Regular mantra as opposed to...?

[Chenda]

In BDK America's translation of The Susiddhikara Sutra, the term regular mantra gets used from Chapter Seven (606b) onwards. While I don't think the sutra is in any way relevant to my current level of studies, I am interested in knowing the context behind the term.

This intrigued me since in the text the mantrin is supposed to use his regular mantra to mantrafy ("to recite/sing" and/or "to charm by reciting a spell") many things, including offerings (to purify them before offering to the deity). There's also this specific paragraph that says:

“If you seek great accomplishments, you should not subjugate mountain spirits with your regular mantra, and do not protect yourself or others and do not rescue [people] from difficulties or suppress poisons [with it either]. This is not only the case with your regular mantra, and you should not perform [such deeds] with any other mantras either. All your mantras, each according to its use, should not be practiced with any great frequency, and do not contest your magical powers with others.

It seems to me that one's regular mantra is used for all kinds of things on top of one's inventory of other mantras. Does regular mantra refer to a certain mantra given by one's teacher specifically for you to recite regularly? Is this more of one's personal preference, say, the mantra of one's primarily practiced yidam? Maybe it's simply the mantra one is most inclined to recite regularly?

Many thanks.

[Chenda]

To add to that, if I may, do all mantras have the potential to be used in such a general, multipurpose way as described in the sutra? (Purifying offerings, removing obstacles, subjugating demons, etc. in one mantra)

[Ode to Joy]

In BDK America's translation of The Susiddhikara Sutra, the term regular mantra gets used from Chapter Seven (606b) onwards. While I don't think the sutra is in any way relevant to my current level of studies, I am interested in knowing the context behind the term.

This intrigued me since in the text the mantrin is supposed to use his regular mantra to mantrafy ("to recite/sing" and/or "to charm by reciting a spell") many things, including offerings (to purify them before offering to the deity). There's also this specific paragraph that says:

“If you seek great accomplishments, you should not subjugate mountain spirits with your regular mantra, and do not protect yourself or others and do not rescue [people] from difficulties or suppress poisons [with it either]. This is not only the case with your regular mantra, and you should not perform [such deeds] with any other mantras either. All your mantras, each according to its use, should not be practiced with any great frequency, and do not contest your magical powers with others.

It seems to me that one's regular mantra is used for all kinds of things on top of one's inventory of other mantras. Does regular mantra refer to a certain mantra given by one's teacher specifically for you to recite regularly? Is this more of one's personal preference, say, the mantra of one's primarily practiced yidam? Maybe it's simply the mantra one is most inclined to recite regularly?

Many thanks.

The meanings of such scriptures is very deep and innumerable. For instance it might not be referring to a Buddhist mantra at all - it could be referring to any verbal, mental or physical habit that you have slipped into that has gotten stale and ineffective or even harmful. We know the English word "mantra" doesn't mean the same as the original Sanskrit term and the Buddhist teachings are deep enough that all these meanings are included in them. So you might have gotten into a habit of fighting with someone or a group of people and always using the same insults or comebacks because they work somewhat but have no lasting benefit for anyone and in all likelihood are destructive in the long term. Likewise, just as "your regular mantra" could mean your most regular daily habits, "all your mantras" could refer to all your mental, physical and verbal habits or instincts or actions. So in this sense the teaching could be pointing to emptying and simplifying all your conventional realities, which is in line with Kriyayoga principles of simplification and purification of your life.

On the more literal tantric level it would be just like you are saying - your personal yidam's mantra, or just your own personal favorite mantra that you like to recite or that you recite every day. It might even be an entire brief sutra or tantra or chapter or vow that you recite every day as your main mantra practice, such as the Vow for Good Conduct.

There is also the clear admonition against using mantra and "magical power" to try to defeat enemies, which is to be expected in a Kriyayoga tantra since the practitioner is at the beginning level of tantra. In Anuttarayoga, and other higher teachings there are of course specific teachings on using mantras and magic of all kinds for exactly that purpose.

[Malcolm]

In BDK America's translation of The Susiddhikara Sutra, the term regular mantra gets used from Chapter Seven (606b) onwards. While I don't think the sutra is in any way relevant to my current level of studies, I am interested in knowing the context behind the term.

The term in the Tibetan text is rang gi sngags, one's personal mantra, that's all, nothing more.

[Chenda]

In BDK America's translation of The Susiddhikara Sutra, the term regular mantra gets used from Chapter Seven (606b) onwards. While I don't think the sutra is in any way relevant to my current level of studies, I am interested in knowing the context behind the term.

The term in the Tibetan text is rang gi sngags, one's personal mantra, that's all, nothing more.

And this may refer to any mantra of one's choosing?

[Ode to Joy]

In BDK America's translation of The Susiddhikara Sutra, the term regular mantra gets used from Chapter Seven (606b) onwards. While I don't think the sutra is in any way relevant to my current level of studies, I am interested in knowing the context behind the term.

The term in the Tibetan text is rang gi sngags, one's personal mantra, that's all, nothing more.

BDK's translation is from the Chinese translation, not the Tibetan. Perhaps the Chinese is also "one's own", but the translator used the word "regular". Or, perhaps the Chinese does say "regular". In either case the sense is comparable: familiarity, regularity, primacy, default, go-to, automatic, personal, main.

[Malcolm]

In BDK America's translation of The Susiddhikara Sutra, the term regular mantra gets used from Chapter Seven (606b) onwards. While I don't think the sutra is in any way relevant to my current level of studies, I am interested in knowing the context behind the term.

The term in the Tibetan text is rang gi sngags, one's personal mantra, that's all, nothing more.

And this may refer to any mantra of one's choosing?

No, it refers to the mantra one has received from one's ācārya.

[Malcolm]

In BDK America's translation of The Susiddhikara Sutra, the term regular mantra gets used from Chapter Seven (606b) onwards. While I don't think the sutra is in any way relevant to my current level of studies, I am interested in knowing the context behind the term.

The term in the Tibetan text is rang gi sngags, one's personal mantra, that's all, nothing more.

BDK's translation is from the Chinese translation, not the Tibetan. Perhaps the Chinese is also "one's own", but the translator used the word "regular". Or, perhaps the Chinese does say "regular". In either case the sense is comparable: familiarity, regularity, primacy, default, go-to, automatic, personal, main.

The original is in Sanskrit, now lost. Nevertheless, it just means one's personal mantra, nothing more. The Tibetan is very clear.

[Ode to Joy]

The term in the Tibetan text is rang gi sngags, one's personal mantra, that's all, nothing more.

BDK's translation is from the Chinese translation, not the Tibetan. Perhaps the Chinese is also "one's own", but the translator used the word "regular". Or, perhaps the Chinese does say "regular". In either case the sense is comparable: familiarity, regularity, primacy, default, go-to, automatic, personal, main.

The original is in Sanskrit, now lost. Nevertheless, it just means one's personal mantra, nothing more. The Tibetan is very clear.

And yet the question is in regard to the English translation from the Chinese of Shubhakarasimha not the Tibetan. The question is formulated: "What is meaning of the term "regular mantra"?", which is a reasonable question, given that is the printed text; not "What is the meaning of the Tibetan translation?" which would be a strange question in the context. Although granted, of course, consulting the Tibetan translation aids in clarity of the meaning.

incidentally it doesn't specify "the mantra given by one's acarya". One may come to adopt a mantra as one's personal, regular mantra by oneself due to karma from previous lives, without the direct intercession of a teacher in this life.

[Malcolm]

incidentally it doesn't specify "the mantra given by one's acarya".

Yes, the tantra does in general.

One may come to adopt a mantra as one's personal, regular mantra by oneself due to karma from previous lives, without the direct intercession of a teacher in this life.

No, one may not. Such practice is disallowed. You should consult Sakya Pandita on this point in his Differentiation of the Three Codes.

[Ode to Joy]

incidentally it doesn't specify "the mantra given by one's acarya".

Yes, the tantra does in general.

One may come to adopt a mantra as one's personal, regular mantra by oneself due to karma from previous lives, without the direct intercession of a teacher in this life.

No, one may not. Such practice is disallowed. You should consult Sakya Pandita on this point in his Differentiation of the Three Codes.

I have already consulted the Sutra of Innumerable Meanings where it states "this law is, namely, non form; being formless and without form, it is known as the true aspect of all laws (or dharmas)". There are countless such statements in all the Dharma vehicles and stages, and the meaning is self-evident, and it applies to all other teachings including the Differentiation of the Three Codes since it is the nature of all phenomena and Dharmas. After all, there is conventional and ultimate reality always in tension. Skillfulness and wisdom combined is needed to satisfy both, but it's not right to reject either. Furthermore, in one of his books - I forget which - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche states "there can be those individuals who do not require a teacher". I will need to consult all his books to find where he made that statement, which could take weeks, but it is certainly there. Also, we must realize that the conditions for practitioners in the world today is much different than in more traditional times. Besides, if you say karma from past lives doesn't determine your yidam and so on, and it is only assigned by a teacher, then this goes against everything, such as where your cast flower lands and so on.

