[Buddha-l] OṂ MAṆI PAD ME HŪṂ

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 4-1-2010 17:47, Chris Fynn schreef:
>
> Modern Sanskritists may have only revived an old sport or perhaps
> extended it. As far as I can make out in Buddhism mantras (sngags) have
> long been held to have only symbolic or "mystical" meaning  and some
> power to transform while otoh dhāraṇī (gzungs) often do contain
> intelligible phrases (that seems to be the main distinction made between
> the two).
>    
Alex Wayman shows in an article in his 'Buddhist insight' that most 
mantra's are of Vedic origin or made out of Vedic components. This as in 
argument in favour of the assumption that Buddhist rituals and even 
tantrism has been invented by converted brahmins or copycats of 
brahmanist rituals. This fact has been overlooked by Tibetan lamas, 
because of their poor knowledge of Sanskrit, Vedic literature and Indian 
history. Most mantras by the way are not in Prakrit, the vajrasongs are.
I don't believe in the myth of the mystic sound of mantras, which also 
has a Vedic origin I'm afraid. Since the appearance of proselytising 
Numata professors in my neighbourhood I am a staunch believer of 
pragmatism. So if the lamas really would care about the sound they would 
necessarily be very meticulous about the pronunciation of mantras. The 
dramatic effects of their sloppiness in this area have been all to 
clear. China had no trouble invading and occupying Tibet because Indra's 
weapon had become a powerless /benzra /and the /hum /and /om/ had been 
reduced to flat nasal sounds. I also believe that the financial crisis 
and the attacks of al Qaeda would stop instantly once the inhabitants of 
the U.S. of A. would stop murdering the Queens English. The floods and 
fires in Australia would undoubtedly stop too if the people there would 
stop chewing their language like bubblegum.

  conspicuously yours

Erik

Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
Productie: http://www.olivepress.nl