Jump to content

Talk:Mantra/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Transferred discussion over intro para here for convenience. Mahaabaala 13:36, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

1st Attempt

mantra is a verse or "spell" which when spoken with the proper pronunciation, regardless of whether one understands the mantra's meaning, will have some kind of effect. Perhaps the best known mantra is "Om".

from Lir:talk

Hi Lir. I'm think your characterisation of mantra is incorrect. A mantra is neither a verse, nor a spell - although a mantra can have features in common with both. The thing about pronunciation is disputed in every country except India, and even there it is arguably Brahminical prejudice that maintains this view. The fact is that few people who have not grown up speaking one of the Aryan (ie Sanskrit based) languages can handle things like retroflex consonants, nor make the correct distinctions between n, .n, ~n, "n and .m. I would also point out that if you don't know the meaning of a mantra, or the correct context for it, indeed if you haven't had a formal initiation for it's use, then from the point of view Vajrayana Buddhism (ie Tibetan and Shingon), the mantra is *useless*. Linking it to western concepts of causality is also suspect, but I've haven't had a chance to read that page in detail - I think it unlikely to explain *why* mantra has an effect. On this basis I'd like to remove the sentence you added yesterday. Mahaabaala 08:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

from Mahaabaala

Re: mantra -- Rather than deleting it, its far better to edit it. I agree with your statements, but mine also have some validity. Note that I wrote "spell" (in quote marks), and perhaps "prayer" might be somewhat valid -- that is to say, while these are not spells, they may appear similar to the reader. Likewise, you are correct regarding issues of pronunciation and such; but, I am also correct that the pronunciation is seen as very important to some groups. I have edited the page to try and address the issues you noted. LirQ

2nd Attempt

A mantra is a religious verse, the reader might consider these to be "prayers" or "spell"s. According to Brahmin, the key to a successful utterance, of a mantra, is in one's pronunciation of Sanskrit. In some belief systems, pronunciation is more important than an actual understanding of the mantra -- in fact, some religious groups use mantras without any knowledge of the mantra's meaning (but, with arguably perfect pronunciation). Perhaps the best known mantra is "Om".

from Mahaabaala:talk

still not happy with this as an introduction to mantra - focused on specific issues on mantra (pronuciation) which would be better dealt with further down - ie in the section on Hindu mantra you might want to add something about pronounciation being important. I've already mentioned the effect of the movement out of India in my section on Mantra generally. Also it is not true that Mantra's are religious verses - they are often used for entirely mundane, not to say profane purposes such as getting wealthy, and killing ones enemies!

I'll have a go at something more general Mahaabaala 13:02, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

from Lir:talk

As I replied on my page there are still problems with your take on mantra. Some of the issues you raise are valid but are either dealt with in other sections of the page, or ought to be - pronunciation esp see my section on Mantras Generally for instance! I address the issue of "spells" in the very first paragraph after the introduction so I don't see the point in repeating it in the intro. "verses" is irrelevant imo - except in the very specific case of shravakayana Buddhists who used suttas, or sections of them, as "paritta" or protection - but again I've dealt with this in the appropriate section. If you're not happy with my edit, then lets go back to your last post and argue the case on the mantra:talk page until we come to a concensus about what it should be (rather than having an edit war). Cheers Mahaabaala 13:36, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

3rd Attempt

A mantra is a syllable or string of syllables, typically from the Sanskrit language. Mantras may or may not conform to grammatical rules, and are used in a ritual context which may include religious ceremonies, or be aimed at mundane goals such as accumulating wealth, avoding danger, or eliminating enemies. Mantras originated in India with Vedic Hinduism, but were adopted by Buddhists, and are popular in various modern forms of spiritual practice which are loosely based on Eastern religions.

4th Attempt

You have completed avoided the extremely deep usage of mantras by Hindus in India and Nepal today, which comprises the greatest usage of Mantras. They are used within prayers, as japa (repetitive mantra recitation) and the importance of mantras within all the Hindu shastras is entirely left out. It's made to seem like mantras are huge in Buddhism and merely a small aspect of Hinduism, whereas mantras, if anything, are most prominent in the Hindu faith. This article needs far more balance. ...


Om Mani Padme Hum

Re Om mani padma hu&#7747. The interpretation as 'jewel in the lotus' is now pretty much dsicredited, although it lives on in the popular imagination. You could refer to the relevant sections of Prisoners of Shangri la for instance for a full dsicussion of the linguistic arguments against jewel in the lotus.