[Ode to Joy]

One may come to adopt a mantra as one's personal, regular mantra by oneself due to karma from previous lives, without the direct intercession of a teacher in this life.

No, one may not. Such practice is disallowed. You should consult Sakya Pandita on this point in his Differentiation of the Three Codes.

There are too many teachings to name which contradict that, that's alright.

[Malcolm]

One may come to adopt a mantra as one's personal, regular mantra by oneself due to karma from previous lives, without the direct intercession of a teacher in this life.

No, one may not. Such practice is disallowed. You should consult Sakya Pandita on this point in his Differentiation of the Three Codes.

There are too many teachings to name which contradict that, that's alright.

There are no such teachings in Buddhadharma which contradict this. You can't name even one. For example, the Vajramāla Tantra states:

A mantra is not to be given
to a sentient being who has not received empowerment,
nor should the wise show an image
or a book to such a one.

Similar admonitions occur in Kālacakra, Abhidhānottaratantra, Mahāmudrātilaka, and so on. As far as practicing secret mantra goes without a proper teacher and empowerment, this is strictly prohibited for the same reason. The Mahāmudrātilaka states:

Whoever pridefully elucidates
the tantras and upadeśas to one lacking empowerment
as soon as they die, both master and disciple
go to hell, even if siddhi is obtained.

And:

If one pleases the guru, the king of mantras
will doubtlessly be attained.
If it is not attained in that way, it is faulty,
and even if one receives a mantra, it will not be effective.

Even in lower tantras, it is the same, for example, the Vairocana-abhisambodhi states:

Without empowerment, the source of secret gnosis,
there is no mantra.

And of course in the Tenjur, there are hundreds of such admonitions.

[FromTheEarth]

In the Chinese translation it was "自所持真言" or "所持真言," i.e., the mantra that one (themselves) holds. It does not seem much different in meaning from the Tibetan that Malcolm mentioned.
Perhaps the translator wants to emphasize that this is the mantra that the person holds (here to be understood as dhara, √dhṛ, etc.) that they picked the word "regular." But the specific "regularity" feature is not explicitly there in the original phrasing in the Chinese translation, and has to be supplemented by background knowledge.

[Chenda]

I appreciate everyone's input. Seems to line up with my conclusion, especially Malcom's, as some paragraphs do mention that mantras come from one's acarya.

As said here:

“If someone has not yet received mantras from an acarya,

I simply wanted to know more about the context of regular mantra, which seems to be used in an all-purpose manner in contrast to how I perceived mantras before, i.e., certain mantras for specific applications, and if anyone has an idea how one chooses it. By the looks of it, at least in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, the practice of one's yidam (mantra, specifically) may be the best bet for one's regular mantra.

To bump a follow-up question:

To add to that, if I may, do all mantras have the potential to be used in such a general, multipurpose way as described in the sutra? (Purifying offerings, removing obstacles, subjugating demons, etc. in one mantra)

[Ode to Joy]

No, one may not. Such practice is disallowed. You should consult Sakya Pandita on this point in his Differentiation of the Three Codes.

There are too many teachings to name which contradict that, that's alright.

There are no such teachings in Buddhadharma which contradict this. You can't name even one. For example, the Vajramāla Tantra states:

A mantra is not to be given
to a sentient being who has not received empowerment,
nor should the wise show an image
or a book to such a one.

Similar admonitions occur in Kālacakra, Abhidhānottaratantra, Mahāmudrātilaka, and so on. As far as practicing secret mantra goes without a proper teacher and empowerment, this is strictly prohibited for the same reason. The Mahāmudrātilaka states:

Whoever pridefully elucidates
the tantras and upadeśas to one lacking empowerment
as soon as they die, both master and disciple
go to hell, even if siddhi is obtained.

And:

If one pleases the guru, the king of mantras
will doubtlessly be attained.
If it is not attained in that way, it is faulty,
and even if one receives a mantra, it will not be effective.

Even in lower tantras, it is the same, for example, the Vairocana-abhisambodhi states:

Without empowerment, the source of secret gnosis,
there is no mantra.

And of course in the Tenjur, there are hundreds of such admonitions.

Those are all good citations, the meaning of which is clear and well known and undisputed.

For my part, I submit The Sutra that Brings Together the Contemplations of All the Buddhas, where there are statements such as:

""Great monk, I have heard that the skillful means of the teacher is a path in which one practices howsoever. Can that be understood as just the present [state]?" "

"To which came the reply, "O son of good lineage, it is indeed suitable to say that the [path] is whatever occurs in the present".

