Talk:Atma Shatkam

22 November 2010

I've replaced an 'informal' and unattributed transliteration with one in IAST format.

Currently there are two translations of the text; these may well be subject to copyright.

I've redirected the content of the original Nirvana Shatkam page to this article. The former content can be seen in the history of that page.

Imc (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Much of the introductory text and the first translation as of 22 Nov 2010 are from Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati at [1] (as was the previously replaced 'informal' transliteration). This website explicitly states that the content is subject to copyright. Hence it should be removed. The second translation is from B K S Iyengar, and it is exceedingly unlikely to be out of copyright either. Hence that should be removed as well. Imc (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed another translation which seems to have been copied from http://artofliving-metuchen-nj.blogspot.com/2011/01/meaning-of-shivoham.html but has no copyright information either. Imc (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

...sanskrit added...

...have added the stanzas in sanskrit also, so that the ones who do know to read sanskrit/ devanagari and those who don't know the IAST pronunciation, but know to read devanagari, could easily read/ get a closer pronunciation...and for the english readers, an extra line in sanskrit at the end of every stanza, hope won't bother much... --अविनाश.कश्यप (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Title should be corrected

The title should read "Atma Shatkam" with no letter "a" between "t" and "k". I seem not to have the privilege to do it. Can someone set the record straight, please.

done Imc (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio? no source given

for the current translation. Imc (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased, subjective intro

The introduction seems biased and subjective to me, as from the perspective of someone who is a believer. Even in just the first paragraph I see:

"It is a śloka in six stanzas written by the great Ādi Śaṅkara"

and

"He mastered the Vedas by the age of 6. This shows he is a re-incarnation, as Vedas take a whole lifetime to master"

Someone who is not a believer in Hinduism or Buddhism, and who reads this article to find out what the Atma/Nirvana Shatkam is won't know who Adi Sankara is or why he is so "great". Nor is it guaranteed the reader will believe in re-incarnation. Therefore whoever wrote this article seems to be putting their personal beliefs into their wording.

Can someone please rewrite this from a non-biased perspective? I've seen it done with many other articles about religion. Thank you.

— Jclu: talk-contribs 21:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Current translation is not very accurate

For example there is no Sanskrit for "love" or "eternal" in the final line of each verse, which is more of an interpretation in general than a literal translation of that line. This is what it currently says (all word for word translations are from standard Sanskrit-English dictionaries):

cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham

"I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Śivam), love and pure consciousness."

This is what it should say:

1.

cidānandarūpaḥ (chid-ah-nahn-dah-roopah) comes from the joining of cit, ananda, rupa.

cit - to be conscious, to perceive

ananda - bliss, joy

rupa - form, appearance, nature (the form, or nature of something, how something appears or manifests)

Therefore cidānandarūpaḥ is more like "manifesting as blissful consciousness."

2.

śivo'ham (sheevoh-hum) comes from joining śiva and aham

śiva - auspicious or fortunate

aham - I, me, myself

Therefore śivo'ham śivo'ham is more like "fortunate me, fortunate me."

3.

Better translation:

Manifesting as blissful consciousness, fortunate me, fortunate me.

This is traditionally meant as - the self-realized person is aware of its transcendent nature and therefore exultant in its good fortune to be alive.

Alternatively śivo’ham can also be translated in the sense of śiva representing God since it is a common epithet for God as "the auspicious one" or Shiva, therefore saying śivo’ham in this case is a common Hindu refrain used in mantras meant as "God is I." This is meant in the sense of God manifesting as the inner being or nature of the individual person, where the individual person has the qualities of God or cidānandarūpaḥ due to being a manifestation of God, in the sense of the drop of water in the ocean exists in reality due to it being a part of the ocean. This is a common Hindu view where everything is seen as a manifestation of God in this world (Aham Brahmasmi).

In that case it would be:

cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham

God is I, God is I, appearing as (my) blissful consciousness (me).

shiva das 11:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Traductore tradictore (Translator, betrayor)

I agree that the translations are far from accurate. I would like to show what I have been reasearching and intend to publish soon(-er or later 🙈).

1. Sanskrit can be a bit peculiar, because the chanting was meant to be dubious about who is saying "Cittananda rupa shivoham", if I (the reader) or "I", Shiva itself. Sound is king. That's the very core of the shatkam, to mix them up! Because there are no two beings in the whole Universe, but one! 🙏ॐ

2. Citta is spiritual mind. There is a very clear distinction in sanskrit literature between manas and citta. The shatkam itself says that "I am" not manas. Manas is the rational mind (monkey-like mind), while citta is the principle behind it, the very core of mind , from which every aspect of it derives (conscious and unconscious mind). You do not think to walk, or to look, you just do. It is so deep that is beyond understanding: We know it is there because we exist. (Descartes was right, but quite lame, the cogito is the tip of the Spiritual Iceberg.) And that's what the shatkam says: I am not manas (rational mind), or ahamkara (the ego, the "I-maker"), or budhi (superior mind behind thoughts), but something much much deeper... But we will get there! Come along. (心, 𓂀)

2. Shivoham is an elyptic form for Shiva + aham + asmi --> Shivoham asmi --> Shivoham (since the verb in old languages is often omitted). This is the shaivic version of YajurVeda "Brahma aham asmi" (अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad -- Yajur Veda 1:4:10), which answers a much older text, Hyranyagarbha Suktam (Rigveda 10,121), which asks ten times "to which god (kaH?) should we offer our gifts?" ("कस्मै॑ दे॒वाय॑ ह॒विषा॑ विधेम ?").

3. Rupa does not always mean "shape", but also can mean "value", in the sense of worth. Take the case of Yogasutras: "Tada drastuh svarupe avasthanam" (YS 1:3), wtt, "Then the Observer (drashta) manifests itself [in] its own value [form / way]". Rupee is still the indian money! So Cittanandarupa is quite polyssemantic on porpuse!, meaning "The true ananda of citta". Rupa in the sense of satya, truth (from sat, being).

4. Ananda here is not "bliss", which sounds unpleasently western and devotional (sorry, guys, but the shatkam is advaita, non-dualistic). Ananda means the realization of something being perfectly itself. I feel ananda when I am happy where I am and being who I am. That's why some sages change their names to Something-ananda. If he is happy with yoga and it makes him whole, he can be called Yogananda. Because he is plenty and complete and happy expressing or being yoga.

5. Now, we can put together anandarupa, which means even more: it means "the very essense" of something.

"Cittanandarupa shivoham [asmi]"

means something like

"[I am] Shiva, the true ananda of citta"

let's try to not blow it up:

"The very essense of Spiritual Mind, [I am] Shiva, [I am] Shiva".

The intention of the shatkam is alchemy. That's the whole point of it. Not in the sense of "becoming", but cleansing (tapas) what I think I am, but "I am not". Expressing more and more my own subtle nature. I fuse in subtle not being any of that (neti! neti!) and expressing perfectly whole and plenty and blissful, the true bliss of the very essence of being.

I said the other day, without thinking much (case and point): "neti, neti! shivoham asmi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimasgomez (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring proposal

I think the readability now is not ideal. I propose we reorganize the text by alphabet, instead of by verse. DevanAgari first, IAST or ITRANS, followed by any order you see fit. Dimasgomez (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course not; we follow the structure of the text. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Sanskrit transliteration?

I know someone removed the large clutter of the text rendered in various scripts, but it would seem helpful in an article about a particular text to include it, transliterated, in the body of the article. I can add it in IAST, but if anyone disagrees, please let me know. Symphing12 (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)