--- In [email protected], "emptybill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Over the years I have heard an argument professed by some former TM > meditators who stopped practicing because they claimed they were > deceived about the "meaning" of mantra-s. I have also seen > similar declarations put forth by various disputant webrunners wishing > to dissuade anyone from beginning any form of mantra meditation with > roots in India. > > > > The fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god > an assertion also put forth by many Indian nationals and ex-patriots. > Therefore, the conclusion is that a mantra encapsulates a method for > worshiping a Hindu god but that this fact is withheld from > practitioners. Within the domain of this argument, the webrunners often > will quote a webtext from a Hindu Tantra, which assigns a particular > deity to a particular mantra and sometimes assigns a set of deities to > each of the Sanskrit letters composing the written form of the mantric > sound. This textual assignment is sometimes done haphazardly and > sometimes is done in the classical Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda. > > > > Along with the quoted Tantric text, is often a statement by MMY, > declaring that a mantra is a "sound whose effect is known". This > argument sometimes quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for > the beneficial effects it produces in causing the spontaneous refinement > of perception. This explanation is then paraded as an example of > shameful exploitation of Westerner's ignorance of the > "Hinduistic" foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation > which does not confess itself as a form of "Hindu > devotionalism". This devotionalist criticism is compounded by > various Indian swamis and cross-eyed "yogi-s" who make these > very claims and arguments themselves. > > > > Some considerations about these claims: > > > > 1. Most meditating westerners are functionally ignorant about the > nature, range, depth and complexity of Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain > yoga-s. Most of them could not explain the difference between Vedic, > Hindu and Tantric traditions of practice nor could they explain how > these three streams intertwine in daily rites. They don't know vidhi > from vedi. > > > > 1. Most swami-s and exported "yogi-s" are not Pandits, > Indologists, or Sanskritists nor are they formally educated in the yoga > traditions of the Indian subcontinent. Most are only trained in asana, > pranayama and japa. A little bhakti here, a little jnana citation there > and "om tat sat". > > > > 1. Most of us Westerners who meditate are therefore at a > disadvantage when presented with claims that we cannot contextualize > within an informed view. > > > > My point here is to give people a corrective to this misunderstanding by > providing a short but authoritative quotation from an impeccable source > about the difference between yogic mantra practice and devotional japa > practice. > > > > Baba Hari Dass - On Mantra: > > > > Mantra is the repetition of sounds or words which have power due to the > vibration of the sound itself. Japa is the rhythmic repetition of a name > of God. It consists of automatic Pranayama, concentration and > meditation. The main idea in doing Japa is to make the mind thoughtless. > Then automatically body consciousness disappears. If your body > consciousness disappears, it means your sadhana is going well. The body > is the medium of sadhana and the body is the hindrance in sadhana. Japa > is a formal method of worshipping God. It should be done privately and > preferably with a mala, or rosary. > > > > Silence Speaks: from the chalkboard of Baba Hari Dass, 1977 (my talics). > > > > This distinction between the yogic sound-value of a mantra and > devotional, religious practices using mantra-s is also found in the > Tibetan Vajrayana (originally called Mantrayana) and was discussed by > Lama Khenchen Thrangu, Tibetan Khempo and tutor to HH the 17th Karmapa. > > emptybill
Thanks...I can rest easier now!
