[Buddha-l] (no subject)

[Michael Attwood]

Alex Wilding alex at chagchen.org
Fri Jul 28 00:55:28 MDT 2006 wrote:

>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.

Not sarcasm - more like heavy scepticism, apologies if I layed it on too 
thick. Actually I am interested in what criteria you might apply. I once 
read in Buddha-L for instance that o.m aa.h huu.m is not a mantra. Why? What 
is it about the structure and usage that make you think it is not a mantra 
under the conditions that you specify.

I'd be even more interested in some authorative source on this. Most mantra 
research seems to only cover the Vedic mantras (Fritz Staal and co), or is 
Japanese (Kukai). Tibetan's seem to have very little to say about what they 
consider mantra to be, and focus on how to use them.

>Prior to the discussion here in recent days I had only come across 
>citations of the verse as Sanskrit.

Well I think the Pali biographical material is generally considered to be 
earlier than the Sanskrit. In works like the Lalitavistara the story is very 
much elaborated and embroidered. Similarly for the Buddhacarita.

Regards
Jayarava

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! 
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb