Talk:Mantra

Mantra-related medical / health claims and non-MEDRS

@Doc James: Would you please take a look at this section of the older version of this article. The sources behind the health benefits claims feel like non-MEDRS and primary, so I reverted / trimmed much of it here and here. I am fine if you trim it further or recover some of the content I removed, after your review. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Trimmed some more as it was based on primary sources. Have looked for secondary sources but it does not appear that there are many. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and cleanup, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removal of line - not supported by citations

I propose moving the following line in the etymology section:

The Sanskrit word mantra- (m.; also n. mantram in Tamil) consists of the root man- "to think" (also in manas "mind") and the suffix -tra, designating tools or instruments, hence a literal translation would be "instrument of thought".[15][16]

The etymology is incorrect and not supported by the sources.

• Macdonell, Arthur A., A Sanskrit Grammar for Students § 182.1.b, p. 162(Oxford University Press, 3rd edition, 1927). - This page lists primary normal suffixes, the definition of tra is contained but nothing else. the definition of the man as provided in the source is elsewhere in the book but at no point does it state they are the constituent part of the word mantra.

• Whitney, W.D., Sanskrit Grammar § 1185.c, p. 449(New York, 2003, ISBN 0-486-43136-3). The page listed explains a particular grammar rule. It contains nothing written in this statement. The book does not contain an etymology of the word mantra.

Both books are on Sanskrit grammar so would not contain any Tamil words.

I have already added to the page the correct Sanskrit etymology from the Amarakosha and Pānini. The one above sounds nice but unfortunately is not correct and is not supported by the sources.

If there are no objections I will remove in a couple of days.

Millandhouse33 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Millandhouse33: Sorry, I don't like the idea of removing a sourced passage simply becuse an editor doesn't agree with it. M. Monier-Williams, whom you also quoted as a reference, lists mantra precisely under √man- (pp. 783–786). Your attempt to explain the etymology by quoting Pāṇini instead is baffling, because Pāṇini's analysis, although often correct, sometimes does not find confirmation in later work. Here, Pāṇini's attempts to invent the root mantr- are, well, most likely an example of etymological reinterpretation rather than actual etymology.

Also, this is an English Wikipedia, so your prolific use of Sanskrit technical terms (dhatu, krit pratyaya, etc.) will be of virtually zero use to the reader. I decided to remove the passage as needing a serious rewrite. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Kashmiri: Hi Kashmiri, thanks for engaging in the discussion. However, your categorisation of my actions is not correct. You have said. " I don't like the idea of removing a sourced passage simply because an editor doesn't agree with it." As stated in my original post directly above your writing, the text does not match the citation, it is not a sourced passage. Editors should remove statements that are not sourced. I went as far as to purchase the two books cited to check them before changing this.

The Amarakosa page number provided includes the etymology as I have written it, it is a valid and credible source. There is nothing baffling about this, it is in fact the standard required by Wikipedia.

Your actions was to remove a sourced statement and replace it with an unsourced one. This should not have been done.

Your comments about panini are your personal opinion. As you have stated wikipeida is not the place for personal opinions, we can only quote credible sources.

I am more than happy to engage in the spirit of cooperation and come to an agreement. However, that can only be done if you engage with the points I have made.

Quite clearly I'm obliged to reverse your action of removing a sourced statement and replacing it with an unsourced one. But I am more than happy to work with you to reach a resolution.

Millandhouse33 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And I went as far as to check both Ashtadhyayi and Monier-Williams. The latter explicitly does not support your version as I mentioned above. As to Ashtadhyayi, I checked all occurrences of मन्त्र् and could not find any sutra that would be dealing with such a root. Care to give sutra number? By the way, गुप्त is also not there, contrary to your assertions, so your reference is incorrect.

See, even if you find that Panini indeed wrote so (which I doubt), the issue remains that Panini is not a reliable secondary source on Sanskrit etymology. Ashtadhyayi is a work on grammar and not on etymology in modern sense. Yes, it can be mentioned that Panini links the word mantra with a root mantr- (provided you find it in a reliable source), however this explanation is not supported by modern linguists, whereas in Wikipedia we have to present the generally accepted view.

Finally, your repeated revert is not helpful and does not get us closer to coming up with best version. Read WP:BRD. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Also see this[1]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Hello again Kashmiri, I'm a bit concerned that you have twice now reverted a page to replace a well-sourced statement with a completely unsourced one, but at least we seem to be in a discussion so perhaps some progress is possible.

The etymology I added to the page is from the Amarakosha it explicitly states mantr and ghan as the components of mantra. Page ref was provided. This is a valid source containing that etymology, therefore, it is perfectly letigmate to have it on the page. This was pointed out by me in both the comments above. The panini was used to explain ghan.

Your comments about Panini and the Ashtadhyayi are original research which we can not use.

Neither McDonald nor Whittney contain the man + tra etymology, nor does etymonline which you have just added. No other source that contains this has been presented. Therefore we can not use it.

If you have such a source please present it, otherwise kindly stop reverting.

I've left both versions in for now, and added the citations needed a tag in the hope that you will provide a source.

Millandhouse33 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A few sources are cited here[2]. Even though Gonda isn't perhaps an overly reliable source on Sanskrit linguistics, Agehananda Bharati was a highly respected Sanskrit scholar. If you don't really like the suffix part, I am happy to take it out, leaving only the man- part (although it will be hard to explain the literary meaning "instrument of thought" which is quite well sourced). Note that Monier-Williams expressly lists mantra under man-. In any case, any linkage of the word to (non-existing) mantr- has no place unless really well sourced. Amarakosha alone won't do it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting article. not sure I would agree with them but it does seem reasonable grounds to include the etymology. This leaves us with two differing sanskrit etymologies. I suggest we include both until more sources present themselves that can settle the issue?

Millandhouse33 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

No objection to mentioning what Amarakosha says (with attribution), but it has to be kept less technical, i.e., should use English terminology for morphemes etc.. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, would you like to propose a wording? I'm happy to if you'd prefer. Millandhouse33 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Mantra

@Gotitbro: I'd reverted your edits regarding somechanges made by you in this article. But I think you were still diagreeing, so I've created this section. Mantras are not only found in Hinduism but in other indian religions such as Buddhism and also in Taoism and Shintoism, which requires their mention.Also their are many mantras in Pali found in Buddhist texts, like Luck Mantra and Vedabbha Mantra. You cannot just delete anything you find not good. Follow WP:PRESERVE.JaMongKut (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@JaMongKut: Some IP had surreptitiously added a religion (Hinduism) in the lead when it was not the case before. I have restored it as it was before (without the mention of any specific religions which begin in the next para) per WP:STATUSQUO. And please don't incorrectly cite any guideline that you come across, PRESERVE is hardly applicable per WP:BRD. Gotitbro (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Beej mantra into Mantra

It appears that Beej mantra contains information (possibly with some additional info) about a topic that is already covered in Mantra Singularity42 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, on this is one of many distinct mantra subtopic pages that worth maintaining separately, primarily because merging them all would be unwieldy. See Gayatri Mantra, Pavamana Mantra, Shanti Mantras, etc. Klbrain (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Beej mantras are an unique, notable type of mantras. Keep as a subtopic. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)