Cheshire Cat

This is like a cramp, imho.

Thank you very much for your posts ! :-) I don't want to say that daoists have no compassion. I was just pointing that -although important-, compassion is not that important as in buddhism. from http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/compassion.htm In buddhism, the ideal is the bodhisattvas who actively work for the sake of others, while in daoism the perfected one is the hermit who achieves immortality and leaves the "human level" forever. Sure, he develops compassion... but not the "missionary compassion" of the buddhist sage.

Usually, brutal violence works in this kind of situations

from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/02/the-original-aramaic-lords-prayer-is-none-of-the-above.html The “Original Aramaic Lord’s Prayer” is None of the Above After it came up on this blog a while back, I’ve wanted to return to the topic of the “Original Aramaic Lord’s Prayer.” Why? Because the thing that can be found online referred to in this way is not original, not Aramaic, not a translation, and not the Lord’s Prayer. Let me elaborate further. This prayer can be found online in a number of places, and stems for the most part from books like Prayers of the Cosmos: Reflections on the Original Meaning of Jesus’s Words by Neil Douglas-Klotz. The transliteration is poor, and so anyone reading the English letters will not get a sense of what the words sound like. The transliteration is based on the Syriac version of the Lord’s Prayer. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, but it differs in some respects from Galilean and other Palestinian dialects of Aramaic, and so even to the extent that the Syriac prayer is Aramaic, it is not the original Aramaic. (Scroll to the end of the post for the text of the prayer in Syriac). Let me go through the alleged translation of the alleged original Aramaic prayer line by line, and explain why it is not a translation of the meaning of the Aramaic into English (whether the Syriac or a reconstructed Galilean version), and thus does not deserve to be considered a form of the Lord’s Prayer. Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes, who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration. This is not a translation of either Matthew’s or Luke’s version, much less an attempt to determine which is the more original. The likelihood that Jesus’ own uttered version of the prayer, before it was adapted for communal use by Christians as reflected in Matthew, simply began with Abba, the Aramaic word for father, is likely. There is no personal pronoun, and no sense in which Abba means “one from whom the breath of life comes.” Nor does the reference to heaven/sky – again, found in Matthew but not in Luke – translate naturally to “realms of sound, light and vibration.” May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest. This is clearly an attempt to do something with “Hallowed be your name.” But how does name become light, and how does the expression of a desire for the name to be sanctified become something holy in the one praying? This is not a translation or even an interpretation of what is in the Syriac, Aramaic or any other version of the Lord’s Prayer. Your Heavenly Domain approaches. This line is not as bad as the previous ones if considered an attempt to paraphrastically explore the meaning of Matthew’s version. But since we know that the version in Matthew, “kingdom of heaven,” is his rendering of “kingdom of God,” combining the sense that it is God’s domain with the idea that it is heavenly is potentially confusing. As for the verb, the future tense has been rendered in previous lines as expressing the desire for something to happen, and so for consistency it should be rendered the same way here: “May the domain of God come.” Otherwise, it should be “The domain of God will come.” Let Your will come true – in the universe (all that vibrates) just as on earth (that is material and dense). The first part of this is not bad – a very literal rendering might be “Let your will be” which can carry the sense of “Let your will happen/come to pass.” Turning the heavens into a universe that vibrates and adding commentary about density to the earth is unhelpful and does not reflect an ancient understanding, which did not necessarily view the heavens as immaterial, nor do I think that people today think of the universe as immaterial. So once again, not only is this not translation, much less good translation, but it is unnecessarily confusing. Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need, detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma) like we let go the guilt of others. Turning the request for bread into a request for wisdom, however much the provision of manna was treated as symbolic of the giving of wisdom, takes one well beyond translation. The second part adds karma for no reason, and this is clearly the importing of an Indian concept into what is being claimed as a first century Galilean Jewish prayer. Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations), but let us be freed from that what keeps us from our true purpose. The interpretation of temptation as having to do with superficial things and materialism, and the interpretation of evil as “what keeps us from our true purpose” is interesting and worth reflecting on, but it is not in any sense a translation of what the Aramaic words mean, but an attempt to apply the prayer to today’s very different setting. Materialism was not an issue that most of Jesus’ audience had the luxury of being tempted by. From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act, the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age. This has almost nothing in common with the Aramaic. The closest is its rendering of the word for power in terms of “strength to act,” since strength is indeed one of the meanings of the Aramaic word found where, in the familiar English versions, the Greek is rendered “power.” But the introduction of a song as a substitute for “glory” when the Aramaic has no musical connotations is unjustified, and so too the introduction of the notion of “will” where previously the same word for kingdom was rendered (quite legitimately, if narrowly) as “domain.” Sealed in trust, faith and truth. (I confirm with my entire being) I am tempted to mention that “Amen” means different things in different contexts – my pastor regularly says that in a Baptist church, “Amen” means “You may be seated.” The question of what Amen means in a lexical sense is relevant, but so too is the question of how the term functioned when used even by people who were speaking languages other than Hebrew and yet still used the Hebrew term. In short, I have no problem with anyone who happens to want to utter this prayer or finds it meaningful or spiritually useful. Just don’t mistake it for a translation of the Lord’s Prayer, much less the original Aramaic one. The same applies to many of the other supposed translations of the Aramaic Lord’s Prayer that one can find online. In short, the less it looks like the Lord’s Prayer as you know it, the more likely it is to be a free paraphrase or interpretation rather than a translation. And if you want to really grasp the Lord’s Prayer as Jesus uttered it in his own language, there is only one way to get even close to doing that: learn the ancient Palestinian dialect of Aramaic. Translating words from one language into another always involves some transformation of meaning. There is simply no way to fully grasp the precise meaning and nuance of anything in another language than by becoming intimately acquainted with the language and culture in question.

