As you might know, A is the quintessential mantra in Dzogchen also.
In that context, I have heard the "implicit in unmarked consonants" explanation, and also one you don't mention, that it is the simplest, most natural sound to produce -- babies make it before other vowels. I've no idea whether that has any basis. Your "nucleus of other written vowels" theory makes a lot of sense to me.
I don't really know SIddham script, but isn't your example aumh rather than aamh? If it works the same way as Tibetan, the hooky thing at the bottom should be a U diacritic.
Thanks for your comments but I think the baby sounds thing is unlikely.
Siddhaṃ works a little different from Tibetan, but your surmise is a good guess. On a consonant the hook would indicate u. But with a vowel you can't add u to it - au is a completely different character. Even though we write au in Roman it is in fact a single vowel (albeit a diphthong). Combined with a vowel the hook indicates a long vowel - though it is only used for a and i in this way. Tibetan has a special mark for long vowels as well - so to get the ū of hūṃ one adds the long vowel marker and the u vowel marker.
In this case both the usual long ā marker (the right hand side curve) and the hook are used - I suppose this is to emphasise the all encompassing nature of the āṃḥ.
Regards Jayarava
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tyler said...
I have always wondered at the meaning of the aforementioned symbol above, the "ahm" I believe. What exactly does it mean?
There's more info on my website under a . Basically it combines the syllable 'a' with all of the diacritics from ā aṃ and aḥ and symbolises the four fold path outlined in the Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra.
Best Wishes Jayarava
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tyler said...
Hey, me again. First of all, love the site very informative. Unfortunately its a little dense for me, as I have much to learn. But then again dont we all. Secondly, thank you for the quick response. I have been researching the information you gave me about the fourfold path in the Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra however I have found little to no source material. Could you offer any sort of humble translation, or mabey guide me in the right direction? Again, much of this is quite dense as I have just finished the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying and am still processing that. Any help would be much appreciated. Best regards, Tyler
There are several translations of the tantra but none are easy to get hold of. Stephen Hodges translation from the Tibetan is best.
You want to be looking at books on or about the Japanese Shingon school - where the symbol comes from. Tibetan sources, other than preserving the text, don't have much to say on this subject as far as I know.
Going from TBLD to this kind of stuff is a big jump and I don't think you'll find it very helpful to be honest.
But best of luck with it. Jayarava
Friday, August 20, 2010
Tyler said...
Thanks again for the quick response. I have been turned on to Talks with ramana maharshi and I am that, my goal is to avoid western influenced Buddhism and get to the core. Not to discredit anyone, it is just what my spiritual teachers have suggested. Anyway, so where would you recommend I go from here to find the true meaning of this symbol? I apologize if were going in circle but such is life. Anyway, thanks for the information.
Well my friend you must avoid me as I am a Westerner and all of my Buddhism is influenced by my culture. I suggest you move to Asia and stop using English, that quintessential Western language.
"The true meaning" of this symbol is a Western concept. You'll have to leave that behind you.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Tyler said...
Well, I humbly offer the notion that I meant I was in avoidance of authors such as hess and daas and more in favor of more eastern influenced texts. Still, my quest for the true meaning will not end. No more possible aid? Am I on my own on this? No disrespect meant in any way brother, I grew up in western society and tend to reject most notions I was raised to belive were true.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Tyler said...
Sorry for the repost, but how can the true meaning of the symbol be a western concept? Was it derived here? I am but a seedling in wisdom of the subject.
Ah. LOL. I thought it was a funny thing to say to a Western Buddhist!
As I have already said you need to look to the Shingon tradition.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
[Image]Some time back I wrote a blog post on a quote from the Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra (MAT): The Essence of all Mantras. Recently I was reflecting on the idea that the syllable 'a' is the essence of all mantras in light of my studies of Sanskrit.
In the MAT the phrase is, in Stephen Hodge's translation: "I declare that A is the essence of all mantras, and from it arise mantras without number; and it produces in entirety the Awareness which stills all conceptual proliferations".[1] Previous explanations of this phrase are based on two ideas: first that unmodified consonants in the Sanskrit alphabet assume the vowel 'a'; or second, that 'a' added to any adjective or noun causes it to mean the opposite. These don't seem explain the claim that 'a' is the essence of all mantras. The syllable 'a' is not involved either phonetically or graphically in the other vowels sounds, and added to a verb usually indicates the past imperfect tense. I have put forward the theory that this idea makes more sense in an environment in which the Gāndhārī [2] language and Kharoṣṭhī script were used: where the character for 'a' is modified by diacritic marks to indicate other vowels.
Here I want to explore a link to the Perfection of Wisdom tradition by examining one of the phrases which make up the alphabetic acrostic of the Arapacana poem as found in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra - the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra in 25,000 Lines (hereafter the 25kPP). The first five lines go like this: akāro mukhaḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ ādyanutpannatvāt repho mukhaḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ rajo 'pagatatvāt pakāro mukhaḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ paramārtha nirdeśāt cakāro mukhaḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ cyavanopapattyanupalabdhitvāt nakaro mukhaḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ nāmāpagatatvātClearly there is a pattern here. Akāro, repho, pakāro etc are the names of the syllables in Sanskrit (r being irregular). Sarvadharmāṇām is a compound of sarva + dharma in the genitive plural case - roughly 'of all dharmas'. Conze's translation into English remains the only accessible one and he translated the first phrase as: "The syllable A is a door to the insight that all dharmas are unproduced from the very beginning".
Conze has not just translated the words, he has interpreted them - there is nothing to correspond to "the insight that" in the Sanskrit. The grammatical relationship suggests that the letters are indeed the 'mukhaḥ' of all dharmas, but here we need to tread carefully. Firstly my regular readers will know that dharma is a very ambiguous term that can be translated rather differently under different circumstances. I have pointed out that in many cases that dharmas (plural) should be taken to be what arises in dependence on causes (the primary focus of the Buddha's insights and teaching), and further that it is better to think of dharmas in this sense as the units of conscious experience - they are the building bricks of our subjective 'world'. I think that this definition might apply here also, but before I go into this we need to explore this word 'mukha'.
Mukha is almost a slippery as dharma. Since we know that the language of the Wisdom alphabet was originally a Prakrit rather than Classical Sanskrit we need to consult more widely than Sanskrit dictionaries in defining this word. I have consulted Monier-Williams' Sanskrit Dictionary, Edgerton's Buddhist-Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary and the Pāli-English Dictionary (PED). Definitions largely overlap except for one specific case. The PED provides the most useful summary of the meanings: mouthface, or of the faceopening, metaphorically a means of incomecause, ways, means, reasonfront, top, head (and hence:)pinnacle, best part, foremost, top most.Conze has chosen to render mukha as 'door' and the reason for this may be that in the 25kPP mukha occurs with another term which suggests that they might be synonyms: "akṣaramukham akṣarapraveśaḥ" (25kPP 21.2.08). Akṣara is 'syllable' in both cases. Praveśa can mean "entering, entrance, penetration or intrusion into". It is quite common in Pāli texts to use two synonyms like this for emphasis - although often commentators feel compelled to make hair splitting differences between the two. However 'Door' is not the most obvious translation of mukha even under these circumstances. Salomon translates it 'head' in one of his papers on the Arapacana Alphabet for instance, although I do not think this is right either.
Let's step back for a minute and explore the context which in this case is meditation. The words of the acrostic are an aide de memoire for meditation. This is brought our quite clearly in a later passage (420 pages later in Conze's translation!). Here the text makes it clear that the reader should be meditating "on the 42 letters" [3]. If one reads through all of the lines it becomes clear that this is a meditation on emptiness: or to be quite specific it is a meditation designed to reveal that dharmas are empty of svabhāva or independent existence. This is not different from my own approach to dhammas relying on Pāli texts. Because dharmas are the subjective aspects of experience and nothing substantial arises in the process of having an experience, nothing is defiled, nothing is beyond this, nothing ceases, there is nothing to pin a label on (these are rough translations of the first five lines of the Arapacana). That is to say the subject for contemplation is not the nature of Reality, but the nature of experience.
So the letter 'a' reminds us of the word anutpanna (non-arisen) which expands to the line akāro mukhaḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ ādyanutpannatvāt, and the overall idea is to contemplate the notion that within experience nothing substantial or independent arises. Conze's suggestion, then, that the syllable 'a' is a door, even a door to insight, is not completely implausible. However praveśa suggests not simply an entrance, but a penetration into something - ie an insight - into the meaning of the words. The syllable 'a' certainly provides a reminder, and perhaps we could see it as providing a way into insight. Perhaps then mukha is being used in the sense of 'means' or 'opportunity'? Another possibility comes from the BHS dictionary where Edgerton suggests that another way of reading the word is 'introduction' or 'ingress'. It could be that the meditation practice is seen as having two phases - introduction to the concept, and penetration to the consequences of it.
Conze says that "all dharmas are unproduced from the very beginning", but I don't think this is quite what was intended. Let's take apart this complex compound ādyanutpannatvāt and see what it says: ādi + an + ud + panna + tva + āt. The prefix ādi means 'beginning or commencement'. An + utpanna is just the opposite of utpanna, and utpanna is ud + panna (d changes to t before p) which is 'rising up' or 'arising'. So anutpana is 'not rising up'. Now -tva is a suffix used to form abstract nouns: if god is the noun, then divinity is the abstract noun. You could also translate -tva as -ness. If a stone is hard then it exhibits hardness. And -āt is an ablative suffix - it can express the English 'from' or 'because of'. So putting things back together: anutpannatva means 'having the quality of not arising'. Adding ādi gives us Conze's "from the very beginning".
I would translate the whole phrase: akāro mukhaḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ ādyanutpannatvāt the syllable a is an opening because of the primal quality of not arising of all dharmas.This is not so different to Conze. There is an ambiguity: sarvadharmāṇāṃ is a genitive plural "of all dharmas" and it could mean the 'opening of all dharmas...' or 'the primal quality of not arising of all dharmas.' Conze chose the former, but it occurs to me that the latter needs to be considered as a possibility, and works better in my opinion - I'm a beginner and Conze was a very experienced linguist and translator, but, even so.
It is interesting to note that the text has effectively become esoteric - i.e. it cannot be understood as it stands. One needs a little Sanskrit, and to have studied the text with a view to the Arapacana meditation. It does yield up it's secrets to study, but not to the casual reader. I have examined all of the published occurrences of the Arapacana. I don't have access to the many unpublished manuscripts. The manuscript from Bajaur which will no doubt provide more insights when published as it is the oldest known Arapacana. In my opinion the incorporation of a working Arapacana meditation in the 25kpp links it to the Gandhāra area - recall that no other alphabetical lists are known in ancient Indian texts.
My view is that this tradition represents a continuous line of development from early Buddhism which preserves the essential elements of the original. The crucial notions are that dharmas are units of experience, and that the important thing is to the workings of experience from the subjective pole (as opposed to trying to describe 'reality'). But the particular tradition withers and, I think, dies. Traces of the Arapacana tradition survive for hundreds of years, but are increasingly abstract. Between the Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra (ca mid 7th century) and the next major Tantric text, the Sarvatathāgata-Tatvasaṃgraha Tantra (ca late 7th - early 8th century), the whole alphabet gets paired down to just the syllable 'a'. In the 25kPP the meditation is on all of the syllables of the Gāndhārī alphabet - it is a complex task to remember the 42 (or 43 or 44) lines. And the 25kPP itself says that all of these reflections point to the same truth. So the whole thing got pared down to: akāro mukhaḥ sarvadharmāṇāṃ ādyanutpannavāt. As I have remarked elsewhere the line later became embedded in bījas and was turned into a mantra: oṃ akāro mukhaṃ sarvadharmāṇāṃ ādyanutpannatvāt āḥ hūṃ phaṭ svāhā. This form crops up in contexts which appear completely dissociated from its origins in Gandhāra.
[1] Note that the purpose is to still proliferations. I don't have space to link this with last week's essay on proliferation, but the connection is an interesting one. [2]My spelling of Gandhāra and Gāndhārī have been somewhat erratic in the past - I think I have it right in this essay and will endeavour to correct it in past essays as time permits. [2] The text does indeed say 42, although most versions of the Arapacana have 43 or 44, and the one in this text has 44. It's not clear why this discrepancy exists. Note: A complete and reliable edited Sanskrit text of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra is not yet available, and access to manuscripts is out of the question for someone like me. Dutt's edition is complete but unreliable - for instance the Arapacana has two duplications of syllables. Another edition is in the process of being edited by Takayasu Kimura, but the volume which contains the Arapacana is not yet published, although the other related passages are available in Kimura (I haven't had a chance to compare them yet).
image: Seed-syllable āṃḥ - combines the syllables a, ā, aṃ, aḥ which represent the four stages of the path in the Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra, and therefore symbolises their culmination and apotheosis as embodied by Mahāvairocana.
11 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formThis is very interesting . . .
As you might know, A is the quintessential mantra in Dzogchen also.
In that context, I have heard the "implicit in unmarked consonants" explanation, and also one you don't mention, that it is the simplest, most natural sound to produce -- babies make it before other vowels. I've no idea whether that has any basis. Your "nucleus of other written vowels" theory makes a lot of sense to me.
I don't really know SIddham script, but isn't your example aumh rather than aamh? If it works the same way as Tibetan, the hooky thing at the bottom should be a U diacritic.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Hi David,
Thanks for your comments but I think the baby sounds thing is unlikely.
Siddhaṃ works a little different from Tibetan, but your surmise is a good guess. On a consonant the hook would indicate u. But with a vowel you can't add u to it - au is a completely different character. Even though we write au in Roman it is in fact a single vowel (albeit a diphthong). Combined with a vowel the hook indicates a long vowel - though it is only used for a and i in this way. Tibetan has a special mark for long vowels as well - so to get the ū of hūṃ one adds the long vowel marker and the u vowel marker.
In this case both the usual long ā marker (the right hand side curve) and the hook are used - I suppose this is to emphasise the all encompassing nature of the āṃḥ.
Regards
Jayarava
Friday, April 24, 2009
I have always wondered at the meaning of the aforementioned symbol above, the "ahm" I believe. What exactly does it mean?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Hi Tyler
There's more info on my website under a . Basically it combines the syllable 'a' with all of the diacritics from ā aṃ and aḥ and symbolises the four fold path outlined in the Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Hey, me again. First of all, love the site very informative. Unfortunately its a little dense for me, as I have much to learn. But then again dont we all. Secondly, thank you for the quick response. I have been researching the information you gave me about the fourfold path in the Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra however I have found little to no source material. Could you offer any sort of humble translation, or mabey guide me in the right direction? Again, much of this is quite dense as I have just finished the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying and am still processing that. Any help would be much appreciated. Best regards,
Tyler
Friday, August 20, 2010
Hi Tyler
There are several translations of the tantra but none are easy to get hold of. Stephen Hodges translation from the Tibetan is best.
You want to be looking at books on or about the Japanese Shingon school - where the symbol comes from. Tibetan sources, other than preserving the text, don't have much to say on this subject as far as I know.
Going from TBLD to this kind of stuff is a big jump and I don't think you'll find it very helpful to be honest.
But best of luck with it.
Jayarava
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thanks again for the quick response. I have been turned on to Talks with ramana maharshi and I am that, my goal is to avoid western influenced Buddhism and get to the core. Not to discredit anyone, it is just what my spiritual teachers have suggested. Anyway, so where would you recommend I go from here to find the true meaning of this symbol? I apologize if were going in circle but such is life. Anyway, thanks for the information.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Well my friend you must avoid me as I am a Westerner and all of my Buddhism is influenced by my culture. I suggest you move to Asia and stop using English, that quintessential Western language.
"The true meaning" of this symbol is a Western concept. You'll have to leave that behind you.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Well, I humbly offer the notion that I meant I was in avoidance of authors such as hess and daas and more in favor of more eastern influenced texts. Still, my quest for the true meaning will not end. No more possible aid? Am I on my own on this? No disrespect meant in any way brother, I grew up in western society and tend to reject most notions I was raised to belive were true.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Sorry for the repost, but how can the true meaning of the symbol be a western concept? Was it derived here? I am but a seedling in wisdom of the subject.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Tyler
Ah. LOL. I thought it was a funny thing to say to a Western Buddhist!
As I have already said you need to look to the Shingon tradition.
Saturday, August 21, 2010