Om: The Untranslatable Mantra
Written by Jayesha S.
If you walk into a modernized yoga studio, you’ll likely see the Om symbol stamped on the entrance. An instructor and student, one appreciating and the other appropriating the symbol. The instructor commodifies the symbol, selling water bottles labeled “Om Water,” intentionally ignoring its true meaning, and devaluing its cultural value. The student, while not fully aware of its meaning, attempts to learn, respect, and understand its importance without the intention of profit. Obliviously plastered on yoga studios, mindlessly tattooed on skins, and carelessly posted on social media, Om’s commodification remains evident. While cultural awareness is paramount and misunderstanding isn’t always intentional in today’s globalized world, the continued commodification of symbols such as Om dilutes their rich, complex meaning; we must draw a line between appreciation and appropriation.
What many don’t understand about Om is the complex meaning in its structure and spiritual significance. Om lies at the very foundation of Hinduism; it mirrors the universe and God himself. The writings surrounding the symbol have appeared in the Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Hindu scripture part of the epic Mahabharata. In scripture 8.13, Lord Krishna uses Om to explain that, “one who departs from the body while remembering Me, the Supreme Personality, and chanting the syllable Om, will attain the supreme goal” (Bhagavad Gita, 8.13). Since Om embodies God, chanting the syllable provides those in pain — or even near death — a passage to enlightenment. Om breaks down into three sounds: A, U, and M. Deepha Sundaram, Ph.D., assistant professor of religious studies at the University of Denver, explains the significance of these sounds, stating: “the A can represent creation, U is the manifestation, and M is destruction. It represents unification…a way to bring those three parts of yourself: the mind, the body, and the spirit.” The three sounds represent multiple holy trinities for Hindus. Original Vedic scriptures (Rg, Yajur, and Sāma). Aspects of time (past, present, and future). Conditions of consciousness (the waking state, dreaming state, and deep sleep state).
The very structure of the symbol is intentional in its design, with each stroke representing states of reality on the journey to enlightenment. Suppose you were on this journey traversing through the Om symbol. You stand on the largest, lower curve, where your mind and body are physically connected. You feel, see, and touch the world around you. This is the “walking state” (jāgrat). Far off, you see the dot on top, the end of your journey: enlightenment (turiyā). But curves stand in between. The crescent below the dot, Maya, binds your soul to the material world, prohibiting you from transcending. Standing on the largest, lower curve, you start walking along it. Your eyes droop, as you cross into the middle curve, the “dream state” (swapna). While your soul is still connected to your body, you experience the world through closed eyes. Your subconscious manifests your fears, insecurities, and desires. After this, you cross into the larger top curve and enter “deep sleep” (sushputi). You have no desires. No dreams. No thoughts. One final crescent is prohibiting you from the dot of enlightenment. To transcend these three curves and break through the illusion of Maya, you chant Om in its three parts (A, U, M) representing each state of consciousness. It is believed that through chanting Om, one can transcend these three curves of material consciousness, and reach the dot of enlightenment. This notion directly ties back to the 8.13 scripture in which Lord Krishna connects the chant with attaining the supreme goal of transcendence. Both the sound of the symbol and its structure work to signify a connection to God. These complexities are diluted when people exploit the symbol for profit, undermining its spiritual significance.
When individuals misunderstand, appropriate, or exploit Om, society degrades its importance to those who ground their spiritual devotion in it. On 23 May 2021, celebrity Kim Kardashian posted images of her lying on her bed, with elegant diamante-encrusted earrings bearing the Om symbol. The tail-end of the eloquently worded caption read: “link in bio to feel like Om.” She promoted her sponsor’s wellness regimen — directly profiting off of the symbol. Apparently, if you purchase her product, you too could “feel like Om.” She ignored its true meaning, creating one of her own, exploiting the symbol for profit. Millions commented, deeming her an appropriator of Hinduism. The offense, however, blew over in a couple of days (as most cancel culture movements do), failing to open the broader conversation regarding degrading dilutions of sacred meanings. If the earrings were such a problem, what about the tattoos? Yoga studios? Leggings? Om exploitation is ubiquitous.
But it is not just the commodification of the symbol; rather, the context of historical and structural institutions that makes its use uniquely problematic. Oxford University student Anna Gunstone acknowledges this idea, considering “cultural appropriation is something of a euphemism. It’s a term that we use to dilute the fact that we are discussing racism and colonialism.” Therefore, those who argue that using the symbol is simply “appreciation” fail to consider the historical institutions and power imbalances embedded within this exchange. When former colonizers profit off of sacred symbols that they once oppressed, they silence the Indians and South Asian standing, recolonizing it, mirroring the initial colonization attempts to erase Indian culture. Professor Gandhi, a teacher of Religious Studies at Michigan State University, expands, defining “cultural appropriation, as opposed to the more neutral globalization, is about this systemic and historic imbalance of power.” Colonists commodifying Indian culture devalues it, which defines the line between appreciation and exploitation.
To me, the line is clear: commodification is exploitation. To use the symbol appropriately requires actual understanding and acknowledgment of its true essence. Some argue, however, that the lack of understanding is not necessarily malicious: simply because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean you intend to degrade culture and mirror historic colonial oppression. Essentially, it’s ‘not that big of a deal.’ To tackle the explanation as to why using the symbol for profit is so uniquely harmful when considering complex historical contexts, let’s simplify. Using Om in yoga studios, or promoting your sponsor’s wellness regimes would be like selling random pieces of bread, marketed as the body of Christ, and advertising it as a method to repent your sins. Or, to tie in the colonial aspect: imagine, on your mother’s deathbed, she hands you her favorite necklace. You wear this necklace proudly. It represents your identity and heritage, which others view as an opportunity for oppression. Those in power look upon your necklace with disgust. Derogatory comments. Systemic disadvantage. Physical abuse. Your identity, symbolized by your mother’s necklace, marks you as an outsider in your own land. However, this changes as your necklace becomes a ‘trend.’ Now, those who previously oppressed you decide to replicate and sell these necklaces, making a profit — unbeknownst of their significance to you and your mother. Once intensely meaningful, your oppressors dilute the necklace’s meaning to a mere fashion statement. Even worse, they’re earning money off of it. Commodifying symbols like Om is no different, rendering this argument mostly untrue.
The argument against deep understanding still somewhat stands, considering broader cultural contexts. For those who have grown up with Om as a part of their culture, understanding comes much easier through constant guidance. For others, without this exposure, however, this understanding may not be so easy. Their intention may not be to use the symbol maliciously, there simply may not be opportunities for them to expose themself to the material. Om has its place in various cultures, not only in Hinduism. The symbol is also present in Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. In each case, however, this statement resounds: you don’t get to profit off of my religion. For those who want to understand the symbol and its significance, fostering cultural dialogue and conversation is welcome. For those who intentionally ignore its meaning, and just want a cool-looking symbol to stick on a product to make it sell better, usage is disgustingly derogatory.
Om enchants me. It means the journey to enlightenment, it means the connection between mind, body, and soul, it means transcendence. Om is a part of my cultural heritage, a part of my identity. Whether it be your mother's necklace or the body of Christ, everyone has aspects to their identity that they value, even if you don’t. Deliberately misusing and commodifying such integral parts of identities degrades their importance. As globalization only accelerates and cultural exchange continues, maintaining historically and spiritually significant symbols remains more crucial than ever. With enough dilution through layers upon layers of commodification, degradation, and misunderstanding, what comes out the other side is a cheap product bought for its chic look, devoid of its century-old significance.