Also the heading under Tibetan Buddhism made it seem that the mantras were Tibetan, but they were all inherited from India and are in fact based on the Snaskrit language. mahābāla 09:17, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct that "all the mantras were inherited from India". There are a number of mantras used in Tibet that originate locally. As well as Bön mantras the Tibetan Buddhists have created some themselves in response to various needs. This is particularly noticed in Tibetan medicine. Nor are all mantras Sanscrit. Some mantras originate from Oddiyana and are Prakrit. Some are onomatopoeic. Both Sanscrit and Prakrit mantras can be found in terma, the revealed teachings of the Tibetan tulkus. --Bodhirakshita 07:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That is correct. Many, even most, of the Tibetan Buddhist mantras are originally derived from Sanskrit, but certainly not all. I think there has been some evidence published by John Reynolds that the original language of Dzogchen may have been Farsi. Ekajati 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

IAST Transliteration for mantras

Changed Gayatri mantra into IAST transliteration. Also other mantras should follow this format so that they could be pronounced as presicely as possible. --213.243.180.43 13:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I changed also other mantras to follow same scheme and added few translations. If you find mistakes, please corrrect! 

--Arjuna 10:10, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Vedic conception of sound

I addded the Vedic conception of sound article. there was a problem in the formatting. can somebody fix it?

Pali word for Mantra?

I think it is manta in Pali, but can anyone confirm this for me? --Dara 21:10, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, tho' I don't know whether it's ever used to refer to anything other than ancient Hindu ones. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to video game?

There's a single line mentioning a video game called Mantra in this article. It should probably be moved to its own page, or possibly at the bottom of this one. 148.78.243.50 05:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

Quite confusingly, there are two different etymologies in the article: manas + -tra "mind tool" and manas + trana "mind protection". Someone should explain the relation between those. Is one of the etymologies dubious or obsolete, or are they competing points of view on the matter?

They're probably exegetical pseudo-etymologies. I think the correct 1 is man-tra, think tool. Peter jackson (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not break the article into two

Since the article is pretty long, it may be advisable to break it into two major articles one on Mantra in Hinduism and the other on Mantra in Buddhism. Of course there will still be some introductory matter and also some residual matter. For that, there should be a generic article called Mantras -- from which the other two articles emerge as internal links. I can separate the Hinduism part. But the other two (namely Buddhism and the general one on Mantra), -- Would some one be willing to do this? --Profvk 00:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

mantras in devanagiri

I feel that the original text of the mantras and vedas must be displayed in devanagiri script in addition to the english alphabet.

Surely,the english script enables all to read the original mantra, but for those of us who can read devanagiri, nothing comes close to the experience of reading the mantras in devanagiri.

Actually it is vary difficult to read correctly the mantras when written in english.

So I hope someone could reproduce the mantras in devanagiri.

I added the devanagarii. I am sanskrit student, hope the spelling is correct. What is the original source of Sarveshaam svasti bhavatu -mantra? Does it come from Rig Veda or from some Upanishad? This far I have not been able to locate the source. Any help would be appreciated =) --67.188.228.20 01:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed the {{cleanup-date|November 2005}} notice as there is no discussion of what needs to be cleaned up or how on this talk page. Hyacinth 11:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

illness

Copyrighted text

I removed a large section of copyrighted text. It was taken from this website. It is not a Wikipedia mirror. It was originally published on another website, but that page is apparently no longer online. The content was added by 203.212.215.98 on 5/26/05. -- Kjkolb 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also see [1]. A huge amount of identical text. Who copied who? └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology and translation

I was instructed that mantra comes from the "manas" (mind) and "trayate" (to protect, to deliver from anxiety). Just the same as in "kshatriya" = "kshat" (to hurt) and "trayate" (to protect). This explanation has a practical value for adepts, since it is close to "An Idle Mind is a Devil's Workshop" saying and gives a better idea on how to use some mantras.

Shanti mantras - maybe there is a better translation? "Om sahanaavavatu" - literally it does not mean "May we be protected together" beacuse "saha" means "He" (God). Here the author of the mantra does not impose his own concept of God, but leaves to our inner feeling to decide who is "He". "May He protect us both", maybe? --195.252.126.73 00:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted a link to the site "indiadivine.org."

The site knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text belonging to the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in the section "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How about adding a link in Hindu Mantra pointing to http://www.astrouniverse.com/slokas.php

This page provides Mantras ( slokas ) for all the Navagrahas ( Nine Planets ) which is believed to govern a mans life.It also includes a short story about Rahu & Ketu.

