PDA

View Full Version : japa



truthseeker96
07 March 2011, 03:22 PM
when i chant om namah shivaya, i have problems with pronouncing it comfortably. have you ever waded through water? it feels very uncomfortable and sluggish when i do this

and the sharp "she" sound in shivaya also bothers my ears

does anyone have advice?

thanks

Eastern Mind
07 March 2011, 04:01 PM
when i chant om namah shivaya, i have problems with pronouncing it comfortably. have you ever waded through water? it feels very uncomfortable and sluggish when i do this

and the sharp "she" sound in shivaya also bothers my ears

does anyone have advice?

thanks

Vannakkam truthseeker: I'll toss out a couple of possibilities for consideration. 1) Its not your mantra. 2) You're not saying it right. If something is irritating, then clearly something isn't right.

Aum Namasivaya

truthseeker96
07 March 2011, 04:09 PM
could i pronounce it as see-vaya?

yajvan
07 March 2011, 04:13 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


and the sharp "she" sound in shivaya also bothers my ears does anyone have advice?

thanks
This 's' sound in saṃskṛt takes some getting use to. Consider the following regarding siliblants ( meaning hissing sound). In English we have the letter 's' - but it comes in different sounds, no?

seek - hear the 'c' in this word?
sue - just start the word and you will here some 'c' in the initial tongue position
ship or shine - sha-ine
sow or sew - soow
sat - saat
hiss - hiss - yet there is some 'c' in this word, no?
kiss - note right at the end , the sound has some 'c' in it.
his - like hizNote how your tongue changes location in your mouth - try the words a few times and take note of where your tongue lands to start the word.
Lets look at the sibilants in saṃskṛt. We talk of sounds not so much letters, so we have 3 sibilants:

sa - like seek some say so
ṣa - like ship or bushel
śa - now this śa is a bit different as there is some 'h' and some 'c' in this sound.
Some call it out as the sound that we find in hiss - then śiva almost sounds like c'iva. Others say this sound śa is that sound found in sure or shove . Now to the discerning ear one will hear the the 'c' sound in sure if you say it properly several times with attention - found at the very beginning of sure before even getting to the other letters (ure).I pronounce śiva with a 'c' + 'h' sound and it comes out fine ( to my ear). It is as if I am starting the idea of saying 'c'iva but and in the sound idea found in 'shove' to it . The 'h' sound is no doubt there but not the ~main attraction~. To me is sounds fine ( that that is me).

This works fine because the next letter after 'ś' is 'i' and for the mouth to sound this 'i' it must move out of the 'hiss' position and this helps with the 'h' sound to come out and be heard .

Hope this helps ?

praṇām

Eastern Mind
07 March 2011, 04:46 PM
could i pronounce it as see-vaya?

Vannakkam truthseeker:

Unfortunately I am not in a position to help you. Perhaps there are others here. For me, this mantram is so sacred that I believe it should be passed only from a Guru in mantra diksha, which is a "For your ears only" rite. Not that there is anything wrong in chanting it, but the power is greatly lessened. Then of course different Gurus may pronounce it differently or quite possibly instructions could vary from sishya to sishya as well.

There is a common argument over the 's' sound in Shiva or Siva, and Yajvan explained a lot of it. To add further to the explanation or varied ideas, I'll add one more. I was discussing the s versus sh with my Tamil speaking friend in Chidambaram who is quite up on his Tamil. (I wouldn't at all be surprised if the pronunciation differs slightly from Tamil to Sanskrit.) He explained it to me as 'Neither is correct. It is actually (his words, not mine) a ch sh blend. So the ch as in chunk blended with the sh as in shop. Of course this blend does not appear in English at all, so it's really quite difficult. Any blend just happens so fast in time, it often gets slurred as well.
Language is often quite tricky. I have been tutoring ESL with our assistant priest here,and he cannot and perhaps may never be able to say the zh sound you hear in measure. Of course his mother tongue is Tamil and there is no zh in Tamil.

Best wishes. Regardless of how you proceed, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Aum Namasivaya

truthseeker96
07 March 2011, 09:03 PM
thanks :)

jasdir
08 March 2011, 12:19 AM
The true chantings that really works, firstly start with Tounge, than slowely starts with the Throat, than with Heart, and the final stage is with "Mind" and "Soul".

The true chantings that works are not bounded with any special language.

True chantings that really works are based on the expressions of heart and soul, no doubt the course strats with the tounge first.

If one try for thousand years cannot get any benifit with chanting done by tounge.

The goal of the chanting done by tounge, Is chantings done by throat, the goal of chanting done by throat, Is chanting done by heart, the goal of chantings done by heart, Is chanting by "Mind" and "Soul", Otherwise the chanting done only with tounge, is no more than the wastage of energy. :)


_/\_ Jasdir.