There are countless similar sentiments found all throughout for example Dzogchen tantras and teachings by all kinds of masters. OF course in that same Sutra that Brings Together the Contemplations of All the Buddhas the danger of this exposure to naked ultimate reality is highlighted, becoming the focus of much of the text; but it also teaches how when such a path is practiced with skill and wisdom, it directly leads to the goal.

[Malcolm]

Those are all good citations, the meaning of which is clear and well known and undisputed.

For my part, I submit The Sutra that Brings Together the Contemplations of All the Buddhas, where there are statements such as:

""Great monk, I have heard that the skillful means of the teacher is a path in which one practices howsoever. Can that be understood as just the present [state]?" "

"To which came the reply, "O son of good lineage, it is indeed suitable to say that the [path] is whatever occurs in the present".

This is not a citation that proves your point on any level, you've also misunderstood the context of the passage, which concerns Black Liberation (thar pa nag po) and his servant Danpag.

In any case, you will not find in any Dzogchen text your central claim:

One may come to adopt a mantra as one's personal, regular mantra by oneself due to karma from previous lives, without the direct intercession of a teacher in this life.

This is just your own fabrication, with no support from any source.

I am afraid here, you are closer to Black Liberation than Danpag.

[Ode to Joy]

This is not a citation that proves your point on any level, you've also misunderstood the context of the passage, which concerns Black Liberation (thar pa nag po) and his servant Danpag.

In any case, you will not find in any Dzogchen text your central claim:

One may come to adopt a mantra as one's personal, regular mantra by oneself due to karma from previous lives, without the direct intercession of a teacher in this life.

This is just your own fabrication, with no support from any source.

I am afraid here, you are closer to Black Liberation than Danpag.

Of course the different actions of Black Liberation and Danpag had enormous consequences, but the originating distinction between them is only subtle and concerns application, not the teaching itself which has a clear meaning, which seems to have some similarity to Dzogchen concepts such as spontaneous presence. I am thinking "spontaneous presence" resembles how the teaching states that the path consists of "whatever occurs in the present" and this applies equally to both Black Liberator and Dan the Pig - then it is down to skill and wisdom in implementation - it's not that the doctrine is flawed. As it states later in the text, "If suchness is left uncontrived, one practices the four entites (glossed as tantric practices) and they become like clouds in the sky". This is the path of the excellent yoga". It goes on to say that one shouldn't take the words literally but understand the fundamental meaning of them - which means understand them in light of everything, including the orthodoxy of the lower conceptual vehicles which are subsumed while not negated. But this still doesn't mean that the teaching is meaningless - it is still the absolute truth as summed up by Dan the Pig/Denpak; "I heard nothing but simply that the ascertainment of the present is perfect". This teaching is exceedingly profound, consisting of an ocean of rivers of teachings from all the lower vehicles, including all the texts quoted above.

As for your comments on Dzogchen, I submit that the entire body of Dzogchen outlines a path that is entirely non conceptual and beyond mind, and it states endlessly that it transcends the dialectics of the lower 8 vehicles; of course this presents the potential for gross error, as exemplified by the Rudra myth, but as is stated in one Dzogchen text, "without this teaching, nobody could escape samsara" (in that everyone would remain attached to the endless details and rules of the lower vehicles without any chance of complete freedom from everything) so it is given even considering the dangers inherent.

This understanding of the situation is almost exactly in line with the reasoning of Dan the Pig (Denpak) - Liberator's is much more crude and unsubtle.

[Malcolm]

As for your comments on Dzogchen, I submit that the entire body of Dzogchen outlines a path that is entirely non conceptual and beyond mind, and it states endlessly that it transcends the dialectics of the lower 8 vehicles

It does not mean that empowerment is not required. Empowerment is required in Dzogchen, point is made very clearly in the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra, the Sound Tantra, which is the root tantra of all Dzogchen teachings, and others.

It also does not provide justification for your initial claim, "One may come to adopt a mantra as one's personal, regular mantra by oneself due to karma from previous lives, without the direct intercession of a teacher in this life."

You really ought not argue with me about such issues. You are just making yourself look pompous and foolish.

[Tenma]

As for your comments on Dzogchen, I submit that the entire body of Dzogchen outlines a path that is entirely non conceptual and beyond mind, and it states endlessly that it transcends the dialectics of the lower 8 vehicles; of course this presents the potential for gross error, as exemplified by the Rudra myth, but as is stated in one Dzogchen text, "without this teaching, nobody could escape samsara" (in that everyone would remain attached to the endless details and rules of the lower vehicles without any chance of complete freedom from everything) so it is given even considering the dangers inherent.

How are your pets? And how's your family?