The philosophy of Śrī Oṁkārnātha Deva (1892–1982) is centred on Praṇavādvaita, a unique non-dualism grounded in the metaphysics of Oṁkāra. Unlike earlier Vedāntic schools, which accepted Brahman as "that which expands" (bṛh) but overlooked its sonic dimension, Oṁkārnātha integrates both meanings: Brahman as infinite expansion and as primordial sound. For him, Oṁkāra is not a mere indicator (vācaka) of the Lord but the Lord Himself— Puruṣottama Oṁkāra. Through the powers of Māyā—āvaraṇa (concealment) and vikṣepa (projection) — Oṁkāra manifests the universe while remaining transcendent. Building on traditions from Bhartṛhari's Śabda-Brahman to the Śāradātilaka Tantra, Oṁkārnātha presents creation as the unfolding of sound through the four stages of speech (parā, paśyantī, madhyamā, vaikharī). He distinguishes Para and Apara Praṇava, identifying the former with Para-Brahman and the latter with Śabda-Brahman. In this vision, sound is not symbolic but ontological: the eternal bridge between the finite and the infinite.

Introduction

Vedānta, as understood traditionally, is the Pramāṇa, or valid means of knowledge for attaining the knowledge of the self and its relationship with the God and the world. This is a common view shared by all schools, irrespective of the means of interpretation that they use to under Vedānta. Sadānanda Yogīndra, the author of the famous text Vedāntasāra says: "Vedānta refers to the Upaniṣads, which are Pramāṇas". Thus, it is mainly the Upaniṣads and their philosophical counterpart from the itihāsa literature, the Bhagavadgītā, which are broadly referred to as Vedānta. However, the nature of the Sanskrit language is such that a single word can yield multiple meanings. Also, the relationship between multiple words, sentence and sections of a text can also be understood in myriad ways. That essentially means that there is a scope of using a certain pathway of interpretation and then arriving at a certain view of Vedānta.

However, it must be noted here that textual interpretation in India did not only rely on epistemological and hermeneutics-based analysis. Starting from Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Madhva till Baladeva and Pañcānana Tarkaratna, we find an active system of praxis supporting the tradition of textual interpretation. The question that might need to be addressed here is what does the system of praxis lead one to? To this, we can answer respond by saying that it leads to a direct experience. Here, caution needs to be taken because the Advaitins do not accept Self Knowledge as an experience of the same nature as that of the experience of an entity separate from the Self (such as the vision of a Deity, etc. as accepted by the Vaishnavite schools). However, they too accept the idea of Self Knowledge as Aparokṣa Anubhūti, that is, an experience that is known immediately or is inherently present. Nonetheless, the Vaishnavite and Śaṅkara schools accept a certain rank ordering in which experience, scripture and logic are to be used. For them, the order is:

It might look contradictory to the reader that this framework places more focus on the scripture. The reason that is given is that experience is not verifiable, and hence the need of verifying or explaining it based on the scriptures. However, the relationship between the word and experience needs to be re-examined. Any verbal communication happens because of a desire to express (whatever the reason may be). This desire therefore needs to be experienced by the speaker. Hence, anubhava comes first and then the word.

The concept of the non-human origins of the Vedas also seem to support this view. The Vedas, in the traditional viewpoint, are revealed texts. The Ṛṣis are the seers of these texts, and these were revealed to them in a state of deep meditation. That being the case, the very revelation of the Śruti happens due to an experience. It is this importance of the Śruti, that drives force the motivation for a new look at the interpretation of Vedānta. Sri Sītārāmadāsa Oṁkāranātha, a saint-philosopher of the 20th century, relying on his mystic experiences, coupled with profound scriptural knowledge, presented a fresh view of Vedānta, which was later called as the Abhinava Praṇavavāda or the Praṇavādvaitavāda.

As has also been made clear by our discussion above, the order of precedence in terms of validity in Praṇavādvaitavāda is given below:

The main prameya (or object to be known) in all schools of Vedānta is Brahman. Depending on the way the relationship between God, living beings and the world is conceived, other objects too can become objects of knowledge. In Advaitic schools however, Brahman is the main object of knowledge, other things might or might not need to be known. As is clear from the name Praṇavādvaita, here too, Brahman is the object of knowledge. Rather, Brahman is the subject, with whom our absolute unity is to be known through Vedānta.

Brahman as Praṇava

The word Brahman comes from the Sanskrit root word Bṛh, which means that which increases, makes sounds and makes others produces sounds. While the first sense of the root word is accepted by the previous school of Vedānta, the second meaning is hardly paid attention to. The focus of Praṇavādvaita is on both the meanings of this root. A connection between the sound and the word is made. Any sound can also be articulated as word and can also be related to the Lord. This idea comes from the concept of Sarvaśabdavācyatva of Viṣṇu (the primordial being or deity in Tattvavāda) of Madhva1, who presents this in his commentary on the Aitareya Upaniṣad. However, the word remains an indicator of the Lord and does not become the Lord. Praṇavādvaita goes a step further and equates the Lord with the word. This a step beyond what is accepted by the Vaishnavite, Shankarite and the Yoga schools. Patañjali too, in his aphorisms, only goes to the extent of accepting Praṇava (Oṁkāra) as an indicator of God. So, where do we find the scriptural support for this? The other question is, are there any predecessors to the viewpoint presented by Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva?

The closest we find is Bhartṛhari, who accepts the idea of Śabda Brahman. In his invocatory work on his treatise on the philosophy of grammar, he says:

Puṇyarāja, explains the purport of his verse in his commentary. According to him, Brahman is beyond all representation;2 it is endowed with all powers which are neither identical with it nor different from it; it has two aspects, that of unity (vidyā) and that of diversity (avidyā); (even in its aspect of avidyā), it is really free from all diversity; it is, in all states, unaffected by beginning and end, even though the manifestations appear in worldly transactions3 in a temporal and spatial sequence. The Brahman is both effect and cause, it is many and one and in all the different systems, the manifestations are not conceived as having nothing before them and nothing after them. Nor is any limit admitted, above below, or sideways, to its spatial differentiation. All its manifestations, though they appear to be distinct from one another, are in the nature of the word (śabda), because in all of them, the original material persists. Because, in our cognitions, we identify objects with their words (śabdopagrāhi) and our cognitions are intertwined with the words (śabdopagrāhya), they are essentially of the nature of the word.

We see an acceptance of vivartavāda in this verse. In Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva's view, Puruṣottama Oṁkāra, through its power of Māyā (illusion), creates this world. At the beginning of the creation, the power of Māyā is first manifested. There are two faculties of this Māyā: āvaraṇa (concealment) and vikṣepa (distortion or projection). A question may arise: Brahman is asaṅga, or not attached. How, by the means of Māyā, can it be a cause of creation? The cit (knowledge) and ānanda (bliss) features of Brahman get concealed by āvaraṇa. And through vikṣepa-śakti, the different objects of the world are created in Brahman.

Here it is important to note that although limited ignorance cannot conceal the limitless Brahman, but it can certainly conceal the intellect of the knower. And it is because of this that we feel that ignorance has concealed Brahman. As mentioned in the Dakṣiṇāmūrti Stotram, it appears as if a creation has happened.2 It is important to briefly highlight the vision of Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva. The scriptures say that Oṁkāra is the primordial word. Oṁkāra manifests as a collective of the three syllables: A–U–M. M is Maheśvara-nāda, U is Prāṇa–Viṣṇu, and A is the vibration (Brahmā). As described in the Śrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa:

“The life-giver of all creation, the supreme Ātman Oṁkāra, successively gets manifested in the six cakras. At first, it enters the mūlādhāra cakra along with the parā-vāk, which is associated with anāhata-nāda and prāṇa. Then it reaches the maṇipūra cakra (near the navel centre) in the form of the manomaya paśyantī-vāk. After this, it reaches the anāhata cakra (in the heart centre) and manifests as the madhyamā-vāk. Gradually, it enters the mouth and manifests as the mātrās, svaras, and syllables – which collectively represent the vaikharī-vāk.”