Eric11235
08 March 2011, 07:11 AM
Vannakam Truthseeker,

bear in mind that japa need not be performed aloud. One can perform Japa by simply muttering the mantra under the breath or just thinking about it. If you have trouble with the pronunciation, perhaps one of these two methods would be beneficial for you.

I am not of the same opinion as eastern mind, but that is because I have not had access to a guru, yet have still bore many fruits through japa and meditation.

Also, if you chant to music of some sort, it might help, music can help you develop a rhythm and melody to your meditation or japa allowing for more intensity and passion.

As another has said, japa is not simply uttering a mantra it is also feeling it with passion.

Finally, if you are like me perhaps you should look at different mantras, ones that fit better for your vocal rhythm and method of pronunciation.

Hope that helps a little

Namaste

Ganeshprasad
08 March 2011, 07:51 AM
Pranam

Some nice advice been given here, i add my two pence worth, although it is always desirable to pronounce the mantra correctly and one should endeavor to learn it from authority. one example here is perhaps might help, Valmiki was instructed to chant Ram Ram by NaradMuni, He was chanting opposite Mara, Mara yet we all know the result.

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
08 March 2011, 08:00 AM
Pranam

Some nice advice been given here, i add my two pence worth, although it is always desirable to pronounce the mantra correctly and one should endeavor to learn it from authority. one example here is perhaps might help, Valmiki was instructed to chant Ram Ram by NaradMuni, He was chanting opposite Mara, Mara yet we all know the result.

Jai Shree Krishna

Vannakkam GP et al: So true. na ma si va ya goes to si va ya na ma in the same way. Both are used.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
08 March 2011, 08:43 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


To be ~technical~ and to compliment the conversation of doing the mantra properly, let me offer the following.

ॐ महेश्वराय नमः
oṁ maheśvarāya namaḥ


Note at the end of नमः or namaḥ is 'ḥ' - this is shown in saṃskṛtam as :

So , we say nama-ḥ . This ḥ is a slight puff of air sounding like 'ha' ; it is a continuaion of the last 'a' of with mouth opened, we add the asperated 'h'.

praṇām

Eastern Mind
08 March 2011, 09:01 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


To be ~technical~ and to compliment the conversation of doing the mantra properly, let me offer the following.

महे श्वराय नमः

Note at the end of नमः or namaḥ is 'ḥ' - this is shown in saṃskṛtam as :

So , we say nama-ḥ . This ḥ is a slight puff of air sounding like 'ha' ; it is a continuaion of the last 'a' of with mouth opened, we add the asperated 'h'.

praṇām

Vannakkam Yajvan: My ear is pathetic. The 'h' you speak of is okay with the puff, but the h in blends like dharma, and bheema, of kh just gets me. I just here darma, beema, and k. There are no h blends on English as far as I know. I think you are in the minority, if you can hear all these sounds. I wonder what kind of training you may have done to enhance all this. I also wonder if, over time there are genetic factors at play in ears as related to language, as whole groups of people are unable to hear or say certain sounds. But hey, at least it is easier than doing the tranliteration, or learning the clicking language of the Kalahari bushmen.
:)

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
08 March 2011, 10:33 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM ( et.al)



Vannakkam Yajvan: My ear is pathetic. The 'h' you speak of is okay with the puff, but the h in blends like dharma, and bheema, of kh just gets me. :) Aum Namasivaya
Let me offer the following for those listening in and perhaps to better understand this wonderful visarga (ḥ)


ॐ महेश्वराय नमः
oṁ maheśvarāya namaḥ


Regarding visarga (ḥ)
This visarga¹ is written as : in saṃskṛtam. Offically it is not part of the saṃskṛta alphabet but is part of the ~rules~ of saṃdhi¹.

The rule says it is an unvoiced breath; it is due to the adjacent sounds before it. Visarga (ḥ) comes after a vowel . It can be after other vowels ( not only 'a'), but let's use this example of namaḥ ( नमः ).
Here it is the unvoiced breath following the 'a' , air comes from the mouth as long as the mouth is open with the 'a' , there is the emission of breath, ha.

Enter the tradition - some like to 'echo' the vowel 'a' , so now it looks like this, namaḥa. Now ha is in fact a phoneme part of devanāgarī script.
The thirty-third and last consonant of our nāgarī alphabet (in pāṇini's system) belonging to the guttural class , and usually pronounced like the English h in hard.

So you see, then you would count 'ha' as a phoneme/sound. Some build mantra's with this 'ha' in it taking advantage of 'ha' sound. But who cares?
The designer of the mantra - 'ha' is a masculine form of śiva or bhairava , and feminine form some say śakti. No matter , it is auspicious and 'ha' means auspicious, heaven, it also means delight, and viṣṇu . Where do we find this 'ha' ? In a+ha + ṁ or ahaṁ.

