My dear brother sarang,
You are over reacting. People normally sign off with the full thiruvashtaksharam, "Om Namo Narayanaya", or, if persuaded by the edicts, leave out pranavam and the 4th case, and sign off "Namo Narayana". I noticed the poster left out the ending 4th case but kept Om, I just wanted to know whether this was just accidental or deliberate. You are taking this to a different level.
In Sririangam, Om namo narayanaya is broadcast from gopuram mounted speakers every morning. The koil jeer has not gone on a hunger strike to stop this. Majority of srivaishnavites including ladies chant this. Om has become a universal mantra for all including mlechas as part of their yoga and meditation practice. So is the practice of chanting mantras in tirupati and shiva temples
Yes, not just thiruvashtaksharam, but dwayam and charama shlokam as well. I have seen thiruvashtaksharam in neon light in many temples. If early acharyas see all this they will be mortified. The present day Jeeyars do not have any say in matters such as these.
But all this is besides the point, I just wanted to know whether there was any significance behind leaving out the ending but keeping the pravaam at the end.
Why do you see this as a barb, is it because you somehow feel what I am saying is a put down? If you see my query as a put down that is your own view, I reject any responsibility.
Ramanujar has demystified the mantra 'om namo narayanaya' and quashed the secrecy and revealed it to all.
Dear sarang, this shows you are not familiar with the written history of Ramanuja's life. What Ramanuja actually did, we do not know, except through the written accounts that are hagiographical in nature. Even these hagiographical accounts do not say anything close to what you are claiming.
There are only two widely accepted text that narrate this event, they are 6000p padi (the earliest one) and 3000p padi (only the Vadakalais accept this version) Guru Parampara Prabhavam. Between the two 6000p padi is an earlier text and it gives more liberal account. The Vadakali version is generally more conservative. Even in the more liberal account narrated in the earlier text, there is nothing to hang the above claim.
According to 6000p padi, Ramanuja did not go to the top of the temple Gopuram at all, he did not do upadesham to anybody at all, he only went to an SV gathering, and Ramanuja did not do mantra upadesham to anybody, he only revealed the mantra-artham. For SVs, and perhaps other Brahmnical relgions as well, the secret is in the mantra sabdam, not in its artham. In other words, it is the mantra sabdam that is to be kept secret and must not be chanted aloud. Even today, those who believe in these mantras swear by this rule.
Further, for any effect to be derived one must first be initiated into the mantra and then only one is qualified to chant it. Chanting without the upadesham will have no effect.
In the largest of the Vadakalais matams, when initiating anyone who is not a Brahmin male, the mantra is initiated as "அம் நமோ நாராயணா" not in the full form, this is a fact, you may check with Sri Ahoibila Matam if you like.
The original story of Ramanuja ignoring his acharya's edict is quite inspiring as it is, but people over the years have added a lot of ornamental trinkets, like the rakshahas of Lanka tying up Hanuman with ropes over and above the Brahmmastram.
All said and done, please point out what part of what I said is factually wrong. I give below what I wrote:
"This is a strange sign off. SVs make a big deal of the notion Thiruvakshtakram -- Om Namo Narayanaya -- is a secret mantra, only Brahmin males are permitted to even utter it, that too without manifesting it with audible sound so as to protect it from being heard by those who are disallowed to hear it. All others, i.e. other than Brahmin males, are supposed to drop the pranavam (Om) at the beginning and the fourth case (aaya) at the end when writing it or saying it aloud in a way it may be heard by others. That is, if one must write the mantra, it must be written as Namo Narayana, dropping the pranavam and the fourth case. I notice you have dropped the fourth case at the end, but you have written out the prnavam, a big no no."
Please point out any factual error from above, cite my own words, not your interpretation of it.
Cheers!