Fire, which is present in ākāśa in a subtle or unmanifest form, manifests as small sparks with the help of air, when firewood is rubbed vigorously. When clarified butter (ghṛta) is added, the fire grows. In a similar way, the Lord manifests as Śabda-Brahman in the form of parā, paśyantī, madhyamā, and vaikharī vāks."3 The Śāradātilaka Tantra further says: From the Īśvara, who is of the form of sat–cit–ānanda (along with its prakṛti), first śakti manifests, then nāda (or sound), and finally bindu from nāda. That nāda, sound, bindu is Oṁkāra.4 The non-sentient part of bindu is bīja, the sentient–non-sentient mixed part is nāda, and the sentient part is bindu. Acit here refers to the avidyā (ignorance) associated with the word and the meaning. The active state of the śakti or prakṛti (located or manifested on the substratum named Brahman) is indicated here by the word nāda.

Praṇava or Oṁkāra is categorized as Para and Apara Praṇava. Para Praṇava is Para Brahman. Apara Praṇava has been referred to as prāṇa, Hiraṇyagarbha, and Sūtrātman in the Upaniṣads. This Apara Praṇava is nāda, or Śabda-Brahman.5 The Viṣṇu Purāṇa says6, one should know both Śabda-Brahman and Para-Brahman. In his book Śrī Śrī Puruṣottama, Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva quotes (and re-interprets) Gauḍapāda:

It is important to note here that Gauḍapāda presentation of Praṇava in his Kārikās on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad has also been referred to as Praṇavavāda. Hence, it is apt to call Oṁkāranātha Deva's interpretation as Abhinava Praṇavavāda. Gauḍapāda, through his reflections on the Praṇava – interprets the four syllables of Praṇava (A-U-M and Ardhamātrā) as the waking, dreaming and sleeping states and the Turīya Ātman. Through a careful examination of our experiences in these three states, he comes to the conclusion that the world created by our mind (in dream) and the work seen in the waking state are both imaginary.

There is a striking similarity that we see between the philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism and Abhinava Pranavavada. Kashmir Śaivism, Omkāra is the primal vibration (nāda) through which the Absolute (Paramaśiva) reveals itself as both stillness and dynamism. The Śiva Sūtras, revealed to sage Vasugupta, illuminate Om not as a mere sound but as the living throb of consciousness.

The opening aphorism, caitanyam ātmā (Śiva Sūtras I.1)8, declares that pure consciousness itself is the Self. Omkāra embodies this truth: its resonance does not arise from outside but from the very depth of awareness. Meditation on Om leads the yogin inward to recognize that the Self is none other than Śiva, unlimited and luminous.

The threefold articulation of Om (A-U-M) reflects the movement of spanda (vibration). As the Spanda Kārikās explain, this pulsation is the eternal rhythm of manifestation, sustenance, and reabsorption. The concluding silence after "M" is the ineffable turīya, the fourth state that transcends and pervades all others. Thus, Om becomes a map of reality: the cosmic cycle of creation (sṛṣṭi), maintenance (sthiti), dissolution (saṃhāra), and the transcendental repose of Śiva. The second section of the Śiva Sūtras emphasizes jñānaṁ bandhaḥ (II.1)9 — limitation arises from fragmented knowledge. Om counters this bondage by revealing unity in diversity. Though articulated as distinct sounds, Om is indivisible; it mirrors the universe where apparent multiplicity rests on the non-dual foundation of Śiva-consciousness.

Finally, the Śiva Sūtras highlight svātantrya (absolute freedom) as Śiva's essence. Omkāra is a means of pratyabhijñā (recognition): when the yogin listens deeply, Om resounds as the inner vibration of his own Self. Realization dawns that liberation is not attainment but recognition — the return to one's own divine sovereignty.

Thus, the vision of Omkāra in Kashmir Śaivism is both ontological and practical: Om is the eternal vibration of Śiva and the inner path by which the seeker awakens to his true, blissful essence. Kabīr (c. 15th century), traditionally regarded as a disciple of Rāmānandācārya (in whose tradition Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva), stands as one of the foremost poet-saints of North India. Kabir's mystical poetry frequently evokes the notion of the "Unstruck Music" — anāhata-nāda — the inner, eternal sound that resonates within the seeker's heart. In his radiant, devotional verse, this sound is not merely a metaphor but an experiential reality pointing toward the Divine Presence. One of the most evocative English renderings comes from Rabindranath Tagore's translation in Songs of Kabir (1915):

“Where the Unstruck Music is sounded; it is the music of the love of the three worlds.”

The self-effulgent Ātman, through its Māyā, sees itself as the Prameya, Pramātā, Pramāṇa, etc. This method of analysis is accepted by Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva. However, he differs from Gauḍapāda in its applicability for all. He rather prefers going through a very different route, which also culminates in the Praṇava. This shall be discussed in the penultimate section of this article.

We now look at a certain portion from the Praśna Upaniṣad, which clarifies the vision of Brahman and the path to attain the knowledge of Brahman, in the light of the philosophy of Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva.

The Question of Sukeśa and the Nature of the Puruṣa

Sukeśa, the son of Bharadvāja, approached the sage Pippalāda and asked11:

“O Bhagavan, Hiraṇyagarbha of Kośala, a prince, once came to me and asked, 'O Bharadvāja, do you know the Puruṣa of sixteen kalās (parts)?' I replied, 'I do not. Had I known, how could I not have spoken of it? One who speaks untruth withers away, root and all. Therefore, I dare not speak falsely.' He silently ascended his chariot and departed. Now I ask you — where is that Puruṣa?”

Sukeśa's question arises from a deeper inquiry into the nature of the Puruṣa - the immutable Self. It has already been shown that in sleep, all entities - causes, effects, and the knowing self - merge into the un-decaying Self. By extension, during pralaya (cosmic dissolution), the entire universe returns to that same Self, for an effect cannot dissolve into something that is not its cause. The prāṇa too is said to arise from the ātman. The Upaniṣads consistently affirm that liberation comes through knowledge of that supreme cause - the source of all. The earlier teaching, "He, the all-knowing, becomes all," confirms this truth.

Hence, Sukeśa seeks to know: Where is this un-decaying, supreme ātman, the Puruṣa? To him, the sage replied: "O noble youth, that Puruṣa - of whom the sixteen kalās arise - indeed resides here, within this very body."

This Puruṣa is not to be sought in distant realms, but within - in the ākāśa (inner space) of the lotus-heart. From Him emerge the sixteen kalās, such as prāṇa and others, which will be named later. Though the Puruṣa is truly without parts or attributes, ignorance creates the illusion that He possesses divisions. This false perception arises from the superimposition of the kalās upon the formless Self. The purpose of describing the kalās as originating from Him is to guide the seeker toward recognizing the unconditioned Puruṣa — by removing the mistaken notions born of ignorance. For the unconditioned cannot be directly described; thus, metaphors of origin, support, and dissolution are used. The kalās — though appearing to arise and vanish — are not apart from intelligence itself. Ignorant minds may claim that awareness is momentary, like ghee melting in fire. Others believe that when consciousness is stilled, all becomes void. Still others suggest that knowledge of external objects is a transient quality within the eternal Ātman, the true and unchanging Knower.

Further, that Puruṣa thought: 'What going out shall I go out? What staying shall I stay?' This phrase reflects a moment of profound introspective awareness that precedes all creation — when the self (Ātman or Puruṣa) contemplates the inner principle that, upon departing, causes the being to depart, and that, when remaining, allows the being to persist. Thinkers like Śaṅkara and Oṁkāranātha Deva interpret this not as mere poetic musing, but as a philosophical insight into the nature of conscious existence. It signals that creation is not accidental or mechanistic, but rooted in awareness.

Some philosophical frameworks attempt to explain creation through a separation of consciousness and causality — postulating that the conscious self is merely a passive witness, while something unconscious yet active gives rise to the world. These views often liken the self to a ruler credited with deeds carried out by ministers — present but inactive.

But such reasoning invites a dialectical tension. How can that which lacks awareness produce a world ordered for the experience of the aware? How can intelligence arise from that which is, by definition, inert? These questions point to a deeper issue: whether creation can meaningfully occur without the presence of awareness.

This question is resolved by affirming that the conscious self is indeed the ground of creation — not by acting in a physical or mechanical sense, but by being the luminous presence in which all manifestation occurs. The scriptural phrase "He saw" or "He thought" does not imply a literal act of will but indicates that awareness precedes and underlies all that appears.

In a display of a divine poetic vision, Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva describes this phenomenon in Nāmavatāra12:

Here, an objection might arise from the Dualist perspective: If the self creates, does that not imply change, agency, even bondage? But such critiques miss the layered nature of reality. They conflate the ultimate, unconditioned Self with its appearance in the realm of names and forms. The Self, in truth, does not act, enjoy, or suffer — but appears to do so when reflected through ignorance (avidyā). Just as a rope may appear as a snake in dim light, so too does the changeless Self seem to be a doer or experiencer when filtered through the lens of duality. These appearances are real within experience but not ultimately true. They are the play of māyā — powerful, yet ultimately dissolvable through insight.

Dialectically, systems that insist on dividing the world into multiple substances or causes end up circling within unresolved oppositions. They begin with difference and cannot arrive at unity. In contrast, the non-dual insight articulated by Śaṅkara and Oṁkāranātha Deva would suggest that difference itself is contingent — dependent on a fundamental unity that remains untouched. The only issue with the presentation of the Śaṅkarite school is its immanent rejection of any duality when discussing the absolute truth. It is only at the level of vyavahāra or transactional reality, that the duality and the value of other paths is accepted. As we would see later, Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva adopts a very different approach to harmonize the validity of other paths too.

Śaṅkara, in his commentary on his portion of the Praśnopanisad, says that the role of scripture (śāstra), then, is not to assert a metaphysical dualism, but to offer provisional teachings that guide the seeker from seeming plurality to realized oneness. Even if the world is ultimately non-dual, the śāstra has value as a remedy — like medicine administered in the realm of appearances, to dispel the appearance of disease. On the other hand, Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva, while accepting an Advaitic interpretation, does not reject the possible validity of any other path. Kinkar Bhūmānanda Deva, a prominent disciple of Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva, goes to the extent of saying that Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva is beyond any 'ism', in this sense.13

Thus, "He thought" does not mean a limited being fabricated the cosmos, but that the conscious principle, through its reflected presence in conditioned forms, gives rise to the experience of creation. Just as a dream arises from the dreamer, yet leaves the dreamer unchanged, so too does the world arise within the field of awareness — without altering its source.

The Upaniṣadic expression "He thought, 'What going out shall I go out? What staying shall I stay?'" marks a significant moment in the metaphysics of creation. This is not a literal act of deliberation by a finite agent but a figurative representation of the primordial consciousness (Ātman or Puruṣa) becoming reflexively aware. Both Śaṅkara and Oṁkāranātha Deva interpret this as the first stirrings of cit (pure consciousness), where the primordial being creates (or manifests) the cosmos through its own presence — without any necessity for mechanical causality or external agency.

In this framework, the act of creation is not distinct from the conscious principle itself. From this non-dual awareness emerges prāṇa — the vital principle, or Hiraṇyagarbha — which functions as the internal regulator and animating force of all sentient beings. Śaṅkara emphasizes that this creation proceeds not arbitrarily, but in a systematic and coherent order grounded in awareness.

Subsequently, from prāṇa arises śraddhā (faith), which serves as the animating conviction that underlies all meaningful action (karma). This progression is followed by the emergence of the five mahābhūtas (gross elements) — ākāśa (space), vāyu (air), agni (fire), āpaḥ (water), and pṛthivī (earth) — each possessing increasingly tangible attributes. These elements are not inert material entities but are subtle ontological categories that enable perceptual and experiential reality.

From these elements, the sensory and motor faculties (ten in total) arise, governed by manas (mind), which functions as an internal organ characterized by doubt, intention, and volition. To sustain embodied existence, annam (food) is produced, from which strength (bala) arises, serving as the basis for physical and mental activity.

However, strength without inward discipline risks deviation from the path of truth. Therefore, tapas (contemplative effort) follows, acting as a means for inner purification. Oṁkāranātha Deva too, focuses on the importance of tapas: which according to him are three-fold: kāyika, mānasika and vācika. A successful practice of all these would lead to the necessary preparation for the reception of mantras — Ṛk, Yajus, Sāma, Atharva, and Aṅgiras — revealed insights that guide ritual and ethical action (karma). The proper performance of such actions yields lokas (cosmic realms or experiential worlds), within which beings assume differentiated identities through nāma (name).

Nonetheless, this multiplicity is provisional. Śaṅkara draws a critical distinction between empirical experience and ultimate reality. Just as rivers flowing into the ocean lose their distinct names and forms and become one with the sea, so too do the sixteen kalās — from prāṇa to nāma — ultimately dissolve into the Puruṣa. This dissolution signifies the cessation of all attributes and modifications (upādhis), revealing the substratum of undivided being.

Importantly, this return is not a negation but a restoration: the apparent distinctions born of ignorance (avidyā) and sustained by action (karma) are seen for what they are — superimpositions upon the unchanging self. The one who realizes this, guided by scriptural instruction (śāstra) and teacher (guru), becomes akalaḥ (devoid of parts) and amṛtaḥ (immortal), no longer bound by the cycle of birth and death.

This model stands in contrast to frameworks that posit an unconscious, independent material principle as the source of creation, relegating consciousness to being a passive spectator. The philosophies of both Śaṅkara and Oṁkāranātha Deva contest such views on the ground that they fail to account for the inherent intelligibility and purposiveness of the cosmos. To attribute creation to an unconscious principle is to mistake the apparent for the real, much like mistaking a rope for a snake in dim light.

In the Advaitic paradigm, the conscious principle alone is real (satya), and all else — though experientially valid — is ultimately mithyā (dependent reality). The scriptures, then, do not enforce duality but serve as skillful means (upāya) to lead the seeker from apparent multiplicity to realized unity.

Thus, "He thought" is not an anthropomorphic act of will but a pointer to the truth that awareness itself, through its mere presence and reflection, manifests, sustains, and ultimately reabsorbs the entirety of the cosmos — remaining ever untouched and indivisible.

Śaṅkara beautifully explains this phenomenon in his hymn to Lord Dakṣiṇāmūrti:

The Path to Salvation

It is very important to point out here that while Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva agrees with Śaṅkara on the acceptance of Advaita, the path suggested by him differs in a certain sense. What he suggests is that one should take refuge in the holy name of the Lord, which is the Lord himself. He quotes the Kali Santarana Upaniṣad to highlight the importance of the holy name. We shall now look at the narrative that is present in this Upaniṣad16.

"At the close of the Dvāpara Yuga, the sage Nārada approached Brahmā, the cosmic progenitor, and inquired with concern: "O Lord, as I traverse the earth during the age of Kali, by what means shall I overcome its degenerative influences?" In response, Brahmā (Hiraṇyagarbha) commended the question and revealed a sacred teaching, long concealed within the innermost recesses of the Vedas. He declared: "Listen well. There is a supreme method, held in utmost secrecy by the Śrutis, through which one may transcend the afflictions of saṃsāra intensified in the age of Kali. The power to dissolve the deleterious effects of Kali lies in the nāma-sankīrtana, the repeated utterance of the divine name of Nārāyaṇa, the primordial Puruṣa, the eternal ground of all being."