Avenash

I have no objection if an established, neutral, editor wants to add the site. But since you have a financial interest in it, and have been adding it to many articles in apparent attempt to promote it, I have removed it. Wmahan. 17:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The significance of the Symbol Aum

Please be advised. A debate about the validity of Aum as a visual symbol is taking place here, and today User:deeptrivia added a disclaimer and plastered cite tags [2] and then only 20 minutes later deleted outright the entire section of this page describing the visual purpose of the strokes and curves of the Aum symbol. I hope he didn't blank that copy just to avoid another user making use of it in that discussion... that would be an egregious violation of WP:POINT. I've reverted it, and provided a citation, but deep has restored the fact tags nonetheless.

Thankfully, the sections he's tagged describing the meaning of each curve, etc. in the symbol should be easily verified once I'm back up on campus in the coming days. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. It would be great if you can find a scholarly source (which doesn't include employees of companies that sell Aum motifs) to support this hilarious hypothesis. deeptrivia (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, the meaning of the shapes of the Aum symbol should be easily verified (or disproven). I'm willing to do the work to do so, objectively... because instead of winning an argument, one's goal on WP should be to be most informative and most encyclopedic to our worldwide users. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding multiple fact tag is a WP:POINT violation, deeptrivia. These correlations are known. I've read them elsewhere. Nitin has provided references on his article, have you checked them and determined that the information is not there? If not, you are clearly in the wrong here. Please desist before it becomes necessary to look into getting you blocked. A Ramachandran 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I was going to begin my research with those sources (most are available in my University's stacks, and the semester begins in two weeks). To satisfy any lasting concerns about the veracity of the assertions, I'm happy to do so, and I sincerely hope deeptrivia does not earn himself a block. Thanks, A Ramachandran. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Take it easy. I am not going to touch this article by myself anymore in near future. deeptrivia (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a shame. If you have verifiable information that's relevant, or other edits to make backed by sources that meet WP:V, I hope for WP's sake you'll continue to edit this article and anywhere else you're inclined to participate. In any case, it's getting late. Goodnight! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Deeptrivia asked my opinion on this matter, knowing that I'm a Buddhist. I'm a Zen Buddhist, actually, and we don't recite the Om Mani Padme Hum, but I'm certainly familiar with it. I have to agree with Deeptrivia that there's every evidence that it's the sound that's important, not the shape of the script used to write it. Om/Aum can be written in many scripts. Here's an example I just found: [3]. Notice that the Tibetans use one of two scripts to write the mantra, and one of those is an antique Indian script. Would Aum not be Aum if it were written in Nastaliq? Or Roman letters? The explanation now in the article, based on the shapes of the letters, reads very much like a personal and idiosyncratic view. I've never read anything else suggesting that certain abstract shapes have deep spiritual meanings. Nitin's article may have a long list of references, but it's not at all clear that he got his theory from any of those references. We'd need a quote to prove it, and some indication that this is a notable view, not just Nitin's assertion.

Besides, Exotic India sold me a salwar kameez outfit that was advertised as cotton, but was a synthetic, and extremely badly sewn to boot :) How can we trust anyone associated with such a sleazy enterprise? Zora 08:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that the original representation of the symbol is the Devanagari Sanskrit version, all the rest are transliterations - therefore we could include "the original devnagari version is comprised of three curves, etc etc..." Sfacets 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Devanagari script came into existence around 1200 AD. This semicircles theory could be notable only if held by a majority or a significant minority of people. Is it supported by even a single notable person? deeptrivia (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
WP doesn't seem to have a good overview article on Indic scripts, but the Ranjana the Tibetans use is a descendant of Sharada, which WP says is the eastern variant of the Gupta script. Gupta script also gave rise to Nagari, used in north-western India, which gave rise to Devanagari.
Since the Mandukya Upanishad, which discourses on AUM, was probably written between 800-400 BCE (and closer to the 400 BCE figure), it considerably predates Devanagari script. In fact, it might well pre-date the use of Brahmi script, the ancestor of Gupta, Sharada, Nagari, etc. The syllable, as sound, was considered sacred before writing was common, and 1600 years before Devanagari was developed. How then could the shapes of the Devanagari letters have anything to do with the sacredness of the syllable? Finding holiness in the shapes of the letters reminds me of the people who see the Virgin Mary in tortillas and mildew stains. Human beings are pattern and significance seeking animals, and we find significance in the strangest things. Zora 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What Deeptrivia says is correct. It is the sound which is important. Devanagari is not that old that Upanishads could have mentioned the curves of 'OM' in it. Furthermore, 'OM' can be and is written in different languages. I tried to get to the original article by Nitin, it is not available. If Mr. A. Ramachandran is so concerned about the explanation, he should give a better source, otherwise the explanation should be removed. He would not give any other source and keep threatening other editors with blockage. What is this Wikipedia or terrorism? Aupmanyav 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Take it easy. Throwing words like that around instantly makes your position look overly emotional. Don't accuse others of terrorism because you disagree with a citation. I was able to find the article, and the references to numerous published sources, and as a result of the doubt expressed here by deeptrivia (without any citations to support that doubt) I am researching the issue when school begins in the next two weeks. Either contribute verifiable information, or leave it alone - but don't you dare accuse others of 'terrorism'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan on the point that it is fruitless offering our opinion on whether the symbolism is "true" or not; anyway wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. That said the analysis about the significance of the claim is currently not referencing a reliable source but rather a commercial website of unknown credibility, which based on anecdotal evidence confuses cotton with synthetics! Is nothing sacred anymore? ! :-) .
On the positive side the Nitin Kumar article, does contain some references and thus provides a positive avenue for settling this debate. Ryan has magnanimously offered to check on those references and verify the theory - so why not give her a chance ? As a compromise I suggest that we wait till, say the end of the month, to get some support for the theory - in absence of which we can delete the analysis. AFAIK the information has been on this page for some time, so even if it is incorrect, another few weeks won't hurt - also by that time the Swastika debate on the Hinduism project page would have been settled (this is a leap of faith) and removal of this information won't be judged to be in bad faith. In the meantime the {{Fact}} tag that I added (and which is factualy justified) will inform a casual reader to take the claim with a pinch of salt.
An aside: Even if the analysis is verified I think it belongs to the Aum page, rather than the (oral) mantra page. In the meantime, I request editors not to add or remove this claim from other pages, till it is either verified or the attempt has failed.
Finally, eagle eyes will note that I have changed the linked URL from [4] to [5], since the former acknowledged the source to be "Nitin Kumar of Exotic India." So we should cite the original source and share our knowledge of the provenance with the reader. Abecedare 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare. I am willing to wait for a year as long as a tag stays there to show the problematic nature of this assertion. Besides, a language like this:

"A similar analysis, called the Omkara yantra, splits the symbol into five parts and assigns each part a corresponding devata, seed syllable, element, sense and form of prana.[2]"

is perfectly acceptable to me, because it shows that the analysis comes from an Omkara yantra from the fringe tantra text Sayantra Sunya-Samhita and has little to do with mainstream views. It is not clear whether the semicircle theory comes from even a fringe text like this, or is completely a less than 10 year old product of an author's creativity. Also, this material belongs to yantra. I have indeed seen modern tantriks (most of whom are unemployed youths hardly educated on tantra) make yantras with the Aum symbol on it. deeptrivia (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't take a year :) :) Thanks deep. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole "remarks" section as unencyclopedic. A balanced discussion of the Aum symbol belongs on Aum, not here. If some author has some opinion on the shape, he may be quoted, putting into perspective the notability of the opinion. Unless a point is generally accepted (say, it is mentioned in every introduction to the topic as a basic fact), it should under no circumstances be presented as fact on Wikipedia. Quoting random flowery tidbits from random authors doesn't make for an encyclopedia article. Some of the points might be re-inserted into the flow of the "in Hinduism" section in solit neutral prose, but we have to fight the tendency of passer-by editors to just clutter an article on a major topic with random remarks, observations and quotes. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars?

Reference to the video game "guild wars" should probably be excluded or moved.

Written Word

"For many cultures it is the written letters that have power -- the Hebrew Kabbalah for instance, or the Anglo-Saxon Runes. Letters can have an oracular function even. But in India special conditions applied that meant that writing was very definitely inferior to the spoken word."


This bit of the article (from the Introduction section, second paragraph) should mention what those special conditions are. As far as I know (I'm a Religious Studies student, but not all that familiar with Hinduism) there IS in fact a preference for the spoken word over the written word in Orthodox Hinduism, but I'm not aware of the source of that preference needed to write a proper entry. Will a society with a preference for speaking over writing even HAVE a written source for that preference one could cite? Yipely 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

merger: Sandhyavandhanam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was not to merge, stub has been expanded.