So, one needs to see the intent of the mantra builder. Does he want you to sound 'ha' or does he wish the visarga (ḥ) with breath?


praṇām

words

visarga - emission; sending forth , letting go . That is why is is associated with śiva , as he 'sends forth' creation from Himself.
saṃdhi , some write sandhi - In general, containing a conjunction or transition from one to the other .
More specifically according to the Monier-Williams Saṃskṛt Dictionary, saṃdhi is a euphonic junction of final and initial letters in grammar

sunyata07
08 March 2011, 10:50 AM
Namaste,

The unvoiced h in namah certainly takes some getting used to, doesn't it? As for the Shivaya pronunciation, I can understand what truthseeker is talking about. The "she" approximation in English is very crude. As EM was saying, if it grates on the ears or the tongue as you say it, there is a reason for that. Mental repetition (the best kind of japa) when you make obeisance to Lord Shiva need not be discounted, however!

Quick question. Does anyone know why the common form of the Shiva mantra is "Om namah Shivaya" and not the usual form where the ending is the ritual namah, as in: "Om Shivaya namah"? I have my theory that it's because all things end with Shiva, the Dissolver, but of course, that's just touching the surface of the interpretation. Maybe there's another reason for this tradition? Would love to hear what others think about this.

Om namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
08 March 2011, 11:18 AM
Vannakkam Sunyata: There are many explanations, and just as many sites on the internet to explain them all. Here is one that explains it more or less as going up the chakras (about half way down the page) http://www.newagegod.com/LAFFmedia/1minmed.htm

Still others have a variety of orders beyond these two (si va ya na ma, and na ma si va ya) . I know of no other set of 5 syllables that have been written about or discussed more in Saivism. At any moment in time, probably 100 000 souls or more are chanting it or singing it in some form.

For me personally, it is 5 separate syllables, and the one I have the most difficulty with is va, not si, as it turns into vie (long i as in strike) when followed by the y in ya. But that's just me.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
08 March 2011, 11:45 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sunyata,


I have my theory that it's because all things end with Shiva, the Dissolver, but of course, that's just touching the surface of the interpretation.

What you say has merit... all things begin and end with śiva.
All creation lies between a and ha. When we bring these letters together we get aha and by the rules of grammar we add 'ṁ'
and arrive at ahaṁ. This ahaṁ = I = Univeral Being = śiva . This ahaṁ is a primary mantra of śiva.


Now this visarga (ḥ) from the posts above: The word visarga is defined as emission; sending forth , letting go. This is what śiva does from
His own Being - he lets forth, sends forth all of creation. So with this sound we are sending forth the sound that just was voiced.
But you may say ' I am not śiva ' - to this I say, that is part of the waking up. Each time we voice ḥ it is to remind us who we are
iti śivaṁ - thus śiva.

ॐ महेश्वराय नमः
oṁ maheśvarāya namaḥ

praṇām

yajvan
08 March 2011, 02:07 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



All creation lies between a and ha.

I thought to take the liberty and offer another idea for one's kind consideration.

śiva is sometimes known as haraḥ . Note we return back to 'ha'.
haraḥ हरः is defined as 'seizer' , 'destroyer' ; Its components are:

ha ह -_the Supreme; destroying , removing ; the sparkling of a gem
ra र - _acquiring , possessing ;brightness , splendour
ḥ - or visarga (ḥ) as we discussed from the posts above

We find this hara in another name for śiva - śaśiśekhara . Here He is called out as the bearer or holder of the moon; He is white as camphor; He is the seizer, and it is inferred that He brings soma i.e. delight. This is all called out in His name:

śaśin - is a name for the moon, also camphor; it also infers the number one. We know śiva is called out as white as camphor, that of His purity.
hara - is bearing or wearing; We now know this word means 'seizer', 'destroyer'
We know śiva is shown with a moon over His head. The moon is also called soma. Here is the beauty of this word:
The Supreme by another word is sat ( or sattā - Being, or Truth), that is, brahman. And umā is śrī devī we call pārvatī.
Now when sa(t) comes together with umā what is created ? soma ( once again the rules of grammar apply for this addition).
What do we call the moon? soma . When śiva and pārvatī are joined together we get soma (delight). Hence for amāvāsya or the new moon, śiva and pārvatī come together,
are enveloped and become moon/soma/delight.

praṇām

yajvan
09 March 2011, 11:11 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


The rule says it is an unvoiced breath; it is due to the adjacent sounds before it. Visarga (ḥ) comes after a vowel .
It can be after other vowels ( not only 'a'), but let's use this example of namaḥ ( नमः ).
Here it is the unvoiced breath following the 'a' , air comes from the mouth as long as the mouth is open with the 'a' ,
there is the emission of breath, ha.

I thought to mention , and limit any confusion, that this visarga (ḥ) is a ~rule~ that is applied.

In the example above we used namaḥ नमः and so visarga (ḥ) is applied to the letter 'a'. Yet what of hariḥ ?
The rule says it is an unvoiced breath, the 'follow through' of the previous sound. In this case , it is the follow through of the letter 'i' .
So, where ever the mouth position is with this letter 'i' ( which sounds like the i in pink) we follow through with visarga and add that
puff of air in the same mouthed position. So, it may sound something like hari- he .

Hope that may have helped a bit in the apprecaition of this visarga (ḥ). These rules are called the rules of saṃdhi ( some write sandhi).

What does that mean ? saṃdhi means , placing together. Placing together sounds. When certain sounds come togetther
there are rules. Let me give you an English rule example:
He is when combined becomes he's. We can consider that a rule of grammar, and in saṃskṛt these combination rules are called saṃdhi.

Who created the rules? Most notable ( to me) is Pāṇini-ji Yāska-muni and the great śābdikin Patañjali-ji.

My interests in word-sounds focus much on nirukta or the etymology ( 'true sense') of words. The study is rooted in vāc¹ that which
is uttered , pronounced , expressed , explained , defined. This study is very attractive to me and has been for some time, yet I still consider
myself an entry level student (śiṣya) at best.

praṇām

words
vāc is recognized as bhāratī or sarasvatī , the goddess of speech. Yet she is called the mother of the vedas and wife of indra ;
At times she is the daughter of dakṣa and wife of kaśyapa

Adhvagat
09 March 2011, 11:48 AM
This H discussion reminds me of when I was learning to speak english.

Do you, native english speakers know how unnatural the TH sound of THINK is to those who don't speak english? I had to bend my tongue and almost bite it off to speak it properly.

No other sound in no other language I know has this TH sound, this hybrid of S and F, this is madness! :p

yajvan
09 March 2011, 01:11 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté PI,




This H discussion reminds me of when I was learning to speak english.

Do you, native english speakers know how unnatural the TH sound of THINK is to those who don't speak english? I had to bend my tongue and almost bite it off to speak it properly.

No other sound in no other language I know has this TH sound, this hybrid of S and F, this is madness! :p

I see you may like TH? In saṃskṛtam, there is ṭa , ṭha , tha and just ta. These have fancy names of cerebral (mūrdhanya) or dental
(dantya) based upon mouth positions for vowels and consonents. There are a total of 5 mouth positions.

ṭa ट - sounds like tub or tap some like the word start. Yet to say tub there is a hint of h in it taah-ub.
ṭha ठ - sounds like anthill, but sounding like this : an-thill
ta त - sounds like water.
yet there is tha थ and it sounds like nuthook , yet sounded out like this nu-thookI must say I have been practicing, yet still have not approched these sound forms consistently or correctly.

praṇām

sunyata07
09 March 2011, 01:13 PM
Thanks for the link, EM. And thanks for helping us to explore Sanskrit in a little more depth, Yajvan! What many treasures are taken for granted in these different names and akshara combinations...


Do you, native english speakers know how unnatural the TH sound of THINK is to those who don't speak english? I had to bend my tongue and almost bite it off to speak it properly.

Namaste Pietro,

Yes, it's a tricky little sound for non-native English speakers to get right. But it isn't in English alone. You'll find the "th" sound in Greek and Spanish, and they are much more emphatically pronounced in those languages. Done with enough gusto, it can sound like you're hissing at someone! :D

Om namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
09 March 2011, 02:18 PM
Vannakkam: Thanks, Pietro for an apt description of frustration with sounds. We truly are conditioned, mostly by aping our parents. On a side note, my son and daughter in law cannot decide if the one year old (my grandaughter) is actually sick or not, because the most of the time she coughs is just after her mother coughs.

Getting back to s, and sh, it is also a debate in the word sri; some say shri while others say sri. In English we have shr as in shrimp, but no sr that I can recall.

For the TH, in my limited knowledge from speech therapy, its so close to d. I find the most confusing thing a bout Tamil was the idea that a vowel changes when held for a longer period of time. So a Texas drawl versus a quick a quick speaking Englishman must be very confusing. At least Aum is more or less universal.

Aum Namasivaya

Adhvagat
09 March 2011, 03:13 PM
ṭha ठ - sounds like anthill, but sounding like this : an-thill
yet there is tha थ and it sounds like nuthook , yet sounded out like this nu-thookI must say I have been practicing, yet still have not approched these sound forms consistently or correctly.

praṇām

Yajvan, I fail to perceive the difference in sound between these two sillables. I have the basic knowledge that TH in sanskrit has this extended H after the consonant, but in both examples you list I perceive the same sound.


Namaste Pietro,

Yes, it's a tricky little sound for non-native English speakers to get right. But it isn't in English alone. You'll find the "th" sound in Greek and Spanish, and they are much more emphatically pronounced in those languages. Done with enough gusto, it can sound like you're hissing at someone! :D

Om namah Shivaya

When I was writing my post I even thought about greek having something like this since it's so exotic. But in Spanish? Really? Can you give me an example?


For the TH, in my limited knowledge from speech therapy, its so close to d. I find the most confusing thing a bout Tamil was the idea that a vowel changes when held for a longer period of time. So a Texas drawl versus a quick a quick speaking Englishman must be very confusing. At least Aum is more or less universal.

Aum Namasivaya

D? Yeah, that's more like it. But I'd still say it's a hybrid of S and F and now D as well! hahaha

Most brazilians that don't speak english that well pronounce TH as F. It's really funny how some languages completely lack sounds others have.

Thinking about it, I think NH and LH as spoken in portuguese don't have an english equivalent.

http://translate.google.com/#pt|en|galinha
http://translate.google.com/#pt|en|ervilha

There's a listen button below the portuguese box, click to listen.

Eastern Mind
09 March 2011, 05:18 PM
Thinking about it, I think NH and LH as spoken in portuguese don't have an english equivalent.

http://translate.google.com/#pt|en|galinha (http://translate.google.com/#pt%7Cen%7Cgalinha)
http://translate.google.com/#pt|en|ervilha (http://translate.google.com/#pt%7Cen%7Cervilha)

There's a listen button below the portuguese box, click to listen.

Vannakkam Pietro: Now isn't this fun? :) When I listened, the h was a y. So the nh was like how I would say nyama.

Some Eastern European and French replace the TH with d so the becomes du and that becomes dat. When doing phony accents, its one of the first things you learn. Some also replace the soft th as in thing with a straight t.

I was once at three year old's birthday party and heard 'three' mispronounced 4 different ways ... free, swee, fwee, and twee.
Another blend in Sanskrit, but not English is the sv as in svaha.

I wish we could all just sit down for coffee and listen to each udder for awhile. :) Then I'd just be an incoherent mumbler to all of you.

Aum Namasivaya

sunyata07
10 March 2011, 10:54 AM
Namste,

I've been reviewing the aksharas in great detail over the last few weeks, and I am still having trouble trying to aurally differentiate the dental and the retroflex syllables (ठ and थ, and then there's ढ and ध). I'm so glad Sanskrit and the other Indian languages are not tonal like Chinese or Thai. It would make learning this complex language even more difficult to pronounce correctly!

This ability and inability for natives and non-natives to hear differences between phonemes completely fascinates me. It's one of the reasons why studying languages have become a hobby of mine I don't tell anybody about.



When I was writing my post I even thought about greek having something like this since it's so exotic. But in Spanish? Really? Can you give me an example?



You'll find the TH sound in Spain rather than any of the Latin or South American Spanish speaking countries. In the former case, the letters c or z have a distinct TH sound, while in Latin American Spanish these sounds are more sibilant and have the same pronunciation as the letter s. Strange how these dialectal differences emerge, isn't it?

As for Portuguese, it's incredible and a little jarring to hear how different the pronunciations can be when you are not used to the script! The mechanics of language around the world continue to amaze me.

Om namah Shivaya

Jainarayan
03 June 2011, 05:37 PM
There is a common argument over the 's' sound in Shiva or Siva, and Yajvan explained a lot of it. To add further to the explanation or varied ideas, I'll add one more. I was discussing the s versus sh with my Tamil speaking friend in Chidambaram who is quite up on his Tamil. (I wouldn't at all be surprised if the pronunciation differs slightly from Tamil to Sanskrit.) He explained it to me as 'Neither is correct. It is actually (his words, not mine) a ch sh blend. So the ch as in chunk blended with the sh as in shop. Of course this blend does not appear in English at all, so it's really quite difficult. Any blend just happens so fast in time, it often gets slurred as well.

I'm late to the discussion but I might add that you're correct about the difficulty in the sh v. s phoneme. Greek has the same issue. Some Greeks will say a clear s, while for others it is a slight blending of s and sh. And they will argue about it!

Russians and French cannot pronounce the th sound because it doesn't exist in Russian or French, so it comes out as z. English speakers cannot pronounce Nguyen properly in Vietnamese. That's languages for you!

Jainarayan
03 June 2011, 05:47 PM
Namste,

I've been reviewing the aksharas in great detail over the last few weeks, and I am still having trouble trying to aurally differentiate the dental and the retroflex syllables (ठ and थ, and then there's ढ and ध). I'm so glad Sanskrit and the other Indian languages are not tonal like Chinese or Thai. It would make learning this complex language even more difficult to pronounce correctly!

This ability and inability for natives and non-natives to hear differences between phonemes completely fascinates me. It's one of the reasons why studying languages have become a hobby of mine I don't tell anybody about.



You'll find the TH sound in Spain rather than any of the Latin or South American Spanish speaking countries. In the former case, the letters c or z have a distinct TH sound, while in Latin American Spanish these sounds are more sibilant and have the same pronunciation as the letter s. Strange how these dialectal differences emerge, isn't it?

As for Portuguese, it's incredible and a little jarring to hear how different the pronunciations can be when you are not used to the script! The mechanics of language around the world continue to amaze me.

Om namah Shivaya

How about the click consonant languages of Africa, like San? :eek:

I am a linguistics hobbyist also. It will be our little secret. ;)

True about European v. Latin American Spanish. Most Spanish in Spain has the interdental (the th). But in the south, it's not used. And that's where most of the immigration came from to the New World. So that's why Latin American Spanish has no th sound. Interdentals are extremely unstable in language.

In fact only four or five Indoeuropean languages have full interdentals... English, Icelandic, Greek, Spanish, and possibly Armenian. Latin had no th sound, so maybe it came from the remnant Iberian languages. After all, Spanish is Latin as spoken by Romans and native Iberians in Hispania.

You had to get me started! :D

Amala
27 July 2011, 09:27 PM
when i chant om namah shivaya, i have problems with pronouncing it comfortably. have you ever waded through water? it feels very uncomfortable and sluggish when i do this

and the sharp "she" sound in shivaya also bothers my ears

does anyone have advice?

thanks

Namaste truthseeker,

It's not "she" as in our personal pronoun; it's "shi" as in shin. I must say, although my pronunciation is very good, I too feel this mantra does not come naturally off my tongue. You could rearrange the word order: Om s'ivaaya nama: or as you write it, om shivaya namah. Not sure how much you know about Sanskrit, but since the roles of the words are contained within each word, the order is flexible. I have just tried that order several times and I find it gentler.

saidevo
27 July 2011, 10:58 PM
namaste.

I am a late entrant to this thread: this is with reference to EM's post #3.

According to SaMskRta sandhi rules (quoted by Thomas Egenes in his book 'Introduction to Sanskrit'), when a word ending in the visarga--ha is followed by one that begins with 'sh, Sh, sa, ka, kha, pa, pha', the visarga of the preceding word is retained in the sandhi. Thus,

namaH + shivAya becomes namaHshivAya[b]
where the H in namaH is not pronounced fully, so it practically becomes 'namasshivAya'.

But then if it is [b]shivAya + namaH, the visarga is pronounced fully, so it becomes 'shivAya namaha'.

Since there is no 'sh' in Tamizh, only 'ch', and there is no 'ha' either, as part of the regular Tamizh alphabet, the combination in that language is 'nama + chivAya = namachchivAya'.

Amala
29 July 2011, 04:42 PM
Namaste,

I asked my teacher about this. He said you are part right. When you apply the consonant sandhi rules, things get a little complex. It would not be namasshivAya, but namashshivAya.

I'm so glad you posted that; it flows much more readily for me that way.

I also have the Egenes book, but my teacher suggests that his pacing is very unusual; that he introduces concepts that are too advanced for beginners, so I've stopped using it. Most of our materials come from the Sri Aurobindo Ashram.




namaste.

I am a late entrant to this thread: this is with reference to EM's post #3.

According to SaMskRta sandhi rules (quoted by Thomas Egenes in his book 'Introduction to Sanskrit'), when a word ending in the visarga--ha is followed by one that begins with 'sh, Sh, sa, ka, kha, pa, pha', the visarga of the preceding word is retained in the sandhi. Thus,

namaH + shivAya becomes namaHshivAya
[B]where the H in namaH is not pronounced fully, so it practically becomes 'namasshivAya'.

But then if it is [B]shivAya + namaH, the visarga is pronounced fully, so it becomes 'shivAya namaha'.

Since there is no 'sh' in Tamizh, only 'ch', and there is no 'ha' either, as part of the regular Tamizh alphabet, the combination in that language is 'nama + chivAya = namachchivAya'.

yajvan
14 October 2011, 04:22 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Some time back we were discussing the proper way of pronuncing śiva.

