Hreem - To Narayan and Sanjay (Assignment - Phonemes)

[Guest guest]

Jaya Jagannatha

Dear Narayan,

 

> (d) As explained earlier om namo narayanaya is Ashtakshari.

> om hreem narayanaya namah

> om = 1

> hree|ma = 2

> na|ra|ya|na|ya = 5

 

This is exactly what I was afraid of and why I argued so strongly against

Sanjay's rules!

 

The sound " hreem " is most certainly not two aksharas. It is a beeja akshara

(seed syllable) and I am MOST POSITIVE that it is just one akshara/syllable.

There is absolutely no doubt.

 

Sounds like " phat " , " hreem " , " shreem " , " kleem " , " kshroum " , " hum " , etc are

SINGLE aksharas. They cannot be taken to be two aksharas, as you did above.

 

When you count the aksharas in mantras, remember the above. Sometimes the

rules given by Sanjay will mislead you here, but the alternative rules I

gave will always work. In any case, remember that the above are beeja

aksharas and hence one akshara each. For example, Sanjay also conceded

previously that phat is a beeja akshara, though his rule would have you

thinking that it is two aksharas (pha | t).

 

Sanjay's rule seems to be tailormade for _names_ where he takes " Sanjaya "

instead of " Sanjay " etc (doubt: If somebody's name is " Satyavaak " , which is

a perfectly meaningful Sanskrit word with 3 syllables, will you change it to

" Satyavaaka " and make it a meaningless word of 4 syllables?). I have an

issue with that, especially for non-Sankrit names like Brendan, but we can

atleast agree in the case of mantras (i.e. not names). I will be shocked if

Sanjay says that Hreem is two aksharas as you wrote.

 

To Sanjay: I apologize for any harshness in whatever I wrote in the last

several days. We've had many arguments, but I've never been so aggressive

and dismissive of your view as I've been this time and you've never been so

offended. I apologize for whatever happened. We can arrive at a consensus

after a discussion when you come here.

 

Meanwhile, I will greatly appreciate it if you can confirm that you also

agree that all the beeja aksharas I wrote above are one akshara each.

Otherwise, there will be some doubt and confusion in the minds of some

students.

 

> na|ma|ha = 3

> Total Aksharas = 11

 

" Namaha " is a wrong south Indian pronunciation and the correct pronunciation

is namah, with " h " (visarga) pronunced gently with a release of air. It is

almost like " nama " . I don't know if Sanjay will agree or not, but visarga

does not count as an akshara. So " namah " is only two aksharas (na | mah). I

am most certain, but, in case Sanjay says otherwise, I will not argue for

now. I will leave it to Sanjay.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

 

PS: In case you lost mail in the email address transition, let me clarify

again that I never accused you of wrong Jyotish teachings. I only asserted

that you were passing on wrong knowledge in akshara counting and I probably

should not have done that also. You know me enough to know how much respect

I have for you. You know what kind of a person I am.