Talk:Om

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Yoga (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Jainism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. Please participate by editing the article Om, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

What about YouTube?[edit]

I would like to insert two links:

Is it possible here?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.214.237 (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now I've inserted the speaker, Dr. Acharya Yogeesh. No wikilink there.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.214.237 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Components[edit]

Om-n.svg

File:Om-n.svg may be used for describing the concepts associated to the character's graphical components. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

...but of course such associations would need to be based on a quotable reference. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources Needed[edit]

There seems to be some confusion in this article about the Sikh concept of onkar and aum. As is my understanding, the word onkar simply means "creator of aum" (-kar being etymologically related to "karta", which appears three words later in the Mool Mantar). This article, however, seems to equate onkar with aum and (apparently) omkara. There especially seems to be a lot of unsourced claims (such as Ek onkar meaning "The Aum is One"). I would be very interested in seeing some sources for these, otherwise they should be deleted. Krea (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there is confusion. The translation "The Aum is One" admittedly could do with attribution. It is one possible choice of rendering a nominal sentence. Obviously the literal word-by-word rendition is "one om syllable", but then English needs the copula and the article, so that "one om syllable" isn't a well-formed English sentence.

Of course kar is "etymologically related" to the root kar "make", but kāra is the technical term for "syllable". The fact that "ek omkar" (or "ek onkar", "ik onkar" etc.) is the vernacular pronunciation of Sanskrit ekomkāra is one of those facts almost too trivial to find a decent reference for, but perhaps we can find something. here I find a 1997 reference saying omkara, literally meaning the syllable om' but also used as a name of the divine 'Ek-onkar' . here is another reference stating explicitly "Oankar corresponds to the Sanskrit term OM". Here is a 2000 reference translating "Ek-Omkar" as "single-Om- syllable". Here is The Sikh review referring to "the symbolic representation of God as the mystic syllable, or sound OM".

Basically, this is just taken for granted by everyone and I seriously think that is isn't doubted by anyone, either within or outside of Sikhism. Most authors probably just find it too obvious to mention explicitly. If you find any reference contesting this, I would be interested in seeing it. --dab (𒁳) 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"If you find any reference contesting this..." Ah, but that's the very point, isn't it? There really aren't any good sources either way. As I'm sure you know, the Sikh tradition on the interpretation on Gurbani is strictly kept within the religious circles (I've attended a few teaching sessions held at a few Universities, but most teaching is done within Gurdwaras). In fact, I would be very cautious with occidental interpretation, since the few that I've seen trace their facts back to Ernest Trumpp's translation of the SGGS. Of course, my evaluation on western accuracy is just speculation, but nonetheless I still contest and require stronger sources.
More specifically, I don't believe that "the fact that 'ek omkar'...is the vernacular pronunciation of Sanskrit ekomkāra is one of those facts almost too trivial to find a decent reference for," is acceptable. This assertion requires a source. The only sources you've provided that directly references onkara with onkar is the first one ("The book of enlightened masters: western teachers in eastern traditions" by Andrew Rawlinson: a book that appears to ostensibly be an exegesis on Buddhism and Sufism) and even here he follows with "...is the very first in the list of the names of God given in the Japji," which is an incorrect interpretation of the Japji; and the third one ("Vedic remedies in astrology" by Sanjay Rath). These are not good enough as sources: the article is supposed to contain a Sikh interpretation on references to aum, not Sufic or Vedic ones. Their interpretation may turn out to be correct, but in themselves they are not reputable as sources.
Again, I do not contest that onkara is referenced in the Vedas (you can correct me on this, if I wrong), or its meaning, or that onkar references aum. What I contest is the assertion that onkar is vernacular for onkara. Simply because the the concept of onkara may have influenced Guru Arjan in writing onkar does not mean that onkar is meant to mean onkara. In fact, every semi-reputable source that I know of confirms my own assertion that ek oora (which is the literal translation of the first word of the Mool Mantar) is read as ek onkar and means "creator of aum", as your second reference itself states (Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions, by Wendy Doniger).
Now, you may very well be correct in what you are arguing for, but my preference is to cut all material that cannot be referenced since Sikh traditions are virtually all oral and thus very subjective depending on the biases of the orator (even ones that I myself am sure about, like my own assertions on what ek oora means); so, unless proper sources can be found, I would still contest that removal is the only way to conform to wikipedia's standards.
Krea (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (with some corrections, Krea (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC))
um, I have just pointed you to a couple of perfectly valid sources. Pick the one you like best and insert it in the article please. The very pedestrian fact that ekonkar represents Sanskrit ekomkāra is now referenced perfectly satisfactorily. Before continuing this discussion, I would like to see some evidence that there is any debate at all on this point in the real world.
also, please read the article. "Onkara" is not "referenced in the Vedas". The term first appears in the Mauryan period or later. Omkara, Omkar, Onkar, Oankar, etc. are just spelling variants. You are basically asking us to prove that "omkar means omkar". this is silly.
but you are correct that Weniger's paragraph goes on to note that "some Sikhs object to any suggestion that Oankar is the same as Om", I had not read that far. This can certainly be duly noted in the article (be my guest), and it certainly would explain all the prancing around happening on this talkpage.
please note that nowhere on this article is it claimed that "Oankar is the same as Om". The article merely notes the fact that Guru Nanak has taken the Sanskrit term and turned it into a unique theological concept of his own, so that "some Sikhs" would really appear to object to a notion that nobody is even proposing in the first place. The difference lies in context, not spelling. It's not that "Omkara" is different from "Oankar", it's that Hindu Omkar is different from Sikh Omkar, for the simple reason that Hinduism and Sikhism are two distinct religions. Because of this, the article has two sections, one labelled "Hinduism", and the other "Sikhism". --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, you cannot just pick any source and claim that it's valid (as far as I know). I come from a scientific background and I know that sources must be evaluated on context and bias. The sources you gave are not good, I'm afraid. This is an encyclopedia, which means that the information has to be credible.

