[inmeirulez]

namaste Nara.

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

I agree, but Sangom's post gave me the impression that mantras, since they "may become nothing more than pure gibberish", their efficacy may also become such, outside the limits of Hinduism, which is the reason I quoted examples to indicate how the power of mantras benefit the whole world, although only believers chant them.

• The point is, Nara, even a language seems gibberish to one who is totally unfamilar with it. However, unlike the sounds of the filmy gibberish I quoted, the sounds of a mantra do have rhythm, regularity and inner meanings.

• Curiosly, the sounds made by birds and animals are not gibberish, and every language tries to imitate them in words to a reasonable accuracy. The cow, for example, cries 'moo' or 'mA', which is both outside and inside the language, and readily connects the human mind to the source.

• The sound of the mantras, in a similar fashion, IMO, are beyond the language (although originally reduced in writing in Sanskrit), and has the same efficacy as a cow's cry to connect the human mind to their source (let us say, even for a non-believer, if the person is sincere about chanting it). Therfore, it is utterly wrong, IMO, to describe them as gibberish, whether inside or outside the limits of Hinduism.

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.

• I did not restrict my post to the efficacy of only the Veda mantras. It is of no concern to me whether the video is a doctored one or not. The point is that in that video, MuraLidhara svAmigaL makes an explicit commitment to invoke rains by prayers and it seems that they were answered, whether in Australia or anywhere else.

• In my translations of the book guru kripA vilAsam, I have posted incidents of how HH Chandrashekharendra BhAratI svAmigaL accomplished the task of invoking rains in a parched village by sending a scholar there to reside the virATTa parvam of the mahAbhArata for 21 days.

• In another incident, he asked his devotees to perfom gAyatrI yajnam for a certain number of counts, which brought rains to the entire state of Mysore and parts of the Madras Presidency too.

• Well documented incidents such as the above, involve Veda mantras as well as verses from an itihAsa, so it does not have to be a veda mantra, accompanied by a yajna to invoke rains or have some other desired effect.

• I won't comment here on your "uncomfortable questions" because, being a VaiShNava scholar yourself, you are free to find your own answers to them or decide as an atheist that the entire thing is nonsense.

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?

• This is a typical Nara-like interpretation: pinch the child and rock the cradle too. You know very well what I meant when I said "the concept of mantra as a magical phrase has always existed in human consciousness," etc.

To be more explicit, what I meant was that the concept of connecting to the source using a key phrase is universal in human mind; and because the human mind is at different levels of existence and progress at all times, some minds have been complacent with just legends and stories, the modern mind of the novelist tries to sell it by spinning fiction, whereas the Vedic minds of the RShis and the minds of other Hindu sages at elevated levels have found more powerful uses for the mantra, both for worldly and spiritual needs.

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.

I have read about Talpade's unmanned flight in other websites, but couldn't readily find a reference, so gave the TOI article reference. Here is a link from a GOI organization:
THE VIMANAS - the Ancient Flying Machines


To my statement in post no.10, "It is strange that scientists try to explain their experiments done with a physical organ like the brain, with all sorts of trans-physical concepts to fill the gaps in their findings", Nara replied:

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.

• What scientists conveniently forget is that after all it is the human mind which is making all the scientific study, research and findings. So, unless there is sufficient scientific paradigm of the human mind, especially when it does not fit readily into the physical brain, and such paradigm explains the mind without any trans-physical concepts, all the claims of science about the brain and the mind are not final truths.

• Even other such claims as the discovery of a new elementary particle or a new force of nature in a bid to explain the physical universe in purely physical concepts and paradigms, are after all, products of the human mind, so, not the final truths again.

• It is a convention in science to accept the existing/conventional explanation until a more convincing one is found. So, why not accept the metaphysical explanations of the universe, human mind, soul and existence until science can effectively disprove them?

Instead, science is only satisfied in giving jingoistic names, terms and concepts that are trans-physical, vis-a-vis the existing metaphysical, philosophical holistic view of the universe and creation. This would be alright so long as scientists in the name of rationalism do not seek to belittle the metaphysical and philosophical holistic view of a religion like Hinduism, because when everything is derived only by mental reasoning, one view cannot be more rational than the other.

Thanks, Nara, for helping me find my voice.