A while ago, I proposed to merge Sandhyavandhanam into here, since that article is extremely short, and its notability is not established. However, since I am not a subject-matter expert, I hope to get opinions from editors of the Mantra article before actually merging: Should the article be merged and, if so, into which section? Please add your comments below. --B. Wolterding 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that other than the name, there is nothing else there to merge? Gouranga(UK) 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, there would be only one sentence to merge. I just don't know where it would be placed best. --B. Wolterding 15:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I do not think that a merger is the best approach, as Sandhyavandhanam is just a generic term for a particular prayer practice performed at the junctures of the day. It is true that mantras are performed at that time (not just the Gayatri, which is what the article says). The article is not very accurate in describing the practice. For Christian monks the idea is perhaps similar to Liturgy of the Hours which involves specific prayers at certain times of the day. The article could be expanded to become a potentially interesting piece on devotional practices. For definition of the term see: Apte, p. 957. If the decision is to keep the article, I would be willing to look for a few references to expand it. I also noticed that the title of the article is not spelled correctly. I will put the correct spelling into the article. I found that there is another article with the correct spelling: Sandhyavandanam. So now I think that those two versions of the article should be merged (including the new citations I have added) and that they should not be merged with Mantra. The article Sandhyavandanam had no WP:RS at all, just some web links, so I replaced it with the sourced version that I just wrote. Please take a look there and advise if we can redirect Sandhyavandhanam to Sandhyavandanam and remove the various merge tags that have been put in place. Buddhipriya 23:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree; with the improved version, we should place the redirect and remove the merger tags, as you propose. Thank you for your work! --B. Wolterding 09:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I took care of it. Please verify that the changes were made correctly. Buddhipriya 18:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References = works cited in notes

I have removed the Bucknell book from the References section because it is not cited in any footnote. According to WP:LAYOUT, References is a list of works actually cited via notes (inline references). This work is not cited, hence does not belong here. When it is actually used in an inline reference, with a page number that can be verified, it should be re-added to the References at that time. Buddhipriya 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't u just translate the information into a footote citation instead of wholeheartedly deleting and negating it? Wherein within that methodology is collaboration and inclusion in evidence?
*hugz*
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Twilight language: godsmacked

Twilight language (and the Sanskrit term from which it is rendered) is a valuable categorisation term that fords dialogue between mutually informing technologies and processes. I am godsmacked how you can dismiss it out of turn.
[1]
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But what's it got to do with this article. The quote is vague and has not infomation specific to mantra. It a non sequitur in the lead section of this article. Why not spend your time writing a proper article on twilight language, which is quite obviously missing and the disambig you created does nothing to remedy it. IPSOS (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Instead of deleting elements because they does not conform to your concept map re-position them appropriately within the article and your Image schema in the spirit of inclusion. Is it not more valuable included than excluded? Non sequitur: is a circle a line?
*Candidly*
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comment makes no sense. It's simply bad writing to put it there. It's meandering away from the artual topic and doesn't even have the courtesy to even try to return to it. This article isn't about any hypothetical or implied differences between Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. IPSOS (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
the quote is from a reputable published source, it is cited appropriately, it is about mantra... the two of you do not constitute consensus for Wikipedia.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not about mantra, it simply mentions the word. And unless you get support from another editor, two against one is a consensus. IPSOS (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the ongoing insertion of this quotation is irrelevant to this article. Note the personal attack on me in the edit summary for this insertion: [6]. This is a form of content spamming and edit warring taking place on multiple articles. Do others feel that the ongoing refusal to particpate in a consensus process and the continued personal atttacks are a problem? Note that two other editors in addition to myself agree that the material is inappropriate: [7] [8]. So far three editors have been trying to deal with this persistent insertion by a single editor who refuses to recognize consensus and who engages in personal attacks. Buddhipriya 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mantra" in Korean

What is the translation of the Sanskrit "Mantra" in Korean language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.11.41 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

References

This article is seriously lacking in references. If the original creator(s) are still contributing, it would be a good idea to start adding a few footnotes. Articles can be nominated for deletion over issues like this.Sardaka (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pali Canon

I've deleted this material, & replaced part of it. I suspect someone is confusing

  • Udana, abook of the Pali Canon
  • Uddana, verse summaries of contents

Peter jackson (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Prayer is NOT MANTRA

Jesus prayer is not and cannot be comapaired with mantra, because : 1: it's a blasphemy; 2: neither the Holy Fathers talks about mantra as a form of praying nor mention about it; 3: Jesus prayer can be said in any langauage that exists, but mantra it's only in sanskrit; 4: there are difference berween the saying of mantra and saying of Jesus prayer, it's not the same thing; 5: The Eastern Orthodox Church: does not accept this comparasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.197.15 (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it really productive to add endless quantities of mantras?

I find it a bit silly to see that this page is turning into an arbitrary collection of mantras, rather then an article ON mantra, as it is supposed to be in an encyclopedia. I would suggest to delete ALL the mantras in this article - and if people think it is of any use to make an endless list of mantras, possibly moving the mantras to a separate page of themselves, something like Mantras (examples) or so.rudy (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is probably worth leaving one famous mantra as an example (perhaps Gayatri Mantra or Hare Krishna). I think that it might be worth having a List of mantras page and a separate page for each. These pages should include at least a transaltion, who'd use them and when, etc. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Weasels

The "weasel" tag isn't much help if it doesn't tell us exactly where the offending words etc are. How are we supposed to do anything about it?

The above suggeston by Rudyh01 is interesting; perhaps a separate article on examples of mantras? What do we think?

Sardaka (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

changes

I've simplified the lede somewhat. It wasn't quite accurate and none of it was sourced. Because it wasn't sourced its impossible to verify everything. I am making it a little more general because it is the lede and by being more general it becomes more inclusive and so more accurate.I also include a ref.(olive (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Prayer

Is a mantra same as a prayer? If yes, we should merge them to an article.Jack2153 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's similar but not the same.TheRingess (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

what is mantra

I read this to day. i saw there is a confusion regarding , is mantras were words or sounds? . Please remember that all mantras were sounds ONLY. But in order to write books we developed language (so called script). Ex Aum is sound, a mantra. but not a word (a prayer composed of words). we can write this sound in appropriate alphabets or you can symbalize it. (see, devanaagari alphabet writing has become a symbol of aum)

than what is the difference between the mantras and prayers ?

In patanjali yoga sutras ,

1.27. God's voice is Om. 1.28. The repetition of Om should be made with an understanding of its meaning. 1.29. From that is gained introspection and also the disappearance of obstacles. 1.30. Disease, inertia, doubt, lack of enthusiasm, laziness, sensuality, mind-wandering, missing the point, instability- these distractions of the mind are the obstacles.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm

so a manta is a group of the sounds, which repetition (japa) will give the meaning (affect) of the sound. Here if a person do japa of OM, than he will understand the inner meaning of that and he will released from obstacles (because all obstacles were, actually present inside of the person, not coming from outside)a prayer composed of words, which repetition (japa) will not give any affect, except one can understand and fell the meaning. Bulususastry (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)).

Very nice explanation Bulus - many thanks. I know in the technique of Transcendental Meditation, introduced my Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the mantra is used for its "sound" value only. Bigweeboy talk) 12:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material in lede

Unfortunately this article has been a ground for a lot of unsourced material. Until much of that materiel now in the article is sourced I would strongly suggest that any new material either be well sourced or removed for the time being. As well the lede of a Wikipedia article - WP:lede - should be a summary of the article rather than a place for detailed explanation. Thanks.(olive (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

I've come to this page on 26 June 2009 and see that there have been very little attention put on the sourcing. Is anyone looking at this? Bigweeboy talk) 21:13, 26 June2009 (UTC)

The editors at the articles on Mahayana practice might need to know there is a need for citations. Not sure how to provide a link to this request here, though. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note at the Talk:Mahayana talk page.(olive (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

If you're looking for some citations, try User:Peter jackson#Mantras. Peter jackson (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Phonetics needed

It would be very helpful if somebody who knows the phonetic alphabet would put a phonetic spelling of this word for the benefit of those who can't read the devanagari at the top. Wikipedia could help fight the widespread mispronunciation of this word as "mahn-tra"--which is particularly odd in an article that proclaims the importance of precise pronunciation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrahaim (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Objection to first sentence

This article begins: "In the Indian religions, a mantra is a sound, syllable, word, or group of words that are considered capable of "creating transformation" (cf. spiritual transformation)." While the word "mantra" comes from Indian religions, the concept and practice of mantras is not unique to Indian religions. This is not a neutral statement.
--Trelawnie (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mantra&diff=next&oldid=311622727 no original research, please

Austerlitz -- 88.75.218.56 (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research for the wikipedia policy. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jana

Kama kodooran from Iyappan Thangal, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javajana2007 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jana-Chennai

Kama kodooran from Iyappan Thangal, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javajana2007 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Om mani padme "hung"?

