Correct, mantras are not prayers; that was not my point. And although they are semantically meaningless sounds, they have a rich history of very specific religious and ritual associations and meanings, not fundamentally different in how an adherent of either religion (Catholic or Hindu) would appreciate them.
So my point was not that mantras are prayers, even though I understand that both are religion based, and do not exist independently from their religions, except in a very careful, and thin, argument. Again, anyone can say the Catholic rosary without the slightest belief in any of the religious underpinnings, and that is entirely analogous to the TMO's argument that the silent repetition of Hindu mantras after a Hindu puja is not religious. But under a church/state analysis, it doesn't pass muster. And I believe that many private citizens would and will object to its promotion in the schools, even under the DLF. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > But you miss my point, which is that you *can* say > > with the Catholic rosary, that "we're giving you all > > the salutary effects but none of the religious stuff." > > I don't have to believe in Jesus and Mary and a > > Heavenly Father to say those prayers. They're just > > words. They're essentially just sounds, you don't > > have to attribute any meaning to them. And if you > > don't know the english language, all the better, > > because that way you won't even be distracted by the > > meaning behind the prayers that the people who do > > know english and do practice Catholicism say they > > mean. > > > > It's exactly the same. > > Wow, Marek. Ingenious argument, but fundamentally > sophistic. > > TM mantras aren't prayers in *any* language; they're > semantically meaningless sounds. >
