DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Mantra

**UtidaBrar** · 05-13-2011, 05:33 AM

Hello saidevo,

... If (some) mantras are/may be considered as gibberish, then there arises the possibility that the sorts of gibberish that we listen to in Tamizh film songs could be considered mantras!

First, saying mantras may sound gibberish outside the limits of "Hinduism" does not automatically mean that all gibberish could be considered mantras. Yea, could be, anything can be "could be", but it is not logical.

Secondly, "uNda pakkara maara pakkkara hei hei hei" and "OM OM shrIM hrIM ka.hlIM ga.hlauM gaM gaNapataye varavarada sarvajanaM me svAhA" if recited in similar fashion to one who is completely unfamiliar, both will sound equally gibberish, no more, no less. So, once again, outside the realm of believers, the mantras might as well be gibberish.

If mantras have their efficacy only for the believers, how come shrI MuraLIdhara svAmigaL could cause a heavy downpour in Australia by a collective prayer through a webcast that involved chanting a simple mantra? Mercifully, this video is a joke -- obviously not meant as a joke by those who posted it -- otherwise it raises many uncomfortable questions. The so called Mahamantra of the Hare Krishna group, is not even a Vedic Mantra. It is only a prayer directed at Lord Sri Krishna.

Some of the uncomfortable questions if the claim made in the video, i.e. chanting this prayer to Krishna brought rain, is true:

Did Krishna not know that Australia was in the grip of a drought, does he need reminding?
Why in the name of all that is decent does Krishna wait for some crass முகஸ்துதி to bring relief to millions of people?
Why did he allow such a drought in the first place if he can instantly produce such a downpour
Does it not seam cruel for him to wait for someone to pray to him before bringing relief?

The poster of this video has done some cut-and-paste job to give it an appearance of news reports. Other than the word of the ISKCON people who posted this video, there is no reason to even believe this chanting even occurred before the deluge, this could have been done after the rains arrived.

Finally, even if the message that this video is trying to assert is 100% verifiably true, no firm conclusion can be derived unless it is repeated and verified. In a recent interview of Stephen Hawing by NY Times, he was asked about Fermilab scientists finding a new elementary particle or even a new force of nature. Here is what he said:"It is too early to be sure. If it helps us to understand the universe, that will surely be a good thing. But first, the result needs to be confirmed by other particle accelerators."
Here in lies the difference between scientists and religionists.

The concept of mantra as a magical phrase has always existed in human consciousness, finding expressions in legends of Hinduism and other religions. In the classical 'Arabian Nights' legend, Alibaba uses the 'mantra' "open sesame" (or its Urdu equivalent) to gain access to the cave of treasure. And a modern legend of the adventures of Harry Potter, is full of magical spells evoked by uttering weird 'mantras'. saidevo, are you serious, are you saying the Vedic mantras are powerful stuff because magical words were invoked in fictional stories like Arabian Nights and Harry Potter? Don't you think you are undermining your case with this kind of reasoning?

it was reported that Talpade's plane was built using the techniques described in the book vimAnika shAstra where mantras are used to run the plane, This Times of India article is about an unmanned plane that flew for a few minutes. Here is the enigmatic sentence on which saidevo has based this claim:"According to aviation historians Mr Talpade used his knowledge of the Rig Vedas to build a plane."
Who might these "aviation historians" be, the article doesn't say. Not very many claims can be as flimsy as this one.

It is strange that scientists try to explain their experiments done with a physical organ like the saidevo, we have limitations, nobody can deny that. We need to be humble enough to accept this fact, but not give up, instead try and do the best we can within those limitations. To imagine a special conduit to perfect knowledge and insist on its validity is not reasonable.

Cheers!

05-13-2011, 05:33 AM	#13
UtidaBrar Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 466 Senior Member	Hello saidevo, ... If (some) mantras are/may be considered as gibberish, then there arises the possibility that the sorts of gibberish that we listen to in Tamizh film songs could be considered mantras! First, saying mantras may sound gibberish outside the limits of "Hinduism" does not automatically mean that all gibberish could be considered mantras. Yea, could be, anything can be "could be", but it is not logical. Secondly, "uNda pakkara maara pakkkara hei hei hei" and "OM OM shrIM hrIM ka.hlIM ga.hlauM gaM gaNapataye varavarada sarvajanaM me svAhA" if recited in similar fashion to one who is completely unfamiliar, both will sound equally gibberish, no more, no less. So, once again, outside the realm of believers, the mantras might as well be gibberish. If mantras have their efficacy only for the believers, how come shrI MuraLIdhara svAmigaL could cause a heavy downpour in Australia by a collective prayer through a webcast that involved chanting a simple mantra? Mercifully, this video is a joke -- obviously not meant as a joke by those who posted it -- otherwise it raises many uncomfortable questions. The so called Mahamantra of the Hare Krishna group, is not even a Vedic Mantra. It is only a prayer directed at Lord Sri Krishna. Some of the uncomfortable questions if the claim made in the video, i.e. chanting this prayer to Krishna brought rain, is true: Did Krishna not know that Australia was in the grip of a drought, does he need reminding? Why in the name of all that is decent does Krishna wait for some crass முகஸ்துதி to bring relief to millions of people? Why did he allow such a drought in the first place if he can instantly produce such a downpour Does it not seam cruel for him to wait for someone to pray to him before bringing relief? The poster of this video has done some cut-and-paste job to give it an appearance of news reports. Other than the word of the ISKCON people who posted this video, there is no reason to even believe this chanting even occurred before the deluge, this could have been done after the rains arrived. Finally, even if the message that this video is trying to assert is 100% verifiably true, no firm conclusion can be derived unless it is repeated and verified. In a recent interview of Stephen Hawing by NY Times, he was asked about Fermilab scientists finding a new elementary particle or even a new force of nature. Here is what he said:"It is too early to be sure. If it helps us to understand the universe, that will surely be a good thing. But first, the result needs to be confirmed by other particle accelerators." Here in lies the difference between scientists and religionists. The concept of mantra as a magical phrase has always existed in human consciousness, finding expressions in legends of Hinduism and other religions. In the classical 'Arabian Nights' legend, Alibaba uses the 'mantra' "open sesame" (or its Urdu equivalent) to gain access to the cave of treasure. And a modern legend of the adventures of Harry Potter, is full of magical spells evoked by uttering weird 'mantras'. saidevo, are you serious, are you saying the Vedic mantras are powerful stuff because magical words were invoked in fictional stories like Arabian Nights and Harry Potter? Don't you think you are undermining your case with this kind of reasoning? it was reported that Talpade's plane was built using the techniques described in the book vimAnika shAstra where mantras are used to run the plane, This Times of India article is about an unmanned plane that flew for a few minutes. Here is the enigmatic sentence on which saidevo has based this claim:"According to aviation historians Mr Talpade used his knowledge of the Rig Vedas* to build a plane."* Who might these "aviation historians" be, the article doesn't say. Not very many claims can be as flimsy as this one. It is strange that scientists try to explain their experiments done with a physical organ like the saidevo, we have limitations, nobody can deny that. We need to be humble enough to accept this fact, but not give up, instead try and do the best we can within those limitations. To imagine a special conduit to perfect knowledge and insist on its validity is not reasonable. Cheers!
	Quote