The link in this section resolves to "Om mani padme hum". Should instances of "hung" be changed to "hum"? --Captain Infinity (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All the standard forms of Sanskrit transliteration give hūṃ for this. And most authorities now agree that maṇipadme is one word. mahaabaala (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-English references

I am not sure of the Wiki policies on the use of non-English references on the English version of Wiki, but there are several sources used here that are not in English. In this case, it is hard for an English speaking editor to verify the validity of the references when the source text cannot be understood. What do other editors think about the use of non-English sources? --BwB (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSUE says:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Which sources are you referring to?(olive (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Here are a few:
28. http://epaper.buddhayana.info/?p=170
29. http://hforum.pchome.com.tw/viewtopic.php?uid=moskito&pid=0074146
34. http://www.fxzhwm.com/shijian/tongshanshe.htm
36. http://www.cass.net.cn/zhuanti/y_haixia/hx_01/hx_01_16_03.htm

There may be more. --BwB (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Without having checked whether this is addressed in Wikipedia guidelines and essays, my initial reaction is to think that in principle it should be OK. If there are a manageable number of non-English references, perhaps one could request assistance for spot-checking their basic coherence at the Wikipedia helpdesk (WP:DESK). Note that the helpdesk has a section for language questions (there are also online translation programs for many languages, though perhaps not always reliable for precision verification). Remember that Wikipedia also allows references to sources that are in libraries but are not online. They too are less convenient to check, but allowing them means that WP can be grounded in a substantially larger base of information. Similarly, allowing non-English references allows the English WP to ground itself in a larger info base. Note also that "excluding references in other languages" is not a principle that would usefully generalize to Wikipedias in other languages, and attempts to impose it in the English might be viewed as selfish. Instead, I'm inclined to be grateful that I as an English speaker am able to directly access so much of the world's information. Finally, although I'm inclined to strongly support non-English reference acceptability in principle, there might sometimes be needs to qualify in practice. If a page became overwhelmed with many many nonEnglish references, or if claims seemed implausible and attempts to verify through helpdesk or in other ways were not successful, that would seem grounds for raising questions on the talk page, and if the situation could not be resolved, then perhaps eliminating the problematic references. Health Researcher (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, its addressed. Please see my post above.(olive (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
Yes, thanks -- I "saved" before seeing that you had in the meantime posted your good work in digging up the relevant guideline/policy. Health Researcher (talk)

List of Mantras

While reading on the subject, I tried to find a collection of Mantras. I found out the following page

http://www.inthelight.co.nz/spirit/mantras.htm

which I consider is much suitable for the article, as it include various mantras from many traditions. However, due to the {{No more links}}, I do not want to add the link without consulting first. – Fuzzy – 17:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be considered a self-published web site or a blog and therefore not a very good reference. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider this a reliable source and do not believe it to be a good reference either. warrior4321 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a collection, and from what I checked (Buddhism and Judaism) it looks quite reliable. As to the RS issue, comparing with the current sources, it is more professional. However, an expert opinion is advised. – Fuzzy – 14:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
List of Buddhist mantras. mahaabaala (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation guide

I was just reading various ones of these and I couldn't find the pronunciation guide to the historical Buddha's mantra. Why not just put in a pronunciation guide or a link and a section on pronunciation.--tumaru 18:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumaru (talk • contribs)

Probably because the historical Buddha doesn't have a mantra - he was against the use of mantras as is evidenced in many Pāli texts. You may be thinking of the Śākyamuṇi mantra? Śākyamuni is a retrospective name for the nirmāṇakāya Buddha, but it would be a mistake to equate historical with nirmāṇakāya. Wikipedia's way of dividing up the world means that pronouncing Sanskrit occurs only on the [Sanskrit] page; or on the [Śākyamuṇi] page. mahaabaala (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"While Hindu tantra eventually came to see the letters as well as the sounds as representatives of the divine, the shift toward writing occurred when Buddhism traveled to China. Although China lacked a unifying, ecclesiastic language like Sanskrit, China achieved its cultural unity through a written language with characters that were flexible in pronunciation but more precise in meaning. The Chinese prized written language much more highly than did the Indian Buddhist missionaries, and the writing of mantras became a spiritual practice in its own right. So that whereas Brahmins had been very strict on correct pronunciation, the Chinese, and indeed other Far-Eastern Buddhists were less concerned with this than correctly writing something down. The practice of writing mantras, and copying texts as a spiritual practice, became very refined in Japan, and the writing in the Siddham script in which the Sanskrit of many Buddhist Sutras were written is only really seen in Japan nowadays. However, written mantra-repetition in Hindu practices, with Sanskrit in any number of scripts, is well-known to many sects in India as well."