I wrote,


Lets look at the sibilants in saṃskṛt. We talk of sounds not so much letters, so we have 3 sibilants:

sa - like seek some say so
ṣa - like ship or bushel
śa - now this śa is a bit different as there is some 'h' and some 'c' in this sound.
Some call it out as the sound that we find in hiss - then śiva almost sounds like c'iva.I bumped into a word that assists one in the sound of this ś sound in śiva.
The word is caprice (kuh-prees); this 'es' sound found in this word sets the tongue in the proper place for the sound found in śiva .
One then can say kuh-prees, keep the same tongue and mouth postion and use it for the ś in śiva and there you have it.

praṇām

smaranam
14 October 2011, 05:44 PM
Namaste YajvanJi

The first time I heard Lord Shiva being called S'iva only here on HDF. All Indians in real life or in media (TV, Videos) pronounce it as Shiva with a SH as in shell, shoe, sharp.

SanskRt devnAgari I have read has always been shiva, sadAshiva. Perhaps some north Indian dialects make it siva (as in seive) ?

Also, transliteration convention (when diacritics are missing) says S = sh and s = s/c

praNAm

----------

Shiva
Shankha
Shad-darshan (six darshans)
SharIr
ShambhU
shoka
shava
shantanu
shilpa

all sh

yajvan
14 October 2011, 06:24 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste YajvanJi
The first time I heard Lord Shiva being called S'iva only here on HDF. All Indians in real life or in media (TV, Videos) pronounce it as Shiva with a SH as in shell, shoe, sharp.


This perhaps has been your experience. That said, it goes back to how śiva's name is written in saṃskṛtam as शिव. Due to this sibilant śa , is what initially started the conversation.
If śiva's name was written like this ṣiva षव , then shiva is the appropriate sound. The point being offered is the following: these 3 sounds are different pending the position of the tongue.

sa - is dantya or dental
ṣa - is mūrdhanya or cerebral
śa - is tālavya or palatal

Now that said my joytish teacher from Orissa goes out of his way to pronounce it śiva as mentioned. While spending time in Kanchipuram I heard it both ways, but needed to listen attentively to hear the slight difference.

If I look to various sources I use as pronunciation guides there is difficultly with trying to properly sound this śa by example; it easily falls into 'sh' , yet the guides say this is just an approximation. One guide that I respect suggests the sound is like the German sound 'ich' - this I can understand , others may not.


That said, I respect your views on the matter and appreciate your feedback and post.


praṇām

Jainarayan
14 October 2011, 08:18 PM
Namaste good people.

Something we also have to consider is everyone's unique biomechanics in articulating sounds and enunciations. Some people simply can't form certain sounds, even being native speakers of the language. They try, but it just doesn't happen. And some people are more attuned to the nuances of sound than others. And then, some people are just lazy speakers.

And then, we have dialectal differences. People speak like those around them. I suspect that's the case in smaranam's example. Languages tend to move towards simplification. Sanskrit is a rich, highly inflected and nuanced language. Hindi and its relatives are less so. It's called "collapsing". Any system wants to move towards simplification. So, instead of two distinct phonemes: ṣa - is mūrdhanya or cerebral śa - is tālavya or palatal they've collapsed into the /sh/ phoneme of 'shoe' or 'shell'. It's quite a common phenomenon in linguistics.

This is all well and good for the common folk (that's how we got Hindi!), but because Sanskrit is a liturgical and holy language, one would think and hope that great care would be taken to preserve it as much as possible. I think that's the case.

Jainarayan
14 October 2011, 08:22 PM
Now that said my joytish teacher from Orissa goes out of his way to pronounce it śiva as mentioned.

And people like that is exactly why Sanskrit is preserved pretty much unchanged... those who are educated in its nuances and requirements as a holy language will move Heaven and Earth to preserve it. Sanskrit is one of the very, very few languages that has remained virtually unchanged for milennia.

smaranam
15 October 2011, 06:34 AM
Namaste Yajvanji


One guide that I respect suggests the sound is like the German sound 'ich' - this I can understand , others may not.

Ich verstehe "ich" :)

If that is the sound, then that is fine, and a subtle difference between the devnAgari letters :

1. sh (transliterated as z, no zee sound) श as in शिव ziva (This letter is usually used in the beginning of word: shAnti shankha shauNak, shaurya, shobhA )

2. sh (transliterated as capital S) ष as in पोषण poSaN (This letter is used in the middle/end, never as beginning syllable: AkarshaN, vishay, bhUshaN, santosh, piyush) - just observation

Since you said it is like "c'iva" i read it as cite, sieve, slope, smart. Surprisingly, many people without Indian language background, think Shiva is just plain siva - सिव with a स sound ! सिव Like saagar सागर, samudra समुद्र, sUrya सूर्य etc. I saw/heard that on YouTube - a video about pronunciation of Shiva. That is all I was objecting to.

praNAm

Jainarayan
15 October 2011, 08:36 AM
Surprisingly, many people without Indian language background, think Shiva is just plain siva - सिव with a स sound ! सिव Like saagar सागर, samudra समुद्र, sUrya सूर्य etc.

