Talk:Mantra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.

	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. Please participate by editing the article Mantra, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Transferred discussion over intro para here for convenience. Mahaabaala 13:36, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 1st Attempt 2 2nd Attempt 3 3rd Attempt 4 4th Attempt 5 Om Mani Padme Hum 6 IAST Transliteration for mantras 7 Vedic conception of sound 8 Pali word for Mantra? 9 Reference to video game? 10 Etymology 11 Why not break the article into two 12 mantras in devanagiri 13 Improvement Drive 14 Cleanup 15 illness 16 Copyrighted text 17 Etymology and translation 18 Deleted link to copyright-infringing site 19 Adding to External link 20 The significance of the Symbol Aum 21 Guild Wars? 22 Written Word 23 merger: Sandhyavandhanam 24 References = works cited in notes 25 Twilight language: godsmacked 26 "Mantra" in Korean 27 References 28 Pali Canon 29 Jesus Prayer is NOT MANTRA

[edit] 1st Attempt

mantra is a verse or "spell" which when spoken with the proper pronunciation, regardless of whether one understands the mantra's meaning, will have some kind of effect. Perhaps the best known mantra is "Om".

from Lir:talk

Hi Lir. I'm think your characterisation of mantra is incorrect. A mantra is neither a verse, nor a spell - although a mantra can have features in common with both. The thing about pronunciation is disputed in every country except India, and even there it is arguably Brahminical prejudice that maintains this view. The fact is that few people who have not grown up speaking one of the Aryan (ie Sanskrit based) languages can handle things like retroflex consonants, nor make the correct distinctions between n, .n, ~n, "n and .m. I would also point out that if you don't know the meaning of a mantra, or the correct context for it, indeed if you haven't had a formal initiation for it's use, then from the point of view Vajrayana Buddhism (ie Tibetan and Shingon), the mantra is *useless*. Linking it to western concepts of causality is also suspect, but I've haven't had a chance to read that page in detail - I think it unlikely to explain *why* mantra has an effect. On this basis I'd like to remove the sentence you added yesterday. Mahaabaala 08:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

from Mahaabaala

Re: mantra -- Rather than deleting it, its far better to edit it. I agree with your statements, but mine also have some validity. Note that I wrote "spell" (in quote marks), and perhaps "prayer" might be somewhat valid -- that is to say, while these are not spells, they may appear similar to the reader. Likewise, you are correct regarding issues of pronunciation and such; but, I am also correct that the pronunciation is seen as very important to some groups. I have edited the page to try and address the issues you noted. LirQ

[edit] 2nd Attempt

A mantra is a religious verse, the reader might consider these to be "prayers" or "spell"s. According to Brahmin, the key to a successful utterance, of a mantra, is in one's pronunciation of Sanskrit. In some belief systems, pronunciation is more important than an actual understanding of the mantra -- in fact, some religious groups use mantras without any knowledge of the mantra's meaning (but, with arguably perfect pronunciation). Perhaps the best known mantra is "Om".

from Mahaabaala:talk

still not happy with this as an introduction to mantra - focused on specific issues on mantra (pronuciation) which would be better dealt with further down - ie in the section on Hindu mantra you might want to add something about pronounciation being important. I've already mentioned the effect of the movement out of India in my section on Mantra generally. Also it is not true that Mantra's are religious verses - they are often used for entirely mundane, not to say profane purposes such as getting wealthy, and killing ones enemies!

I'll have a go at something more general Mahaabaala 13:02, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

from Lir:talk

As I replied on my page there are still problems with your take on mantra. Some of the issues you raise are valid but are either dealt with in other sections of the page, or ought to be - pronunciation esp see my section on Mantras Generally for instance! I address the issue of "spells" in the very first paragraph after the introduction so I don't see the point in repeating it in the intro. "verses" is irrelevant imo - except in the very specific case of shravakayana Buddhists who used suttas, or sections of them, as "paritta" or protection - but again I've dealt with this in the appropriate section. If you're not happy with my edit, then lets go back to your last post and argue the case on the mantra:talk page until we come to a concensus about what it should be (rather than having an edit war). Cheers Mahaabaala 13:36, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Attempt

A mantra is a syllable or string of syllables, typically from the Sanskrit language. Mantras may or may not conform to grammatical rules, and are used in a ritual context which may include religious ceremonies, or be aimed at mundane goals such as accumulating wealth, avoding danger, or eliminating enemies. Mantras originated in India with Vedic Hinduism, but were adopted by Buddhists, and are popular in various modern forms of spiritual practice which are loosely based on Eastern religions.