Nārada, seeking further clarity, then asked, "What, precisely, is this name?" Brahmā replied by articulating the following sixteen-word formula, a mahāmantra:

These sixteen names, Brahmā explained, are not merely phonetic utterances but are imbued with transformative potency. They act as a purifying fire, dispelling the binding veil (āvaraṇa) that conceals the essential nature of the jīva. Just as the sun, once freed from cloud cover, radiates unobstructed light, so too does Parabrahman — the supreme reality — shine forth in its pristine, non-dual luminosity when the obscurations of Kali are removed through this practice.

Brahmā responded unequivocally: "There are no such constraints. Whether one is in a state of ritual purity or impurity, the constant repetition of these names bestows the same result. It leads the practitioner to the divine realm (loka), or to union with Brahman — whether as proximity (sālokya), resemblance (sārūpya), intimate nearness (sāmīpya), or complete absorption (sāyujya).17"

Brahman as the Goal of Oṁkāra

In the Kathopanisad, Yama Dharmarāja tells this to Naciketā18:

This mantra and many other similar mantras are interpreted by the Śaṅkarite schools as examples of ālambana or Pratika Upāsanā. That is, Oṁkāra is a symbol/indicator of Brahman and can be worshipped as a symbol. In his commentary on the Gitā, Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva rejects this view and says that the indicator and indicated are both the same.19

Further, all words are different manifestations of Oṁkāra itself. Therefore, taking refuge in the holy name (which is a special manifestation of Oṁkāra Brahman) would also lead to the knowledge of Brahman. The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad states20:

The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad states that Praṇava is the bow. Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva has expanded on this imagery in his essay, Dhanurbhaṃga.21 The Ātman itself is the bow, it becomes the arrow, and then merges with the target. This is because Praṇava itself is Ātman. This Praṇava also manifests itself in the form of Tāntrik seed-syllables (bīja) and the various names of God, along with Devotional poetry and chants. The one chant that is available to all and can be chanted always and in all places is the mantra from the Kali-Santarana Upaniṣad. Resorting to the name of the Lord automatically brings about the dawn of knowledge of Brahman. Thus, taking refuge in the name is not a separate spiritual practice in itself which is just required for purification of the mind-complex (citta-śuddhi) but a complete, self-sufficient spiritual practice.

Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva's presentation of Praṇavavāda also presents a harmonizing view of the entire gamut of Hindu philosophy.

This verse from Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is interpreted by Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva as: "The one whom the knowers of the truth know as non-dual Ātman (whose is of the nature of Cit, knowledge) is known by the jñānīs as Brahman, by the Yogīs as Paramātmā and the devotees as Bhagavān."23

According to his interpretation, through the practice of the saguṇa mantra (mantras pertaining to Saguṇa Brahman), the jñānī crosses the states of Vaikharī and Madhyamā Vāk, and attains Paramākāśa in the Paśyantī vāk. Finally, in the state of the Parā Vāk, he gets unified with the ideal of his Upāsanā, his iṣṭa. The Yogīs, through the practice of saguṇa mantra, also cross the states of vaikharī and Madhyamā and attain an experience of jyoti in the paśyantī state. Finally, in the parā state, they enter this jyoti. The devotee spends his life in revelling in the pastimes (līlā) of the Lord. After death the devotee then reaches the abode of the Lord and spends his time in the service of the Lord.24 He is very clear in mentioning that it is not possible for everyone to accept the same vision of the Puruṣottama, who resides in the infinitely many universes. And it was the need to cater to the variety of people, who would be very different in their conception of God, that different schools of Vedānta (Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, Dvaitādvaita, Acintya Bhedābheda, etc) were born. In a world mired in tensions pertaining to theological and philosophical differences, this uniting vision is the need of the hour. Accepting this vision would help bring harmony among the different spiritual traditions. It is also important to note here that he differs from Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja in defining who is the adhikārī for Brahma-jijñāsā, or the enquiry about Brahman. He says, that after successfully performing the practice of the saguṇa-mantra, the practitioner has a realization of the saguṇa Brahman, which leads to this query: "Who is this?" This is the phase from where the genuine brahma-jijñāsā begins.25