Once upon a time I thought so too. In fact there are times I catch myself distinguishing between them when I see them written. Tha is, is the context referring to Lord Shiva or someone named Siva. I have a co-worker whose name is spelled Siva and pronounced Seeva. My presumption is that there is a name and pronunciation with the /s/ sound.

Eastern Mind
15 October 2011, 12:10 PM
Vannakkam: Regaeding S or Sh, I've often heard both, Siva, and Shiva, even in the same sentence from the same person. My question is where do people get the idea that this is the right way or the wrong way. On the larger grander scheme of things, does it really matter?

Personally, I usually use s, not sh, but it all depends on context. When in rome ....

Aum Namasivaya

sm78
15 October 2011, 12:19 PM
Vannakkam: Regaeding S or Sh, I've often heard both, Siva, and Shiva, even in the same sentence from the same person. My question is where do people get the idea that this is the right way or the wrong way. On the larger grander scheme of things, does it really matter?

Personally, I usually use s, not sh, but it all depends on context. When in rome ....

Aum Namasivaya

Siva is just the tamilized version of Shiva.

Jainarayan
15 October 2011, 01:49 PM
I'd think it would be important in liturgical usage if Sanskrit is being used (I know I mangled the spelling), but not necessarily in day to day usage.

yajvan
15 October 2011, 02:46 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

smaranam writes,

Ich verstehe "ich" If that is the sound, then that is fine, and a subtle difference between the devnAgari letters

We agree on this matter - as mentioned the subtle difference in sound and in tongue position that makes this discussion point worthy of the words written.


where do people get the idea that this is the right way or the wrong way... does it really matter ?

potato or paa-tah-to ?

For me it is not the notion of right way or wrong way. It is the influence of the word. Our words are an expression of a vibration; it is the vibration that is created that is of interest to me. The proper pronunciation creates the right affect. Sounding out the saṃhitā-s properly takes the proper skills and training. Much time is given to udgītha¹. The results come when the chants are right.


So what am I saying? Word/vibration/vak is pregnant with influence - when well-articulated we maximize the benefit. It is udgā. That is ud+gā = to rise, bring up + sing. It is with the proper articulation that one rises up ( uplifted). Improper articulation minimizes the benefit.

So what does this have to do with this total string? If we go back to the conversation it is the proper articulation of the mantra nama śivaya.

Act as you see fit...

praṇām

words

udgītha - chanting of the sāma-veda; it is also defined as आूं

Eastern Mind
16 October 2011, 08:26 PM
It is with the proper articulation that one rises up ( uplifted). Improper articulation minimizes the benefit.



Vannakkam: I quite imagine we are going in circles. :) The term 'proper' varies. It is like 2 children describing the playground scrap. Both say 'He started it." In this discussion, both sides say, "Ahhh.. But this is the proper way."

So in the end it is up to the individual to decide. For those who heard it from the right lips at the right time (mantra diksha) then that IS the proper way. :)

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
16 October 2011, 09:21 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM


Vannakkam: I quite imagine we are going in circles. :) The term 'proper' varies. It is like 2 children describing the playground scrap. Both say 'He started it." In this discussion, both sides say, "Ahhh.. But this is the proper way."

So in the end it is up to the individual to decide. For those who heard it from the right lips at the right time (mantra diksha) then that IS the proper way. :) Aum Namasivaya
I see what you say... IMHO ~proper~ is the right sound, at the right time, and within the right surrounding. That said, I am resolute on the sounding.


sa - is dantya or dental
ṣa - is mūrdhanya or cerebral
śa - is tālavya or palatal
To try and type the sound , this has been the the area of difficulty. If others believe the sound is one way vs. another, I am fine with their knowledge. My intent is to make the knowledge available - then one can choose as they see fit and/or pursue it further.

re: dīkṣā - yes, your point is well taken. This is why the vibration is so important to get right. It is the sound that awakens, lifts up; it is udgā. - to rise, bring up + sing. 'Ga' is to sing but is also the name of gaṇeśa. It is He that clears the path. When dīkṣā is done correctly ( right time, right place, right sound) , that path is cleared to lift one up.

praṇām

sm78
16 October 2011, 11:26 PM
So in the end it is up to the individual to decide. For those who heard it from the right lips at the right time (mantra diksha) then that IS the proper way. :)

Aum Namasivaya

As Yajvan said, it is not about how one writes, but there cannot be multiple version of the same sound. While south indians often write as Siva as tamizh doesn't have all the consonants, they (those who use mantras) don't pronounce it as the sss siva. I have listened to audio of both sivaya subramuniya swami and bodhinatha - they always pronounce it as shiva but always write as siva. So what one listens is what is important - but must listen from the correct source.

We do japa because we believe sound as the source of creation and not a description of something already existing. The child-scrapyard allegory doesnt quite apply here.