"Before continuing this discussion, I would like to see some evidence that there is any debate at all on this point in the real world." No. I don't have to provide this in order to question the validity of claims made in the article. If I were to change the article to what I think is correct, then I'd have to provide evidence for it, but not when I question factual content.

"...it's that Hindu Omkar is different from Sikh Omkar:" that's precisely my point! I'm merely questioning whether the interpretation that a Hindu would associate with omkar is automatically the same that Sikhism would attach to onkar. Any religion is free to take whatever concept they like and turn it into whatever they like (as the Nazis unfortunately did with the swastika) without retaining the original interpretations.

Put it like this: a Hindu may well see my objection as ridiculous, because from his/her background onkar and onkara (or whatever spelling!) is the same. OK, I don't refute that. Sikhism took the concept of the Hindu onkara/onkara: OK, I'm not going to question that here. Sikhism retained the similarity between onkara and onkar: this I don't believe, and would like to see a source for in the article. Just because in Hinduism the concepts are identical does not logically mean the same in Sikhism. My proof? Well, as I said before, I don't have to provide any evidence in order to question facts, but Sikhism never calls "ek oora" "ek onkara", and "one aum syllable" is never rendered as the translation; so how can it be claimed that onkara and onkar are the same in Sikhism?

I'm not here to start a fight. I have my own views on this, but my primary concern is factual accuracy. Maybe you are correct, and I know that it can be annoying enlightening the less educated, but it is a duty that all knowledgeable people must undertake; so excuse my ignorance, but I still want a proper source! Krea (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC) and Krea (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

you want a proper source for what exactly? You already said that it is "precisely your point" that there is a difference between the Hindu and the Sikh use of the term. Which is what I have said, and what the article says. Are you saying you want a source for what you and I agree upon? Then that source is the Doniger article.

Or is this just about romanization? Onkar and omkāra is the romanization for one and the same string of letters in Indic scripts. As far as I can see, one is the conventional romanization in a Gurmukhi context, and the other is the strict IAST. The difference in Latin spelling is purely an artefact of romanization. While there is only a single IAST spelling (hence "strict"), there isn't even any unity in the transliteration of the Gurmukhi. People variously spell it Omkar, Onkar, Oankar and possibly otherwise. Omkar incidentially would be the conventional romanization of the Hindi. Do we need a source explicitly listing that Omkar, Onkar, Oankar are variants of rendering one and the same string in Gurmukhi? If you can agree that the Sikh term can be romanized as Omkar, and that the Hindi term as Omkar, if you don't mind can we from now on just talk about Omkar for both the Sikh and the Hindu concept so we can get the superficial issues of romanization out of the way? --dab (𒁳) 20:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not an issue of romanization (I have my own gripes about this!) but of interpretation of the concept of onkar. In fact, in Sikhism the issue is trivial: it is always rendered (as far as I know) as ੴ, which is simply "1o" when transliterated, so in fact neither "onkar" nor "onkara" appear at all. Although maybe we should just call it one thing so as to get this superficiality out of the way; we can call it "omkar" if you like.
Let me explain my point by quoting from the article. Actually, one of my main objections was the first line: "Aum...or auṃkāra (also as Omkāra)...(lit. "auṃ syllable") is a mystical or sacred syllable in the Indian religions, i.e. Hinduism/Sanātana Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism." This has since been changed to remove "Sikhism", so that's negated my objection.
Similarly, the concept of om, called onkar in Punjabi, is found in Sikh theology as a symbol of God. It invariably emphasizes God's singularity, expressed as Ek Onkar ("One Omkara" or "The Aum is One"), stating that the multiplicity of existence symbolized in the aum syllable is really founded in a singular God.
I've highlighted in bold the parts that I think are misleading or wrong. The "concept of om" is too ambiguous. If I were to interpret "om" as symbolic of the ultimacy of God, then that would correspond to omkar as it appears in Sikhism; but if I were to interpret "om" as the triplicity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, then it is not synonymous with omkar. I agree that I'm being a bit pedantic in this, but I think it's important for an encyclopedia to be accurate.
Next, the translation of ੴ (ek oora) is not "one omkara". That's the point I've been trying to make. Sikhism's omkar may trace its lineage to the omkar in Hinduism (I don't know, but I'm not contesting this here), but its Hindu meaning as "om syllable" is not what Sikhism utilizes in its theology. As far as Sikhism is concerned, ੴ only means "omkar" whose meaning is "creator of aum". If it were suggested that Sikhism also understands "omkar" as just being a variant spelling of "omkara", whose meaning is "om syllable", then that needs a source. Similarly, "the aum is one" is also incorrect in my opinion as a translation of ੴ and will need a source if it is to remain.
That's basically my objection. I hope that's clear, but I'll be happy to elaborate further if not. Krea (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Jeez Krea, where were you when I needed you! good job taking on this hubristic admin who pompously fancies himself an intellectual who thinks he knows better than Sikhs, and any who challenge him have fringe allegiances. He knew finding good written sources from Sikhs for this sort of thing is tough, and in his last post even tried to quote some Hindu layman from some internet forum as citation, and attempted to tie me with fringe elements whose views didn't even remotely match the ones I expressed. He tried to smear and discredit me as being a revisionist when he kept screwing up, trying to learn Punjabi and Gurmukhi on the fly, and I exposed him as clearly not knowing what he was talking about. He got all defensively aggressive and brusque with me rather than admitting his comically numerous screw-ups (he conceded my point to another editor but refused to with me, probably out of injured pride), right from the get-go, presumably because of a perceived slight towards Hinduism. so I just gave up. Even here he seemed to be copping an attitude because you were not content with making (his) assumptions and just going with his version, and using sources written only by non-Sikhs, as well as by a self-admitted "Kesdhari Hindu." You were also more patient than myself in dealing with his arrogance as well, I admit, so good job all around. 3swordz (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that! There is so much misinformation and confusion about Sikh theology and no good written sources by actual Sikhs that this whole endeavour can seem completely pointless to me sometimes; so I kind of do this sort of stuff only intermittently. Sikhism badly needs a proper academic -- like Macauliffe -- to produce a definitive text on Sikhism and its scriptures, but who could also stand in defiance to the blind dogmatism of the granthis (E.g. the whole Dasam granth controversy). But, what punjabi is going to learn so many ancient languages and study under so many people in order to do this? Academia is not exactly our strong point! I'm going to go ahead a remove the references to Sikhism that aren't sourced, since this is a fairly trivial matter as far as wikipedia is concerned ("You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references."), and I still have not been given any credible sources. Krea (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Om, not Aum[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request and discussion below. That was very well-argued. - GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)



AumOm

Om is the common English transcription of ॐ. Not just in English, but across most Western languages. The archive makes it clear that the current page's preference is merely WP:OR, in disregard of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH.

Three possible objections:

  • Aum is more specific than Om and therefore makes a better title: The Om usage is so common that Om already directs here instead of to the Om disambig. That should've sent up red flags.
  • The Hindu scriptures gloss Om as three sounds: This should be explained in the article, but doesn't change the common English spelling. (Less importantly, but worth mentioning: the ancient Vedic scriptures are authoritative neither for linguistic or modern use and are beside the point.)
  • Some people use Aum/Om to distinguish between Hindu and Buddhist concepts: If this can be sourced (it seems specious), include that information in the Buddhist section of this page. However, far and away most people spell both concepts identically, which is why the Buddhist concept is already discussed here despite the presumed "misspelling."

