Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The History of Buddhist Thought c22.s1: Note on Spells

The History of Buddhist Thought c22.s1

Language
English

Note on Spells

c22.s1.1

Chapter 21 of the *Lotus* is entitled *Spells (dhāraṇī)*. Spells form an important part of popular Buddhism, but they have nothing in themselves peculiarly characteristic of Buddhism. They are a form of sympathetic magic, which consists in asserting (along with certain ritual actions) that a certain wished for event is taking place, and by the power of the word it is supposed that if every detail is properly performed the event does happen. Spells are found in India as early as the Rig-veda, and the Atharva-veda is little more than a collection of such spells or charms. But the practice is much wider and no doubt much older than Vedism. Spells of the same type are existent in Old English, Old High German, and Keltic, to go no further.

c22.s1.2

Spells of this kind had already infected popular Buddhism, for there are several examples in the Pāli Canon. In the *Āṭānāṭiya-sutta* (Dīgha, iii, 194), the four Great Kings with their troops visit Buddha. Vessavana (*Kuvera*), Great King of the north, gives Buddha a form of “protection” (*rakkhā*) against evil-disposed non-human beings, yakshas, gandharvas, kumbhaṇḍas, and nāgas. These are the minor gods in the train of the four Kings, but many of them, says Vessavana, are well disposed to Buddha and, if monks, nuns, laymen, and lay women will repeat the spell, such beings will protect them. The spell itself is in verse and consists of homage to the seven Buddhas and to the four Great Kings. Buddha afterwards repeats it to his monks, so that it becomes part of the Buddha-word.¹ The general belief among Buddhists in such beings and their powers is apparent throughout. We are told that when Buddha goes into any village or town non-human beings do not injure men (Dīgha, i, 132).

c22.s1.3

¹ This occurs in a collection of spells chiefly from the Scriptures known as the *Pirita* (Pāli, *paritta*) “protection”, still used by the Buddhists of Ceylon and Further India. Buddhaghosa, commenting on the sutta, explains how the spell is to be performed.

c22.s1.4

The belief in the magic power of the word led to the view that the words need not be intelligible. In Old English we find lists of corrupt Keltic words, which once had a meaning, but which came to be repeated merely as words having power. This has gone much further in India, where long lists of merely invented words are repeated. In the *Lotus* (ch. 21) the bodhisattva Bhaishajyarāja and others utter spells of protection for those who preserve the sūtra. They are lists of meaningless words, and usually end with the word *svāhā* (a Vedic term used in making oblations to the gods). An example of one of the shorter ones in the *Lotus* is *aṭṭe taṭṭe naṭṭe vanaṭṭe anaḍe nāḍi kunaḍi svāhā*. All the words are in the form of feminine vocatives, and appear to be modelled on spells addressed to female divinities. Spells of exactly the same type, and sometimes the identical spells, are also found in Hinduism. Female divinities in early Hinduism are almost non-existent, and there can be no doubt that both in Hinduism and Buddhism there has been a borrowing from non-Aryan sources.

c22.s1.5

One of the best known spells of this type is the well-known *oṃ maṇipadme hūṃ*. It has often been misunderstood, for it was first reported by travellers quite ignorant of the language.¹ This was even the case with Klaproth, who expounded it in 1831.² He did not see that *maṇi* is not a separate word, but only a stem. He thought it might be nominative or vocative, but if it were a word and vocative it would be *mane*, and if nominative *maṇiḥ*. Really *maṇipadme* is one word and a feminine vocative,³ so that with the syllables of invocation *oṃ* and *hūṃ* it means “O Maṇipadmā”. Maṇipadmā is “she who has a jewel-lotus”. F. W. Thomas thinks that she was a female counterpart of Avalokiteśvara, but in the *Kāraṇḍavyūha*, where the spell is expounded, there is no trace of such a female being.

c22.s1.6

¹ The earliest appears to be the Franciscan, Willelm de Rubruk or Rubruquis, who was sent in 1253 to Tartary by Louis IX of France. He gives it in the form *ou mani hactain*, and, as one of the priests told him, says it means “Deus tu nosti”. *Itinerarium* in *Recueil de voyages et de Mémoires publié par la Société de Géographie*, Paris, 1839.

c22.s1.7

² *JA.*, 1831, 185 ff. “Le sens de la phrase est très-claire. Lue *Om Maṇi Padma hoūm* elle signifie Oh ! précieux Lotus, Amen ; et si on lit *Om maṇi padme hoūm*, Oh ! le Joyau (est) dans le Lotus, Amen.”

c22.s1.8

³ This was pointed out by W. H. Mill in 1835, but his explanation made no impression. H. H. Wilson thought it was a locative, and hence invented the bodhisattva Manipadma. That is the only reason why this name occurs in the great St. Petersburg Lexicon. The whole matter was finally made grammatically clear by F. W. Thomas, *JRAS.*, 1906, 464, and A. H. Franke, *JRAS.*, 1915, 397 ff.

c22.s1.9

More probably it is constructed like the rest on the model of the Hindu spells.¹ Avalokiteśvara is represented with a lotus in his hand. Maṇipadma as an epithet does not appear to be applied to him, but he has epithets like *padmapāṇi* “having a lotus in his hand”, *padmadhara* “bearing a lotus”, and *śubhapadmahasta* “having a fair lotus in his hand”. It is not certain, however, that the spell was originally connected with Avalokiteśvara. The “six-syllabled spell” is mentioned in *Divyāvadāna* (613), and probably refers to this spell. But there is no mention there of Avalokiteśvara. Also in the *Lotus*, although there is much about Avalokiteśvara and spells, there is no mention of this one.

c22.s1.10

¹ Female counterparts did come to be invented, but they are not found in the *Kāraṇḍavyūha*, nor the tantric sense which became attached to *maṇi* and *padma*.

c22.s1.11

Hundreds of *dhāraṇīs* exist, and they are not all mere gibberish. They are usually embodied in a *sūtra* as in the case of the *Āṭānāṭiya-sutta*. In the *Megha-sūtra*² Buddha gives spells to the Nāgas for rain-making, which are to be uttered by the reciters of the doctrine with particular ceremonies. The *Aparimitāyurjñāna-sūtra* has been translated into Tibetan, Chinese, and North Aryan.³ It is a spell of 108 syllables for obtaining unlimited life. The great Mahāyāna sūtras, like the *Lotus* itself, come to be treated as magic objects bringing blessing to any who hear them, who read or write them, or cause them to be written. Of the *Lotus* itself it is said that “it is a saviour of all beings from all dangers, a releaser from all pains. It is like a pool for the thirsty, a fire for the cold, like a garment for the naked, a caravan leader for merchants, a mother for her children, a ship for those sailing across, a physician for the sick, a lamp for those wrapped in darkness, a jewel for the seekers of wealth, a universal king for princelets, an ocean for rivers, a torch for dispelling all darkness.” Of Chapter 22 it is said that “it will be like medicine for the sick and suffering. On him who has heard this section of the doctrine no bodily pain will come, nor old age, nor untimely death”.

c22.s1.12

² Edited by C. Bendall, *JRAS.*, 1880, 286, but he omits many of the spells as being “gibberish and mysticism”.

c22.s1.13

³ Ed. by Walleser, Heidelberg, 1916.

Linked texts (4)