[edit] 4th Attempt

You have completed avoided the extremely deep usage of mantras by Hindus in India and Nepal today, which comprises the greatest usage of Mantras. They are used within prayers, as japa (repetitive mantra recitation) and the importance of mantras within all the Hindu shastras is entirely left out. It's made to seem like mantras are huge in Buddhism and merely a small aspect of Hinduism, whereas mantras, if anything, are most prominent in the Hindu faith. This article needs far more balance. ...

---

[edit] Om Mani Padme Hum

Re Om mani padma hu&#7747. The interpretation as 'jewel in the lotus' is now pretty much dsicredited, although it lives on in the popular imagination. You could refer to the relevant sections of Prisoners of Shangri la for instance for a full dsicussion of the linguistic arguments against jewel in the lotus.

Also the heading under Tibetan Buddhism made it seem that the mantras were Tibetan, but they were all inherited from India and are in fact based on the Snaskrit language. mahābāla 09:17, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct that "all the mantras were inherited from India". There are a number of mantras used in Tibet that originate locally. As well as Bön mantras the Tibetan Buddhists have created some themselves in response to various needs. This is particularly noticed in Tibetan medicine. Nor are all mantras Sanscrit. Some mantras originate from Oddiyana and are Prakrit. Some are onomatopoeic. Both Sanscrit and Prakrit mantras can be found in terma, the revealed teachings of the Tibetan tulkus. --Bodhirakshita 07:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Many, even most, of the Tibetan Buddhist mantras are originally derived from Sanskrit, but certainly not all. I think there has been some evidence published by John Reynolds that the original language of Dzogchen may have been Farsi. Ekajati 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] IAST Transliteration for mantras

Changed Gayatri mantra into IAST transliteration. Also other mantras should follow this format so that they could be pronounced as presicely as possible. --213.243.180.43 13:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I changed also other mantras to follow same scheme and added few translations. If you find mistakes, please corrrect!

--Arjuna 10:10, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vedic conception of sound

I addded the Vedic conception of sound article. there was a problem in the formatting. can somebody fix it?

[edit] Pali word for Mantra?

I think it is manta in Pali, but can anyone confirm this for me? --Dara 21:10, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is, tho' I don't know whether it's ever used to refer to anything other than ancient Hindu ones. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to video game?

There's a single line mentioning a video game called Mantra in this article. It should probably be moved to its own page, or possibly at the bottom of this one. 148.78.243.50 05:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Quite confusingly, there are two different etymologies in the article: manas + -tra "mind tool" and manas + trana "mind protection". Someone should explain the relation between those. Is one of the etymologies dubious or obsolete, or are they competing points of view on the matter?

They're probably exegetical pseudo-etymologies. I think the correct 1 is man-tra, think tool. Peter jackson (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why not break the article into two

Since the article is pretty long, it may be advisable to break it into two major articles one on Mantra in Hinduism and the other on Mantra in Buddhism. Of course there will still be some introductory matter and also some residual matter. For that, there should be a generic article called Mantras -- from which the other two articles emerge as internal links. I can separate the Hinduism part. But the other two (namely Buddhism and the general one on Mantra), -- Would some one be willing to do this? --Profvk 00:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mantras in devanagiri

I feel that the original text of the mantras and vedas must be displayed in devanagiri script in addition to the english alphabet.

Surely,the english script enables all to read the original mantra, but for those of us who can read devanagiri, nothing comes close to the experience of reading the mantras in devanagiri.

Actually it is vary difficult to read correctly the mantras when written in english.

So I hope someone could reproduce the mantras in devanagiri.

I added the devanagarii. I am sanskrit student, hope the spelling is correct. What is the original source of Sarveshaam svasti bhavatu -mantra? Does it come from Rig Veda or from some Upanishad? This far I have not been able to locate the source. Any help would be appreciated =) --67.188.228.20 01:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I removed the {{cleanup-date|November 2005}} notice as there is no discussion of what needs to be cleaned up or how on this talk page. Hyacinth 11:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] illness

[edit] Copyrighted text

I removed a large section of copyrighted text. It was taken from this website. It is not a Wikipedia mirror. It was originally published on another website, but that page is apparently no longer online. The content was added by 203.212.215.98 on 5/26/05. -- Kjkolb 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also see [1]. A huge amount of identical text. Who copied who? _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology and translation

I was instructed that mantra comes from the "manas" (mind) and "trayate" (to protect, to deliver from anxiety). Just the same as in "kshatriya" = "kshat" (to hurt) and "trayate" (to protect). This explanation has a practical value for adepts, since it is close to "An Idle Mind is a Devil's Workshop" saying and gives a better idea on how to use some mantras.

Shanti mantras - maybe there is a better translation? "Om sahanaavavatu" - literally it does not mean "May we be protected together" beacuse "saha" means "He" (God). Here the author of the mantra does not impose his own concept of God, but leaves to our inner feeling to decide who is "He". "May He protect us both", maybe? --195.252.126.73 00:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted link to copyright-infringing site

I have deleted a link to the site "indiadivine.org."

The site knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text belonging to the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in the section "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding to External link

How about adding a link in Hindu Mantra pointing to http://www.astrouniverse.com/slokas.php

This page provides Mantras ( slokas ) for all the Navagrahas ( Nine Planets ) which is believed to govern a mans life.It also includes a short story about Rahu & Ketu.

Avenash

I have no objection if an established, neutral, editor wants to add the site. But since you have a financial interest in it, and have been adding it to many articles in apparent attempt to promote it, I have removed it. Wmahan. 17:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The significance of the Symbol Aum

Please be advised. A debate about the validity of Aum as a visual symbol is taking place here, and today User:deeptrivia added a disclaimer and plastered cite tags [2] and then only 20 minutes later deleted outright the entire section of this page describing the visual purpose of the strokes and curves of the Aum symbol. I hope he didn't blank that copy just to avoid another user making use of it in that discussion... that would be an egregious violation of WP:POINT. I've reverted it, and provided a citation, but deep has restored the fact tags nonetheless.

Thankfully, the sections he's tagged describing the meaning of each curve, etc. in the symbol should be easily verified once I'm back up on campus in the coming days. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. It would be great if you can find a scholarly source (which doesn't include employees of companies that sell Aum motifs) to support this hilarious hypothesis. deeptrivia (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the meaning of the shapes of the Aum symbol should be easily verified (or disproven). I'm willing to do the work to do so, objectively... because instead of winning an argument, one's goal on WP should be to be most informative and most encyclopedic to our worldwide users. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding multiple fact tag is a WP:POINT violation, deeptrivia. These correlations are known. I've read them elsewhere. Nitin has provided references on his article, have you checked them and determined that the information is not there? If not, you are clearly in the wrong here. Please desist before it becomes necessary to look into getting you blocked. A Ramachandran 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I was going to begin my research with those sources (most are available in my University's stacks, and the semester begins in two weeks). To satisfy any lasting concerns about the veracity of the assertions, I'm happy to do so, and I sincerely hope deeptrivia does not earn himself a block. Thanks, A Ramachandran. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy. I am not going to touch this article by myself anymore in near future. deeptrivia (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame. If you have verifiable information that's relevant, or other edits to make backed by sources that meet WP:V, I hope for WP's sake you'll continue to edit this article and anywhere else you're inclined to participate. In any case, it's getting late. Goodnight! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Deeptrivia asked my opinion on this matter, knowing that I'm a Buddhist. I'm a Zen Buddhist, actually, and we don't recite the Om Mani Padme Hum, but I'm certainly familiar with it. I have to agree with Deeptrivia that there's every evidence that it's the sound that's important, not the shape of the script used to write it. Om/Aum can be written in many scripts. Here's an example I just found: [3]. Notice that the Tibetans use one of two scripts to write the mantra, and one of those is an antique Indian script. Would Aum not be Aum if it were written in Nastaliq? Or Roman letters? The explanation now in the article, based on the shapes of the letters, reads very much like a personal and idiosyncratic view. I've never read anything else suggesting that certain abstract shapes have deep spiritual meanings. Nitin's article may have a long list of references, but it's not at all clear that he got his theory from any of those references. We'd need a quote to prove it, and some indication that this is a notable view, not just Nitin's assertion.