Yes, this will require some minor editing and cleanup, but that should probably await consensus on the move. -LlywelynII (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From archives: (directly; many others in the archive & on this page use "om" despite article's omission of it)

  • SUPPORT: Krazy
  • SUPPORT: Prime Entelechy
  • SUPPORT: 151.199.193.199
  • SUPPORT: Wiki Wikardo
  • SUPPORT: Thirusivaperur
  • SUPPORT: 71.97.134.56
  • OPPOSE: LordSuryaofShropshire
  • OPPOSE: 128.59.26.54
  • OPPOSE: Jyoti
  • OPPOSE: Aum best represents the sound, and ūm represents the ॐ character. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; "om" is clearly the most commonly used transcription in English. Powers T 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support obvious case of common english usage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

omkar ambavane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkarambavane3688 (talkcontribs) 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Aum and not OM[edit]

Why is this article named OM? Where is the pronunciation of "U" in "OM"? In ॐ three sounds "A" "U" "M" are present. "U" is completely absent in OM, so this spelling is incorrect.

  • "Technically, Aum is the more correct spelling." J. Donald Walters, ‎Swami Kriyananda [1],
  • "An alternate and more phonetically correct spelling of Om is Aum." Swami Shankarananda [2]
  • "The AUM is spelled A-U-M, and each of the letters stands for a component" [3] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"Buddha didn't teach it"[edit]

Sorry about my edit summary, my computer fell mid-typing and submitted only like one word. The intro is not a place to split hairs about the veracity of the teachings of Vajrayana; Om is an important mantra-practice for many Buddhists and glossing over that for theologically-motivated reasons (uncited ones!) is missing the point. Or rather it's POINTing. Ogress smash! 14:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Om and Ohm[edit]

I don't have any problem with the recent edit, but, the edit summary is not entirely correct. Seatch in Google and you'll find some results. Ohm is an alternative spelling of Om (not very much popular, not I pronounce it, but still, an alternative pronunciation).
BTW, Ohm may refer to Georg Ohm too. --Tito Dutta 22:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is my reasoning: Just because ohm has been used, even in print, does not make it correct. As a transliteration it is not correct, no matter what system you might use, and it seems fairly likely that the instances of the "ohm" spelling that can be found are simply from people mistakenly associated the word with the legitimate word "ohm" (just as people often mix up affect and effect or complimentary and complementary, though such persistent confusion does not now make it okay to switch around the spellings of these words). — the Man in Question (in question) 03:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the Man in Question's post is insightful, and not inciteful! -- Q Chris (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
this is part of the pronunciation tree:
अ+उ+म=ॐ -->ऑ-म/ओ-:-म.... (note it is not ह, it is :), see Wikipedia:IPA for Sanskrit, the transliteration was correct! --Tito Dutta 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Where is this pronunciation tree from? I can find no results for ओ:म on Google, and I feel like if there were any (as in the example you have given above, o-ḥ-m), they serve only to give an idea of the myriad pronunciations that can be given to the syllable, not to the actual spelling. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I was little bit lazy here, so typed ":/colon", since I d(o/id) not have Devanagari writer in my computer.. it should be Visarga (Devanagari), Replace : with Visarga sign and search,,..,
or better read this article– lead section: Om is also written ओ३म् (ō̄m [õːːm]), In Jainism section.. A+A+A+U+M (o3m). etc.. --Tito Dutta 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, but ओ३म् still has no H. And with a visarga (ओःम, sorry I didn't catch that myself) there is only one result on Google. I'm still not seeing evidence for the word being spelled ohm. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
We have almost reached.... the pronunciation of the letter is soft h (something between saw and hawk– soft h), but that can not be written in IPA transliteration of Sanskrit. so, it is written Ohm.. BTW, as I said in the beginning, I don't have any problem with that edit, I am not sure what editors have tried to do here– sometimes they have used first letter cap (i.e. Om), some times first letter small (om).. all mixed up.. anyway, what I have been trying to say–the edit summary was not correct. Om can be pronounced Ohm (h is soft h) too. --Tito Dutta 20:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

The external link for Om in the Upanishads, Gita, and Yoga Sutras is outdated, and needs to be redirected to: http://www.ocoy.org/original-yoga/pranava-yoga/aom-in-the-upanishads-bhagavad-gita-and-yoga-sutras/

Tarakananda (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it! --Tito Dutta 14:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not keep it, but have it point to the correct URL? It is a valuable article showing how widespread, indeed ubiquitous OM is in these scriptures. Tarakananda (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Chapter Seven of Pranava Yoga" ? Wikipedia is not collection of external links! Add in DMOZ! In many articles these links are added just to get visitors. At least one another EL should be removed there! --Tito Dutta 04:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Western equivalent[edit]

