[Fwd: Re: [Buddha-l] liturgical languages]

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:22 -0500, F.K. Lehman (F.K.L. Chit Hlaing)
wrote:

> (1) Let us not forget that Buddhism is from India, and the Indic
> tradition, back to Vedic times apparently, includes the idea that
> there is a sort of cosmic (magical?) power or, if you want, ritual
> effectiveness to the very syllables of a Skt/Pali chan, and to their
> correct pronunciation.

We should also remember that there were Buddhists in India who
strenuously repudiated the very claim you mention. In fact, in numerous
passages in the Pali canon, the Buddha says that one of the many things
that distinguishes him and his monks from other teachers and their monks
is that he does not drone mantras and other things that no one
understands. Bear in mind that brahmans chanted Vedic, a language that
was already quite difficult for people to understand by the time of the
Buddha. One gets the impression that he found conservatives, who
preferred the word to the meaning, ridiculous. A very funny satire of
these gibberish-droning brahmans appears in Sutta-nipaata.  

I recall reading some time ago that the Buddha did not want his monks to
chant rhythmically and melodically lest people get them confused with
brahmans. Probably he would give other reasons nowadays. Now he would
probably say he doesn't want his disciples chanting mantras lest people
get them confused with new age space cadets.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico