

> Dear Narasimha,

>

> Yes, you are right, I have been taught otherwise by Sanjayji in our mantra

> shastra classes, which we had daily for the entire period of devi paksha.

We

> did discuss at length on Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya and how it takes the

> energy from the 4th house and is directed to the 12th house, for the

> attainment of moksha.

>

> I am familiar with sandhi and samas, having learnt Sanskrit and doubly

> because the Paninian grammar structure also underpins Bengali language, my

> mother tongue. In all texts and translations across the country, and

across

> time, there are many mantras which are written with Namo in between. Even

> ancient prints have Namo written separately, let alone numerous texts from

> mantra maharnava to mantra mahodadhi, to the puranas and Vedas in their

> various incarnations and translations, write 'Namo' separately for many

> mantras, specially Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya. It cannot be that every

> single version is wrong. Namo is used separately by Sankara in so many of

> his shlokas. In fact Om Namo Bhagavate is a prefix used in so many

mantras.

>

> Namo does not necessitate sandhi, nor does namah. If you wish, you can

> create a sandhi, like Om Namashchandikayai...namah + chandikayai leading

to

> the addition of 'sh' because of sandhi). Or keep it separate like Om Namah

> Shivaya (yes, that was a typo, I meant Namah and not Namo). Similarly, Om

> Namo Narayanaya and Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya. The Srimad Bhagavat

Purana

> begins with the mantra Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya, and of course later

on

> reiterates it as a part of the Narayana Kavacha along with Om Namo

> Narayanaya and Om Vishnave Namah. The evidence shows heavily the separate

> writing of Namo and Bhagavate and Namah and Shivaya. Maybe, its incorrect

or

> rapid pronunciation which might lead to this error in judgement in some

that

> Namo Bhagavate or Namah Shivaya should be pronounced jointly.

>

> With best regards,

>

> Sarbani