The core beings in the shamanist religion are Father Heaven (Tenger Etseg) and Mother Earth (Gazar Eej). In history Chinggis Khan (Genghis Khan), the unifier of the Mongolian nation, based his power on a mandate from Tenger himself, and headed all his declarations with the words “by the will of Eternal Blue Heaven.” Father Heaven is worshiped for what he is, the timeless and infinite blue sky. He is not visualized as a person, although he is said to have at least two sons. Worship of Father Heaven and Mother Earth is almost universal in Siberia, and is found in North America as well http://buryatmongol.org/a-course-in-mongolian-shamanism/the-natural-world/father-sky-mother-earth-and-heavenly-objects/

Many would think that Theravadins in Sri Lanka would strictly follow the Theravada Canonical tradition, but was not so according to “Buddhist Ceremonies and Rituals of Sri Lanka (BPS Publication) by A.G.S. Kariyawasam. Theravadins in Sri Lanka, worship Gods for the purpose of banishment of evil influences and the attainment of prosperity in general and good harvests. Some of the Gods to name a few: Vishnu – Peiktano Nat Min Gyi Ganesh – Maha Peinne Nat Min Gyi Pattini Goddess - most popular female deity of the Sinhala Buddhists Lakshhmi Saraswati Goddess – Tuyatadi mae daw Chandi Devi - Sandi Devi Loka Nattha – Kuan Yin Mae daw - Avalokitesvara (from http://maungpaw.blogspot.it/2008/12/theravada-is-not-without-gods.html)

If my memory doesn't cheat, the "impersonal Brahman" philosophy was developed much LATER Shakyamuni's time by Shankara... at the time of the Buddha, hindu society has devas with personalities and nothing that could be similar to his idea of Nirvana.

Vajrayana is buddhist tantra which is a definition that implies something peculiar and not easily grasped. You would understand more of what vajrayana is by speaking with theravadins who actually practiced it (tantra) to some extent rather than those who keeps an opinion or two. According to the scriptures, Jesus taught to reconcile with God because he was the Messiah and soon he shall settle his reign. We are waiting since then, although he said that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. As for the "father" thing, to refer to God as father was (and is) common in jew prayers and hymns.

Sure! We called him a few months ago with our ouija board

Reading it.. it's fascinating!

This may be true, but almost EVERY technology that we currently use in daily life was born as a war-device, internet is included in the huge list. So war produces technology and advancements .... Everything is based on money and since war is the most remunerative business, we don't live as the Amish

Ah! One can have very bad experiences with them!

Thank you :-) This is really interesting. I cannot understand what it is exactly that "external grace" which moves people on this Path. Also, intellectually I can see how christianity was born as a sort of super-syncretysm for people who didn't like the severe restrictions of judaism (Peter vs. Paul).... ...but, out of this weird thing (that was basically an anti-elitist popularized paganism) later born a monastic movement from Egypt. See how the monk speaks about the teachings of Jesus: basically, his teaching was on morality. He never baptized a single person, nor taught the way of constant prayer. Monks have their own set teachings taken from somewhere.... hardly from the gospels. Jesus never spoke about the mass. He even spoke against an institutionalized religion when disciples told him that some people were practicing exorcism in his name without authorization! So, imho it's not that christianity got watered down... rather it's genuine spirituality that in some way grew in this weird context. Probably, Jesus' idea of his -possible, but not wanted- religion would be something very similar to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McAK2dEBSvk

@cat Mulan by Walt Disney! :-)

I practiced with a variety of mantras from the hare Krishna to various hindu mantras, jesus prayer, etc... and, IME the Zhunti mantra doesn't hold any special phonetic value apart from the pleasant rythm and the low tones which one can use. Qi effects are present with the harekrishna mantra for example, and -at the beginning- one may think that it's just that... but after a while, one feels something supernatural, things start to occur... and you really see that there's a deity behind the mantra. With Krishna, it is easier because we have temples and initiates here in the west... but Zhunti has no temples. Nothing. So, I have the impression that this mantra is empty of a divine power. Hope to be wrong, of course. And this is the reason for which I asked here. If you think that there's no Goddess Zhunti's power out there, this is a valuable feedback for me. Thank you :-)

I have no axe to grind. Just looking for positive feedback to eventually start a serious sadhana. If they're not present, maybe they're not even existent... what's wrong with this idea?

Not cool. I'm just disappointed about the way discussions go on with you. Frankly speaking... Witnessing the way in which you are concerned about your precious experience and that you cannot even give general information on how did you receive this dharani, I don't think that you are on the path of Zhunti's compassion. You're not looking for ways to help others -as a genuine mahayana buddhist-. I respect your spiritual attitude (since this is where I am), but it's not what I'm looking for in this thread. Your posts say absolutely nothing apart from some useless mantra theory. If I ask, it is because I'm looking for "how things work" and NOT "how they should work based on some dogmatic statement posed centuries ago". dmattwads had a bad experience with this mantra. Master Nan gave a special mantra to test if one is working with the real Zhunti or another entity. These are practical cases. To say that " it's as efficacious in both cases. Not all mantras need permission/personal transmission." is just a theory valid under certain circumstances. So please, stop replying to my posts since your words are useless and maybe prevent others from writing their own experiences. Thank you. :-)

I understand that you prefer to keep this private. I just want to know if you learned the dharani on an webpage (as I did)... or you received it from a "tangible" source (practitioners, masters, etc...) Thank you

May I ask you how did you receive this mantra? Maybe a visit to a temple, a spiritual gift from a master...

Maybe this is true. I can't tell. But in my experience (as that of many others) we don't live in the objective reality that you describe. It's a kind of mixture made of objectivity, meanings and perceptions... more often than not, much of our reality is just "meaning". We can change it and thus manipulate our reality.