Talk:Nīlakaṇṭha Dhāraṇī

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Brahmā (Buddhism)#Mahābrahmā|Mahābrahmā]] The anchor (#Mahābrahmā) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Revise

I'm gonna try to rewrite this page, and post the text of it in Wikisource.

Blind Man Walking 01:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

BUt still can be improved. Blind Man Walking 07:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AHH!

You deleted the actual dharani! The various versions were very useful and I think they should remain although the presentation should change. Also, your edits are rather unencyclopediac and although I am a Mahayana Buddhist with full confidence in Avalokitesvara's dharani, I find the mention of the benefits of chanting really unnecessary and superstitious. Jmlee369 10:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

It is best to at least point out some sutra or other text which talk of any such benefits. --Knverma 09:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outlinking MP3 broken

The link to that mp3 file is dead. Anyone have another location? --Ptseng (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete it. mahaabaala (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit

Can't see the point of offering a 'Sanskrit' version when it is roman script and no diacritics. That isn't really Sanskrit, or at least it is Sanskrit spelt wrong. Anyone have that version spelt right? mahaabaala (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khotan

Khotan is in Central Asia not South India - check your atlas whoever wrote that (or follow the link!). mahaabaala (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Śramaṇa Bhagavaddhram

Do we know anything more about this guy? The link goes nowhere and I've never heard of him. Is there any point in including this information or the link if there is nothing at all known about him?

Is his name spelt correctly? I think it should probably by bhagavad-dharma, or perhaps bhagavad-dhara. Dhram does not appear to be a Sanskrit word. mahaabaala (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit

I found the Sanskrit text, don't know how someone would like to integrate it:

namo ratnatrayāya namah ārya avalokiteśvarāya

नमो रत्नत्रयाय नमह् अर्य अवलोकितेश्वराय

bodhisattvāya mahāsatvāya mahākārunikāya

बोधिसत्त्वाय महासत्वाय महाकारुनिकाय

oṃ sarvarabhaya sudhanadasye namaskrtvā imam

ॐ सर्वरभय सुधनदस्ये नमस्क्र्त्वा इमम्

āryāvalokiteśvara raṃdhava namo narakindi.

आर्यावलोकितेश्वर रंधव नमो नरकिन्दि।

hrih mahāvadhasama sarva athadu śubhuṃ ajeyaṃ.

ह्रिह् महावधसम सर्व अथदु शुभुं अजेयं।

sarva satya nama, vastya namo vāka, mārga dātuh.

सर्व सत्य नम वस्त्य नमो वाक मार्ग दातुह्। tadyathā

oṃ avaloki locate karate, e hrih

ॐ अवलोकि लोचते करते ए ह्रिह्

mahābodhisattva. sarva sarva, mala mala, mahima hṛdayam,

महाबोधिसत्त्व। सर्व सर्व मल मल महिम हृदयम्

kuru kuru karmuṃ, dhuru dhuru vijayate mahāvijayate,

कुरु कुरु कर्मुं धुरु धुरु विजयते महाविजयते

dhara dhara dhirīniśvarāya, cala cala, mama vimala muktele,

धर धर धिरीनिश्वराय चल चल मम विमल मुक्तेले

ehi ehi, śina śina, āraṣaṃ pracali viṣa viṣaṃ prāśaya.

एहि एहि शिन शिन आरषं प्रचलि विष विषं प्राशय |

huru huru mara hulu hulu hrih

हुरु हुरु मर हुलु हुलु ह्रिह्

sara sara siri siri suru suru bodhiya bodhiya

सर सर सिरि सिरि सुरु सुरु बोधिय बोधिय

bodhaya bodhaya. maitriya nārakindi

बोधय बोधय । मैत्रिय नारकिन्दि

dharṣinina bhayamāna svāhā siddhāya svāhā

धर्षिनिन भयमान स्वाहा सिद्धाय स्वाहा

mahāsiddhāy svāhā siddhayogeśvarāya svāhā

महासिद्धाय् स्वाहा सिद्धयोगेश्वराय स्वाहा

narakindi svāhā māraṇara svāhā

नरकिन्दि स्वाहा मारणर स्वाहा

śira saṃha mukhāya svāhā sarva mahā asiddhāya svāhā

शिर संह मुखाय स्वाहा सर्व महा असिद्धाय स्वाहा

cakra asiddhāya svāhā padma hastrāya svāhā

चक्र असिद्धाय स्वाहा पद्म हस्त्राय स्वाहा

nārakindi vagalaya svāhā mavari śankharāya svāhā

नारकिन्दि वगलय स्वाहा मवरि शन्खराय स्वाहा

namaH ratnatrayāya namo āryavalokiteśvarāya svāhā

नमः रत्नत्रयाय नमो आर्यवलोकितेश्वराय स्वाहा

oṃ sidhayantu mantra padāya svāhā

ॐ सिधयन्तु मन्त्र पदाय स्वाहा

Source(s): http://walkwithhaiyunjimeng.blogspot.com/; http://avatamsakagarden.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html

If anything, the Sanskrit should be on top first to match the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamwalker936 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namo and nama/namah are different words

Namo/नमो is Adoration is nama/namah/नम/नमह् is to bow. Please correct this if it is wrong. Beelerb (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beelerb: You don't seem to understand that the underlying form NAMA appears on the surface as both namo and namah depending on sandhi rules. The form a_a does not appear in Sanskrit normally; sandhi rules describe the changes that appear. The translation for "nama", the underlying form, is "salutation", so the translation "bow" is close although probably we should stick to "salutation". In short, there is only one word where you claim there are two separate ones, and that word is nama, which appears with different endings depending on what sounds follow it. Some of the translations quoted in the article are in fact bad Sanskrit, either done at the time or a modern error (both are likely). For example, Ehy mahā... is an impossible cluster and is clearly an error. HYM is not a valid string in Sanskrit. Ogress _smash! 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right so how about we change that to "salutation", which I believe is the more conservative of the translations. Ogress _smash! 17:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs citations

The mistakes are too numerous to list. In external links is a paper by Prof. Lokesh Chandra that shows some of these mistakes. Under "Difference between Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese versions" there are huge chunks of text missing and some of the words and tone marks on Chú đại bi are wrong. Numerous places where the Latinized Sanskrit is missing tone marks too. Also according to the article cited above Lokesh Chandra says DT Suziku's translation is wrong because he mixed source material (Sanskrit and Siddhaṃ texts). A cursory translation of Siddhaṃ script of Chinese Tripitaka seems to verify this claim yet not noted in the article. - Beelerb (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beelerb: If you have cites for his corrections that'd be a lovely addition because I agree that at minimum, the Sanskrit has errors. Tone marks don't normally appear on post-Vedic Sanskrit, and I've never seen them in Buddhist texts, which are predominantly subject to the total loss of Sanskrit tone given that it did not appear in the speech of Buddha (who did not speak Sanskrit as far as we are aware) or in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit: do you mean marks like vowel length and distinguishing features of consonants? In any case, if you can correct the Vietnamese et alia I am not a native speaker of any of the above languages and it'd be lovely. Just be sure to cite. Ogress _smash! 17:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]