Besides, Exotic India sold me a salwar kameez outfit that was advertised as cotton, but was a synthetic, and extremely badly sewn to boot :) How can we trust anyone associated with such a sleazy enterprise? Zora 08:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that the original representation of the symbol is the Devanagari Sanskrit version, all the rest are transliterations - therefore we could include "the original devnagari version is comprised of three curves, etc etc..." Sfacets 11:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Devanagari script came into existence around 1200 AD. This semicircles theory could be notable only if held by a majority or a significant minority of people. Is it supported by even a single notable person? deeptrivia (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WP doesn't seem to have a good overview article on Indic scripts, but the Ranjana the Tibetans use is a descendant of Sharada, which WP says is the eastern variant of the Gupta script. Gupta script also gave rise to Nagari, used in north-western India, which gave rise to Devanagari.

Since the Mandukya Upanishad, which discourses on AUM, was probably written between 800-400 BCE (and closer to the 400 BCE figure), it considerably predates Devanagari script. In fact, it might well pre-date the use of Brahmi script, the ancestor of Gupta, Sharada, Nagari, etc. The syllable, as sound, was considered sacred before writing was common, and 1600 years before Devanagari was developed. How then could the shapes of the Devanagari letters have anything to do with the sacredness of the syllable? Finding holiness in the shapes of the letters reminds me of the people who see the Virgin Mary in tortillas and mildew stains. Human beings are pattern and significance seeking animals, and we find significance in the strangest things. Zora 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What Deeptrivia says is correct. It is the sound which is important. Devanagari is not that old that Upanishads could have mentioned the curves of 'OM' in it. Furthermore, 'OM' can be and is written in different languages. I tried to get to the original article by Nitin, it is not available. If Mr. A. Ramachandran is so concerned about the explanation, he should give a better source, otherwise the explanation should be removed. He would not give any other source and keep threatening other editors with blockage. What is this Wikipedia or terrorism? Aupmanyav 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy. Throwing words like that around instantly makes your position look overly emotional. Don't accuse others of terrorism because you disagree with a citation. I was able to find the article, and the references to numerous published sources, and as a result of the doubt expressed here by deeptrivia (without any citations to support that doubt) I am researching the issue when school begins in the next two weeks. Either contribute verifiable information, or leave it alone - but don't you dare accuse others of 'terrorism'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan on the point that it is fruitless offering our opinion on whether the symbolism is "true" or not; anyway wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. That said the analysis about the significance of the claim is currently not referencing a reliable source but rather a commercial website of unknown credibility, which based on anecdotal evidence confuses cotton with synthetics! Is nothing sacred anymore? ! :-) .
On the positive side the Nitin Kumar article, does contain some references and thus provides a positive avenue for settling this debate. Ryan has magnanimously offered to check on those references and verify the theory - so why not give her a chance ? As a compromise I suggest that we wait till, say the end of the month, to get some support for the theory - in absence of which we can delete the analysis. AFAIK the information has been on this page for some time, so even if it is incorrect, another few weeks won't hurt - also by that time the Swastika debate on the Hinduism project page would have been settled (this is a leap of faith) and removal of this information won't be judged to be in bad faith. In the meantime the {{Fact}} tag that I added (and which is factualy justified) will inform a casual reader to take the claim with a pinch of salt.
An aside: Even if the analysis is verified I think it belongs to the Aum page, rather than the (oral) mantra page. In the meantime, I request editors not to add or remove this claim from other pages, till it is either verified or the attempt has failed.
Finally, eagle eyes will note that I have changed the linked URL from [4] to [5], since the former acknowledged the source to be "Nitin Kumar of Exotic India." So we should cite the original source and share our knowledge of the provenance with the reader. Abecedare 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare. I am willing to wait for a year as long as a tag stays there to show the problematic nature of this assertion. Besides, a language like this:

"A similar analysis, called the Omkara yantra, splits the symbol into five parts and assigns each part a corresponding devata, seed syllable, element, sense and form of prana.[2]"

is perfectly acceptable to me, because it shows that the analysis comes from an Omkara yantra from the fringe tantra text Sayantra Sunya-Samhita and has little to do with mainstream views. It is not clear whether the semicircle theory comes from even a fringe text like this, or is completely a less than 10 year old product of an author's creativity. Also, this material belongs to yantra. I have indeed seen modern tantriks (most of whom are unemployed youths hardly educated on tantra) make yantras with the Aum symbol on it. deeptrivia (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't take a year :) :) Thanks deep. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole "remarks" section as unencyclopedic. A balanced discussion of the Aum symbol belongs on Aum, not here. If some author has some opinion on the shape, he may be quoted, putting into perspective the notability of the opinion. Unless a point is generally accepted (say, it is mentioned in every introduction to the topic as a basic fact), it should under no circumstances be presented as fact on Wikipedia. Quoting random flowery tidbits from random authors doesn't make for an encyclopedia article. Some of the points might be re-inserted into the flow of the "in Hinduism" section in solit neutral prose, but we have to fight the tendency of passer-by editors to just clutter an article on a major topic with random remarks, observations and quotes. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guild Wars?

