Amongst the most engaging and instructive threads in this forum has been "The Origins of Stanzas of Dzyan - A Project". During the discussion, David Reigle mentions the book "Pranava Vada", where the definition of the word "daviprakriti"matched that of the one given by T Subba Row. There is a very interesting story behind the book and the entire book can be read at:


Apart from the origin of "daviprakriti", this book describes the sacred Hindu word, "OM or AUM" in a very different way than is commonly given in other Hindu texts. It says that  A represents I or self or I am this, U represents Not Self or what is not I, and M represents the relation of negation that exists between them. The AUM thus, is equivalent to the Idea or Consciousness I-This-Not-Am.”  The letters A, U and M are to be taken as pronounced in Sanskrit and not English.


My request to all the scholars in this forum is comment on this proposition in a way that a common person can understand. Particularly, the last letter M- should it be N if it is to represent Negation. 


Additionally, I would request all the scholars here to post the other different meanings of the word AUM that they have come across, in order to arrive at a consensus of the true meaning of the word. 


Thank You all.



Views: 1058

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Mandukya Upanishad & the Karika by Gaudapada are important sources for the significance of AUM.


It would be helpful if you quoted the passage(s) in the Pranava Vada that you are referring to, it is such a large work.

Thanks Nicholas.


The explanation is taken from the chapter IV of the preface of the book appearing as the page 41 of the pdf of the Pranava Vada as downloaded from the above website. It is uploaded here.


Following from the explanation of Chapter 1 Agama Prakaranaa of KARIKA by GAUDAPADA from the website:


  • When it is desired to describe the identity of Visva and the letter A, the chief ground given is the fact that each is the first in its respective sphere. Another reason for this identity is the all—pervasiveness of each.
  • The clear ground for realizing Taijasa as of the same nature as the letter U is the common feature of superiority. Another plain reason for such identity is their being in the middle.
  • The indisputable reason given for the identity of Prajna and M is the common feature that both are the measure. The other reason for such identity is another common feature, namely, that both represent the state of mergence.
  • He who knows for certain the similarity of the three states and the three letters of AUM, based upon their common features, is worshipped and adored by all beings and also is a great sage.
  • Through meditation on A the seeker attains Visva; through meditation on U, Taijasa; and through meditation on M, Prajna. Meditation on the "soundless" brings no attainment.
  • AUM should be known quarter by quarter. There is no doubt that the quarters are the same as the letters. Having understood AUM quarter by quarter, one should not think of anything else.
  • The mind should be concentrated on AUM. AUM is the fearless Brahman. He who is always absorbed in AUM knows no fear whatever.
  • AUM is verily the Lower Brahman. It is also stated to be the Higher Brahman. AUM is beginningless and unique. There is nothing outside it. It is unrelated to any effect and is immutable.
  • AUM is, indeed, the beginning, middle and end of all things. He who has realized AUM as immutable immediately attains the Supreme Reality.
  • Know AUM to be Isvara, ever present in the hearts of all. The calm soul, contemplating AUM as all—pervading, does not grieve.
  • One who knows AUM, which is soundless and also endowed with infinite sounds, which is all good and the negation of duality, is a real sage and none other.



Following from Swami Krishnananda's Commenatry on Mandukya from the website:


aum ity etad akṣaram idam sarvam, tasyopavyākhyānam 
bhūtam bhavad bhaviṣyad iti sarvam auṁkāra eva
yac cānyat trikālātītaṁ tad apy auṁkāra eva. 

1. OM! - This Imperishable Word is the whole of this visible universe. Its explanation is as follows: What has become, what is becoming, what will become, - verily, all of this is OM. And what is beyond these three states of the world of time, - that too, verily, is OM.


They do indeed appear very different from what is proposed in Pranava Vada.


Dear Ananda,

You write, "A represents I or self or I am this, U represents Not Self or what is not I, and M represents the relation of negation that exists between them."

Section 1 opens with," A as Self (capital S). --U as Not-Self. --M as the relation between them."

The capital S of Self may hold a clue.


W. Q. Judge states in Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali (1:28), " Ity denotes, as distinct yet union, Braham, Vishnu, and S'iva, or Creation, Preservation, and Distruction. As a whole, it implies 'the Universe'... With regard to cycles affecting any planetary system ( and I would say the _Manvantara _, J.B.), it implies the Spirit, represented by the AU as a basis ( I see that the word 'basis' shoud be highlighted, J.B) of manifested worlds; the body or manifested matter, represented by U, though which the spirit ( not capital, J.B.) works; and represented by M, 'the stoppage or return of sound to its source' the Pralaya or Dissolution of the worlds." 


The last page of Book 1 -Part 1 (pg 268) , before the Summing Up, in Madam Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine give the whole story of the One Life, "The same for the Universe, which manifested periodically, for purposes of the collective lifes, the outbreathing of the One Life; in order that the Ever-Becoming, every cosmic atom in this infinite Universe, passing from the formless and intangible, through the mixed natures of the semi-terrestrail, down to matter in full generation, and back again, reascending at each new period higher and nearer the final goal; that each atom, we say, may reach through individual merits and efforts that plane where it re-becomes the one unconditioned ALL."


I can read this as the One, it's manifestation, and the Pralaya. The A as Self, the U as not-Self, and the M as the return to the Self.


Then Madam show's us (at the end of this paragraph) the sacrifice, that leads to the second advent, not in the "dead letter sense".

Any other scholars opinions,

James Bergh




Thanks James. A really interesting and insighful explanation.


Pranava Vada however, appears different from the two possibilities you have mentioned. The principle of creation, preservation and destruction represented by the concepts of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh are easily understood. But, AUM should reflect the principle or the law or the process which results in manifestation of that trinity, or in other words precede that trinity.

You wrote:

The A as Self, the U as not-Self, and the M as the return to the Self.


Pranava Vada describes M as relation of negation between the two. This is where the difficulty arises. Negation should mean that if one is true the other should be false. Therefore, Self and Not-Self should not exist together. But they do. That is the relation, I should think. So, M may represent some movement between the static existences of Self and Not-Self. And, perhaps as you have concluded that movement is of Self trying to return to (or merge into) Not-Self and vice versa. This movement itself may be the force called "Daiviprakriti" or "Fohat". 


Above explanation does appear different from the standard one based on Mandukya Upanishad.

The section "Ultimates in their Primal Nature" (page 9 ff) needs to be studied.  It makes clear that the relation of negation is only apparent during samsara and from one point of view.  Brahman or the Absolute is the Fourth.

I agree with you Nicholas. Further on the book says, the fourth character in the word is Sanskrit "I" representing Daiviprakriti. The book contains many apparent contradictions but explanations are provided, sometimes very different from the standard Hindu beliefs, but very close to theosophical viewpoints. Particularly The Secret Doctrine.


That is why a scholarly study and explanations are requested.

I keep thinking with this - sorry of the tought -of that Louis Powels - the creator with Jaques Bergier - the return of the sorcerers - he mentions some experiment in mid XX century of quantum physics.


When the foton passes AT THE SAME TIME between two contiguous microscopic holes, trough the SAME HOLES AT SAME  TIME; so, what is that?


the negation of the self as synonim to the return of the self...


someone wroted in the 60's some phrase on the wall that said "This is NOT THERE"



you have to meditate on this to get it.


cheers...i know that is not on the subject of linguistics, but i believe it could help...



Thanks Estrella.


It is not the Negation of the Self but Negation of the Relation between Self and Not-Self, together with the role of silent "I (Sanskrit)" - Daiviprakriti, in this nagation of relation which is a comlpex concept to fathom. Petrhaps a lot more backgorund information is required before the concept becomes clear. I am working on that.


While I have missed the result of Photon particles through two contiguous microscopic holes, the closest I can think of is the "Embedded Platonic Information System at Planckian Scale" by Roger Penrose - The Noted Physicist, described in his book, "The Emperor's New Mind". I am trying to figure out if that is Daiviprakriti.


Pranava Vada also has some sections about matter and energy which should interest the current Qunatum Physicists greatly as it was written before Einstein gave theory of relativity. 


Despite several attempts in the past, I have not been able to meditate as the mind wanders. 

These are very deep questions, Capt. Anand. It seems that Gaudapada in his Mandukya-karika explains the aum from one standpoint, and that Gargyayana in his Pranava-vada explains the aum from another standpoint. If we accept what HPB says about there being seven keys to such teachings, we might expect there to be at least five more valid standpoints from which the aum can be described. 
From the standpoint of the Pranava-vada, I gather that daivi-prakriti (or fohat) would be represented not by either the "a" or the "u" or the "m," but rather by the "i" that is supposed to be invisibly merged between the "a" and the "u." We do not hear of such an "i" in the known treatises that treat the coalescence or sandhi of letters in Sanskrit. But it seems likely that this is explained in some of the now unknown treatises that the blind Pandit Dhanaraja held in his memory, and perhaps in one that he dictated to Parmeshri Das.
The Pranava-vada, which was dictated mostly to Bhagavan Das, consists of 16,000 sloka measures. But Dhanaraja dictated other texts to Parmeshri Das totaling at least 60,000 sloka measures. It has always seemed to me an urgent necessity to try to see what happened to these dictated texts, but I never had the opportunity to do so on my visits to India. 
These texts are described in "Pandit Parmeshri Das' Narrative," on pp. xix-xxxiii of the Preface to vol. 1 of the Pranava-vada. The first one that was dictated to Parmeshri Das, in answer to his questions on Sanskrit, was a dialogue between Shiva and Parvati in 1,500 verses. This is the one that has always intrigued me the most, because I had the same questions that he had.
Parmeshri Das describes studying Sanskrit rather late in life, after being a lawyer. So when his Sanskrit teacher taught him the famous fourteen Shiva-sutras that Panini's grammar is based on, his by then habitual mental habits caused him to ask questions about them. Why there were exactly fourteen, and not thirteen or fifteen? etc., etc. His Sanskrit teacher could not answer these questions. They weighed on Parmeshri Das, as he says, and even affected his sleep. Some months later, the blind Pandit Dhanaraja showed up at his door. He soon dictated from memory the dialogue mentioned above that satisfactorily answered Parmeshri Das' questions.
Pandit Dhanaraja dictated several other works in part or in whole. These included parts of what is supposed to be the original Maheshvara Vyakarana or grammar and parts of the Naradiya Bhashya or commentary thereon, the genuine Paniniya Shiksha complete in 100 verses, and a commentary thereon, part of the Narnava, or "The Ocean of Na, the Negation," the complete Samyayana Kosha or lexicon in 8,000 verses, the complete Gobhila Bhashya or commentary on the Bhagavad-gita in 24,000 sloka measures, part of the "real, original" commentary on the Bhagavad-gita by the "real, original" Shankaracharya, what he said to be the continuation and second half in 700 verses of the Bhagavad-gita, part of a huge commentary by Barhayana on the "original" Brahma-Sutra, and parts of other texts.
Pandit Dhanaraja would never consent to dictate the same verse twice, as he was asked many times to do. This would constitute proof that he was really dictating from memory and not making the verses up as he went along. A couple decades later parts of the Gobhila commentary on the Bhagavad-gita were published by the Suddha Dharma Mandala, said to be from manuscripts made available to them by the teachers behind this organization. The publication of portions of the Gobhila commentary by the Suddha Dharma Mandala would constitute such proof. Their publication of two of three Sanskrit volumes of the Pranava-vada does constitute such proof.
Parmeshri Das lived in Barabanki near Lucknow, and died in 1908. It seems almost certain that these valuable texts that were dictated to him would have been preserved by his descendants. It must be possible to trace them. Where are they now? We should find out. After coming into contact with Pandit Dhanaraja, and getting a list of these old allegedly original texts, Bhagavan Das wrote to his brother (p. xv):
"Old manuscript-hunter as you are, did you not look with longing eyes at the list I sent you last? What hopes it must have aroused! What ideas of revolutionising Oriental scholarship, of giving an irresistible impulse to the study of Sanskrit all over the world, of helping the young and growing races of the West!"
This is the very same idea that the Mahatma K.H. had said to A. O. Hume in the very first Mahatma letter:
“. . . The present tendency of education is to make them [Indians] materialistic and root out spirituality. With a proper understanding of what their ancestors meant by their writings and teachings, education would become a blessing whereas now it is often a curse. . . . This changed attitude toward the older philosophy would influence native Princes and wealthy men to endow normal schools for the education of pundits; and old Manuscripts hitherto buried out of the reach of the Europeans would again come to light, and with them the key to much of that which was hidden for ages from the popular understanding; for which your skeptical Sanskritists do not care, which your religious missionaries do not dare, to understand. Science would gain much—humanity everything. Under the stimulus of the Anglo Indian Theosophical Society, we might in time see another golden age of Sanskrit literature. . . .
“The same causes that are materializing the Hindu mind are equally affecting all Western thought. Education enthrones skepticism, but imprisons spiritualism. You can do immense good by helping to give the Western nations a secure basis upon which to reconstruct their crumbling faith. What they need is the evidence that Asiatic psychology alone supplies. . . .
“This is the moment to guide the recurrent impulse which must soon come, and which will push the age toward extreme atheism, or drag it back to extreme sacerdotalism, if it is not led to the primitive and soulsatisfying philosophy of the Aryans. . . . You and your colleagues may help furnish the materials for a needed universal religious philosophy; one impregnable to scientific assault because itself the finality of absolute science; and, a religion, that is indeed worthy of the name, since it includes the relations of man physical to man psychical, and of the two to all that is above and below them. Is not this worth a slight sacrifice?”
-- first letter of K.H. to A. O. Hume, 1880
We need to find the 60,000 sloka measures of texts that Pandit Dhanaraja dictated to Parmeshri Das.

Thanks David. A most enlightening explanation. True without the complete text, Pranava Vada in its present form raises more questions than it answers. Yet, even a cursory glance through the book generates the feeling that there may be some very profound truths in it. And, a complete explanation may leave a very deep impression on the "World Process", (a word occuring numerous times in the book). 


How much deciphering is required can be gauged from the two pages I am uploading explaining "Daiviprakriti", "Mulaprakriti", "Paraprakriti" and "Aparaprakriti". While the explanation appears logical, it is difficult then to link T Subba Row's view of "Daiviprakriti" being "Fohat" of the stanzas. Or, should we try to reinterpret stanzas within the I-This-Not-Am framework of Pranava Vada.


All very confusing really. And, the complete text is a must. 

Capt. Anand, these pages that you posted from the Pranava-vada do seem to be very profound. I have been pondering them. It appears to me that daivi-prakriti as explained in them does correspond to fohat as taught in The Secret Doctrine. We there read:

"But just as the opposite poles of subject and object, spirit and matter, are but aspects of the One Unity in which they are synthesized, so, in the manifested Universe, there is “that” which links spirit to matter, subject to object. This something, at present unknown to Western speculation, is called by the occultists Fohat. . . . Fohat is thus the dynamic energy of Cosmic Ideation." (SD 1.16)


This is a very brief explanation. The Pranava-vada page that you posted explains it a little further. The opposite poles of spirit and matter, of the One Unity, are there called the contradiction of the unity of I (spirit) and This (matter). What links these two is the necessary contrast between them, there called the necessity of contradiction. When the "One" becomes polarized just prior to manifestation, as in an electromagnet when the power is turned on, the contrast of the two poles then necessarily produces its own dynamic energy. The hitherto quiescent electromagnet now produces the energy of magnetism. This dynamic energy is there called the Energy of virodha, or contradiction, or opposition. It is what The Secret Doctrine calls Fohat, and what the Pranava-vada calls Daivi-Prakriti:

"The Necessity of the contradiction of the unity of I and This is Daivi-Prakriti. . . . When two things are based on or rooted in one, difference between them is also a matter of necessity. . . . This Energy of virodha, contradiction, opposition, is Daivi-Prakriti. (Pranava-vada, vol. 2, p. 234)

Thanks David. The clarity with which you write is exceptional. Perhaps our ancient tecahers should have written like this.


The reasons from ny confusion can be gauged from the three passages I quote below from the uploaded pages.


1. In one view, Mulaprakriti may be said to dwell within Daivi-prakriti and Pratyagatma within Mulaprakriti. It is the energy of the necessity of both. That by means of which illumination, irradiation, play takes place divyate anaya, that is Daivi…..


2. ….As the Yoga Sutra says: There is an appearance of conjunction between subject and object as between light and darkness. The necessity of manifestation of opposition between them on the other hand is Maya. That which lights up and throws into relief both I and This, and is inside of and immanent in both is Daivi-prakriti. In a transcendent and universal aspect it is Maya. In a description of the World-Process, as the necessity of the contradiction of the unity of I and This, it is Daivi-prakriti.


3. … in a limited samsara it is Mula-prakriti, in a brahmanda, Apara-prakriti. So, the universal and transcendent aspect is Maya; that shown in a samsara, Daivi-prakriti, that in a brahmanda Para-prakriti.


Passage 1 defines Mulaprakriti to dwell within Daivi-prakriti and (Mulaprakriti) is the cause of illumination, irradiation, play etc. Should Mulaprakriti then be FOHAT? Illumination, irradiation, play etc. perhaps refer to Electro-magnetic energy. However, T Subba Row did not seem to think so.  


Passage 2 take the view as Maya (Veil over Parbrahman - Mulaprakriti as per T Subba Row) being the transcendent aspect of Daivi-prakriti and in its immanent aspect it is Daivi-prakriti.


Passage 3 is even more curious as Para-prakriti and Apara-prakriti are introduced here as the universal aspects of Daivi-prakriti and Mulaprakriti. If Daivi-prakriti is limited only to samsara (our solar system) then how T Subba Row could equate it to FOHAT which has universal application.


From another point of view, as I am now being to led to think that Pranav Vada deals with Physics. The clue being the name of this book (Pranava Vada - The Sacred Science of AUM) and other books by Bhagwan Das, all dealing with science. Mr. Bal Krishna Sharma also confirmed this. Physics tells us about four universal forces, namely Gravity, Electromagnetic Energy, Weak Nuclear Force and Strong Nuclear Force. If FOHAT was sent to harden the atoms, then it should correspond to Strong Nuclear Force which keeps the Electrons and Protons in orbit around the nucleus Neutrons. Mulaprakriti may be the Electromagnetic force (illumination, irradiation, play etc.). Daivi-prakriti could be the weak nuclear force which is due to the Virodha of nucleus and the strong nuclear force.  How all of this can be confirmed or denied?


Indeed a lifetime of study is required just to understand this. Thank you David for pointing the way.


Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2023   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service