What is Om? Mystical, yes. Sacred, yes. But what is it? It is the sound of the Creation, Indian equivalent of the Big Bang. As per Swami Krishnananda's exposition of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: "In the Manusmriti, and such other ancient texts, we are also told in a symbolic manner that Prajāpati, the Creator, conceived the whole cosmos in the pattern of 'Om', or the Praṇava. The Praṇava, or Omkāra, is supposed to be the seed of the whole universe." (see here). Hrishikes (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose to add the below content into om page. I feel that this is very significant thing which has emerged because we have a doctor and neurosurgeon who talks about existence of "om". Kindly give your feedback on the same.

Om in Modern Literature[edit]

I want to add the below content to Om page. Kindly give your comments on the same.

Eben_Alexander_(author) III (born December, 1953 in Charlotte, North Carolina) is a neurosurgeon and the author of the best-selling Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, in which he shares his thoughts on his near-death experience and whether science can explain that heaven really does exist. In his book Eben says " "I will occasionally use Om as the pronoun for God","OM" was the sound I remembered hearing associated with that omniscient,omnipotent,and unconditionally loving god".

Shiva321 (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've told you more than once that we don't just pick out quotes from books because we like them or think they illustrate some point (see WP:NOR. What sources meeting WP:RS comment on this sentence of Alexander's? What do they say? Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

well, om has by now an extended reception in western pop- and counter-cultures. There can well be a section about that, within WP:DUE and with proper attribution, ideally to secondary sources about this reception. Alexander is not necessarily part of the quantum quackery cyber-Hindu crowd, he just wrote a deeply personal account of his dear-death experience, which is certainly fair enough for me, the question is, why does this warrant inclusion (show some secondary references on his work which I am sure must exist somewhere). --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

a glance at Eben Alexander (author) shows that this is, after all, pseudoscience (quantum quackery), but also that it has in fact been widely received, reviewed and criticized, so it should be no problem to briefly mention it here. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct spelling of this term, as commonly used, is AUM[edit]

This is an article for the Hindu sound and mantra. It starts at the back of the throat, A, moves to mid-mouth, U, and finishes with a nasal stop, M. This progression from the back of the throat to the tip of the lips allows the sound and mantra to be expressive of the 'entirety of creation'.

The spelling Om starts in mid-mouth and ends at the front of the mouth. It fails to represent or embody that which the sound and mantra is intended to represent. It's a bastardization.

Try pronouncing the two styles for yourself. The difference is quite clear.

The spellings are present in roughly equal measure in English texts, though, for instance a google search for AUM returns 5,400,000 hits on google, whereas one for Om returns 542,000. Both of their image search results are completely full of the AUM symbol, with nothing else.

So as to WP:COMMONNAME, the two spellings are currently used in comparable amounts in the English language. This is a great opportunity then for Wikipedia to side with the one representative of the original tradition. AUM is the previous title of this page, and for good reason.

We stand at the breach of two paths. In one direction we can continue a bastardization that saps the original tradition, misleads our users, and contributes to the degradation of this spiritual mantra, or we can side with the name equally favored by the WP:COMMONNAME standard and actually help people educate themselves.

Far from being original research, this position is the only one well-supported with specific information about why this spelling in particular is correct. There are no reference supported article sections that show in extensive detail why and how the name of the word is spelled Om. There are multiple that support the AUM spelling.

  • "Technically, Aum is the more correct spelling." J. Donald Walters, ‎Swami Kriyananda [4],
  • "An alternate and more phonetically correct spelling of Om is Aum." Swami Shankarananda [5]
  • "The AUM is spelled A-U-M, and each of the letters stands for a component" [6] Ganesh J. Acharya[7]

I have cleared the way for a move to AUM, which now is just a redirect to AUM_(disambiguation). Om should become the landing point for what is currently [Om_disambiguation]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogbert579 (talkcontribs) 16:02, 29 May 2014‎ (UTC)

I agree, but this has been discussed previously at Om not Aum where a decision was made that it should be "Om". Evidently our view is Hindu-centric. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand it has been discussed before, but I see no reason a poor decision made long in the past should stand in the way of a proper one being made now. Unless someone can provide a specific explanation, in a primary text, for using the spelling 'Om' in any context, besides simply, "That's what was done by some people." then this article move should be executed immediately, as both spellings are used in comparable amounts in the English language, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Dogbert579 (talk)
If you initiate a requested move then I'll support it. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)