Reference to the video game "guild wars" should probably be excluded or moved.

[edit] Written Word

"For many cultures it is the written letters that have power -- the Hebrew Kabbalah for instance, or the Anglo-Saxon Runes. Letters can have an oracular function even. But in India special conditions applied that meant that writing was very definitely inferior to the spoken word."

This bit of the article (from the Introduction section, second paragraph) should mention what those special conditions are. As far as I know (I'm a Religious Studies student, but not all that familiar with Hinduism) there IS in fact a preference for the spoken word over the written word in Orthodox Hinduism, but I'm not aware of the source of that preference needed to write a proper entry. Will a society with a preference for speaking over writing even HAVE a written source for that preference one could cite? Yipely 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merger: Sandhyavandhanam

[edit] References = works cited in notes

I have removed the Bucknell book from the References section because it is not cited in any footnote. According to WP:LAYOUT, References is a list of works actually cited via notes (inline references). This work is not cited, hence does not belong here. When it is actually used in an inline reference, with a page number that can be verified, it should be re-added to the References at that time. Buddhipriya 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't u just translate the information into a footote citation instead of wholeheartedly deleting and negating it? Wherein within that methodology is collaboration and inclusion in evidence?

*hugz*

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twilight language: godsmacked

Twilight language (and the Sanskrit term from which it is rendered) is a valuable categorisation term that fords dialogue between mutually informing technologies and processes. I am godsmacked how you can dismiss it out of turn.
^[1]
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But what's it got to do with this article. The quote is vague and has not infomation specific to mantra. It a non sequitur in the lead section of this article. Why not spend your time writing a proper article on twilight language, which is quite obviously missing and the disambig you created does nothing to remedy it. IPSOS (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting elements because they does not conform to your concept map re-position them appropriately within the article and your Image schema in the spirit of inclusion. Is it not more valuable included than excluded? Non sequitur: is a circle a line?

*Candidly*

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment makes no sense. It's simply bad writing to put it there. It's meandering away from the artual topic and doesn't even have the courtesy to even try to return to it. This article isn't about any hypothetical or implied differences between Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. IPSOS (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

the quote is from a reputable published source, it is cited appropriately, it is about mantra... the two of you do not constitute consensus for Wikipedia.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not about mantra, it simply mentions the word. And unless you get support from another editor, two against one is a consensus. IPSOS (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the ongoing insertion of this quotation is irrelevant to this article. Note the personal attack on me in the edit summary for this insertion: [6]. This is a form of content spamming and edit warring taking place on multiple articles. Do others feel that the ongoing refusal to particpate in a consensus process and the continued personal atttacks are a problem? Note that two other editors in addition to myself agree that the material is inappropriate: [7] [8]. So far three editors have been trying to deal with this persistent insertion by a single editor who refuses to recognize consensus and who engages in personal attacks. Buddhipriya 22:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mantra" in Korean

What is the translation of the Sanskrit "Mantra" in Korean language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.11.41 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article is seriously lacking in references. If the original creator(s) are still contributing, it would be a good idea to start adding a few footnotes. Articles can be nominated for deletion over issues like this.Sardaka (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pali Canon

I've deleted this material, & replaced part of it. I suspect someone is confusing

• Udana, abook of the Pali Canon
• Uddana, verse summaries of contents

Peter jackson (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Prayer is NOT MANTRA

Jesus prayer is not and cannot be comapaired with mantra, because : 1: it's a blasphemy; 2: neither the Holy Fathers talks about mantra as a form of praying nor mention about it; 3: Jesus prayer can be said in any langauage that exists, but mantra it's only in sanskrit; 4: there are difference berween the saying of mantra and saying of Jesus prayer, it's not the same thing; 5: The Eastern Orthodox Church: does not accept this comparasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.197.15 (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)