On seeing references to the four-fold vāks and the Kundalinī, it might appear to the reader that the ideas of Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva, who is known to belong to the Rāmānuja-Rāmānanda Śrī Vaiṣṇava tradition, deviate from the original ideas of Śrī Vaiṣṇavism. The focus seems to be more on Yoga than on Bhakti. This notion has been refuted aptly by Śrīmad Bhūmananda Deva.26 He says that all devotees such as Lord Śiva, Brahmā, Nārada, Vyāsa, and Śukadeva are all Yogīs. Which Bhakta is not a Yogī? Śabda-Brahman, the origin of the world, sustains the human body through its presence in Parā, Paśyantī, Madhyamā, Vaikharī, Mūlādhāra, Nābhi, Hṛdaya, and the tongue. That Śabda-Brahman is everything and being. When one resorts to the holy name of the Lord, the tongue and throat get purified and Śabda-Brahman manifests in the heart (Anāhata) centre. Then one gets to hear the astral sounds. One becomes a Yogī when the Anāhata Nāda (astral sound) manifests. Gradually, one becomes unified with the Lord. Śrī Ramanandācārya has mentioned the process of contemplation on the Devayāna path in his book Śrīvaiṣṇavamatabjābhāskara.

This itself is a Yogic process and hence, it would be an incorrect reading of the Oṁkāranātha literature, if one concludes that Yoga is a later addition to the Rāmānuja-Ramānandīya spiritual process by Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva. However, a distinction exists in the acceptance of Advaita and the acceptance of other deity forms. The spiritual path shown by him accepts all the five prominent Deities (Śiva, Viṣṇu, Devi, Gaṇeśa, Sūrya). In this sense, he is closer to Śaṅkara than Rāmānuja or Ramānanda. Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva has written multiple texts which discuss the spiritual practices related to Śiva, Durgā, Kālī, Gaṇeśa, Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, and other divine forms. However, the hallmark of his literature on these deities is the focus on the repeated chanting of their holy names. This is the primary spiritual practice that a sādhaka is expected to undertake.

It is important here to give the first-time reader a brief list of his Vedantic treatises. Sri Oṁkāranātha Deva wrote more than 150 books, of which many are works on Vedānta. He wrote elaborate commentaries on the Prasthāna-traya. A list of his books, which specifically discuss his vision of Vedānta in the light of Praṇavavāda is given below:27

Apart from this, detailed discussions on the conception of Praṇava and the practice of Nāma (the holy name of the Lord) can be found in works such as Śrī Śrī Nāmāmṛta Laharī, Mahārasāyana, etc. Interested readers are suggested to read/study Upanisad Bindu, which provides an overview of the Upanisadic ideas in the light of the Oṁkāranātha philosophy. The book makes copious references from the books of Sri Oṁkāranātha Dev and hence provides a gentle introduction to the Oṁkāranātha philosophy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the philosophy of Śrī Oṁkāranātha Deva stands as a synthesis of the ancient Vedic insight into the primacy of sound (Śabda) and the Advaitic vision of absolute unity. Through his doctrine of Praṇavādvaita, or Abhinava Praṇavavāda, Śrī Oṁkāranātha reinterprets the timeless symbol "Oṁ" not merely as a representational device but as the very pulse of existence — the self-revelation of Brahman as both sound and silence, becoming and being. In his metaphysical vision, creation is not a mechanical process but the spontaneous resonance of consciousness expressing itself as name and form through the graded unfoldment of speech (vāk). The fourfold manifestation of Oṁ — parā, paśyantī, madhyamā, and vaikharī — is thus the descent of the Infinite into the finite, without ever ceasing to be Infinite. By harmonizing insights from the Upaniṣads, the Śāradātilaka Tantra, Gauḍapāda's Kārikās, Śrī Oṁkāranātha bridges the gulf between philosophy and devotion, sound and silence, transcendence and immanence.

His vision affirms that liberation (mokṣa) is not an attainment but a recognition — an awakening to the ever-present reality of Puruṣottama Oṁkāra within the lotus of the heart. In this recognition, the seeker realizes that the sacred syllable Oṁ is not merely uttered — it resounds eternally as the very breath, being, and bliss of the Self.