Sounds like speculative bullshit to me. Indians are practically obsessed with the forms of letters, and seems to have been from the first. Eg. "Evam" in the Buddhist formula "Evam maya srutam" was written in a pre-Devanagaric Brahmi script as two triangles, one with a corner facing up, one down, symbolizing the union of the male and female, (Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19919454/the-concealed-essence-of-the-hevajra-tantra-farrow-menon ) etc etc etc... By the time Devanagari evolved, the shapes had become very holy indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.247.188 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

opening

"While Hindu tantra eventually came to see the letters as well as the sounds as representatives of the divine, the shift toward writing occurred when Buddhism traveled to China. Although China lacked a unifying, ecclesiastic language like Sanskrit, China achieved its cultural unity through a written language with characters that were flexible in pronunciation but more precise in meaning. The Chinese prized written language much more highly than did the Indian Buddhist missionaries, and the writing of mantras became a spiritual practice in its own right. So that whereas Brahmins had been very strict on correct pronunciation, the Chinese, and indeed other Far-Eastern Buddhists were less concerned with this than correctly writing something down. The practice of writing mantras, and copying texts as a spiritual practice, became very refined in Japan, and the writing in the Siddham script in which the Sanskrit of many Buddhist Sutras were written is only really seen in Japan nowadays. However, written mantra-repetition in Hindu practices, with Sanskrit in any number of scripts, is well-known to many sects in India as well."

Sounds like speculative bullshit to me. Indians are practically obsessed with the forms of letters, and seems to have been from the first. Eg. "Evam" in the Buddhist formula "Evam maya srutam" was written in a pre-Devanagaric Brahmi script as two triangles, one with a corner facing up, one down, symbolizing the union of the male and female, (or so it was interpreted by Vajrayana mystics; source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19919454/the-concealed-essence-of-the-hevajra-tantra-farrow-menon ) etc etc etc... By the time Devanagari evolved, the shapes had become very holy indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.247.188 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

sprituality

it helps lead a peaceful life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.131.49 (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

need for clearer writing and more accurate info

This article seems pretty scattered and inconsistent. It is also not totally accurate. For example, many Mahayana schools of Buddhism use mantra without the requirement that there be any kind of initiation, including Zen schools. These include mantras associated with specific bodhisattvas, such as Avalokiteshvara and Jizo, and mantras which are associated with nirvana and emptiness such as the one that closes the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra. Did I miss it or does this article not even mention Amita Buddha and the whole Pure Land school who makes a big deal out of their mantra? Also Nichiren Buddhism. This makes clear the claim that Sikhs are unique in teaching mantra to people without initiation is false. In addition, I'd like to see a comparison between mantra and gatha in Buddhism, and between mantra and other forms of repetition such as the Jesus prayer or Sufi Zikr. It would also be good to note the popular english usage of the term mantra to refer to often repeated slogans. Hope to do more than complain at some point, but thought these comments might be a small contribution I could do now. Thanks hard working and curious peoples! 2602:306:3BA3:5750:280F:1F00:B24F:2842 (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

move note to body text

Towards the end of the Hinduism section there is a simple sentence that declares that there are other important Hindu mantras. This line has a citation that links to a paragraph-long footnote that contains so much useful info that I think it should be moved up to the body text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.212.83 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Before adding a new line to the spam-prone External Links section, I submit this resource to my fellow editors judgment: Matheson mantra collection. It seems to me to be a rather sober and sparing selection, no publicity and of interest, I'd think, to readers of this Wikipedia article. I'll wait to hear some comments, say a few weeks from now. Desde la Torre (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Feels commercial. Fails WP:ELNO. Yumiko86 (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yumiko-san, but could you be more specific? The site is obviously not commercial, the page referred to has nothing commercial about it. I would rather think it falls neatly under WP:ELYES par. 3! What is there specifically in WP:ELNO that this link would fail? You will perhaps agree that a reference to some general audio recordings of mantras is needed, right? Desde la Torre (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mantra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mantra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ *blinks in wonder*
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mantra/Archive_1&oldid=1136987727"