[Buddha-l] (no subject)

[Alex Wilding]

Michael Attwood, in response to my:
> >Although it does not satisfy the classical criteria of a mantra,
wrote: 
> Say more. I'd be interested in what you mean by "classical" - classical
> according to which culture, religion, time or place?
A) Tibetan.
B) Buddhism.
C) Recent centuries
D) Tibet and, more recently, western cultures.
I had rashly assumed that my reference to the 100-syllable Vajrasattva
mantra would make that clear - sorry.
> I've only ever seen
> contention and dispute amongst scholars of mantra, so am pleased to learn
> that there is now a set of criteria by which to assess a mantra.
I infer, from your implication that the existence of the criteria that I had
in mind is both novel and pleasing, that you are being sarcastic, so I'll
move on from there.
You can call it a mantra if you like, of course. Its structure and usage,
however, remain at least a little atypical in the context I mention.

> ... given it's Pali Canon roots
Prior to the discussion here in recent days I had only come across citations
of the verse as Sanskrit. Or did you mean the word "paritta"?
All the best
Alex W