Tat Sat … ?

Image taken from Google Image search

Image taken from Google Image search

In case you, dear reader, weren’t already aware, I’m a fan of getting my hands into too many pots at once. For instance, I’m never reading just one book. I’m never studying just one subject. I’m never chasing just one lofty goal. That kind of business, you know? Honestly, I think this ends up biting me in the ass more than not and somewhat prevents me from achieving as much as I could, as quickly as I might otherwise be able.

My plans for Sthapati are no different. I’m currently in the middle of completing a series on Hindu carnivores (making it as short as I’m able!) and it’s now struck me that I should might write another series (again, as short as I’m able!) regarding Ganesha and Shabda Brahman. Hopefully this series of posts won’t be as cumbersome to compose and publish, as I plan to pull more than a little from a book I’ve mentioned before, “Loving Ganesha,” by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami.

I’ll admit to being a bit biased in this context, but really everyone should have this book. It’s a treasure of universal Hindu information and obviously carries more “sparkle” for devotees who are Shaivas, Smartas, or Ganapatyas.

Anyway, there is a chapter or two that details lots of juicy goodness regarding Ganesha and Shabda Brahman, respectively and as they relate to each other. I’ll be doing my best to make sure I give the author detailed credit when quoting. In advance of any missteps I might make, this will hopefully serve as an adequate disclaimer.

Although none of the information is brand new to me, I’m reconsidering it as it’s presented here and have really been reconsidering that I spell Om as O-M instead of A-U-M. I think, when attempting to express something as supreme as Shabda Brahman, phonetic attempts are as good as any, and anything else is likely splitting hairs. But I might be able to split hairs here and change my approach to how I attempt that expression. We’ll see.

Om Shri Mahaganeshaya Namaha
Om Shanti


5 responses to “Tat Sat … ?

    • For me, there’s not much symbolism. The symbol that represents That is literally made of three letters. The phonetic spelling has always been more convenient, and just as effective.

      Clearly, though, I’m considering a change.


    • No. From the very beginning of my living HInduisticismically, I had read the reasons why AUM was more accurate, and have heard from many Indian HIndus who say AUM is more accurate, and that is good enough for me. In the end, ’tis but a trifle.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s