Words of Creation

Illustration Les amis d'Hermes

In many traditions creation power through words is mostly attributed to God, gods, daimons, angels, etc., but it can also exist in cultures without a creator god, a demiurg, but this may be a later evolution. Language, Words, “the Verb” brings order where there is chaos, or what is perceived as chaos. Order comes with an ideology. By what ideology do certain words have “creation” power, power to establish order in what is perceived as chaos. Isn’t power always a “creation” depending on multiple factors in the sense that it is operational in an ideology, creating it, maintaining it, dis-empowering or reinterpreting it?

Buddhism and Daoism are sometimes considered as non-theistic traditions, without at least an anthropomorphic creator god/demiurg. Yet gods and daimons are found in both traditions, perhaps because they emerged in societies with older traditions, “before the invention of heaven”? They certainly were societies with an animated and enchanted Nature, maintained by Natural agents. Rather than to eliminate earlier traditions they integrated and used parts of them. “Skilfully” (upāyena) in Buddhism. Whether that is indeed possible, because we live by metaphors, is another question.

Nāgārjuna’s Ratnavāli (1.3 and 1.4) declares:

“In one who first practices high status (s. abhyudaya t. mngon mtho)
Definite goodness (s. naiḥśreyasa t. legs pa) arises later,
For having attained high status,
One comes gradually to definite goodness. (1.3)

High status is considered to be happiness (s. sukha),
Definite goodness is liberation (mokṣa).
The quintessence of their means (asya sādhanasaṃkṣepaḥ)
Is briefly faith (śraddhā) and wisdom (prajñā)[1]. (1.4)

“High status”, abhyudaya, refers to worldly success, prosperity, or happiness. It encompasses desirable attainments in this life, such as good health, wealth, and comfortable living conditions. Good karma and merit (s. puṇya) are said to “trans-existentially” lead to “high status”, allowing one to obtain the proper conditions to attain liberation (s. mokṣa). “High status” is obtained through following the ways of the world (s. prāgdharmā). Good health, wealth, fertility, comfort and longevity, etc. can be boosted by appealing to the agents of Nature. A Buddhist would that “skilfully”, because the final main objective remains liberation. In the meantime there is no harm in creating the best possible conditions through supernatural sciences, including using astrology, divination, magic, etc. from other, earlier, non-Buddhist traditions. These sciences became an integral part of Buddhism and other Indian religions. “High status” furthermore allows Buddhists to support the Buddhist clergy and institutions.

The magic of earlier theist or “enchanted” traditions uses consecrations, sacred, formula, incantations, spells, charms, paritta, yantras, amulets, dhāraṇīs, mantras, etc., spoken or written words considered to have “creation power” and efficiency” for the required “status goals”. Since these words were often thought to have been initially uttered by divine or daimonic entities with “creation power”, they were moreover thought to have the power to change the effects of karma, attenuating negative karma and boosting and multiplying positive karma. This also implies, in Buddhist circles, that mere causality was not the highest authority.

Dhāraṇīs were initially “mnemonic codes”. Later they were used as “power words” as well, like mantras. In Buddhist Tantras mantras were thought to have been uttered by a Buddha, but may have another origin. Sometimes dhāraṇīs and mantras were offered to him by supernatural entities in order to protect the Buddha and his students against obstacles. The Buddha is said to have generally spoken in prakrit (pāli), whereas mantras are often in Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the language of the Veda and the gods, and prakrit the language of humans.

“Two monks, brothers, brahmans by birth, of fine language and fine speech, came to the Buddha and said: Lord, here monks of miscellaneous origin (literally, of various names, clan-names, races or castes, and families) are corrupting (dūsenti) the Buddha's words by (repeating them in) their own dialects; let us put them into Vedic. The Lord Buddha rebuked them: Deluded men, how can you say this? This will not lead to the conversion of the unconverted... And he delivered a sermon and commanded (all) the monks: You are not to put the Buddha's words into Vedic. Who does so would commit a sin. I authorize you, monks, to learn the Buddha's words each in his own dialect[2].” (Cullavagga 5.33; Vin. ii.139.1 ff.)

Sanskrit mantras need to be correctly pronounced and used under the right circumstances and by the right people. When Buddhist texts, written in Sanskrit, contain incantations and mantras in Sanskrit, they need to be transcribed in translations. The text may be translated, e.g. in Tibetan, but the mantras must remain in Sanskrit phonetics, otherwise they won’t be efficient, their magic won’t operate… The origin of a mantra is the uttering in Sanskrit by a supernatural entity belonging to Indian mythology. The creation (both śuddha and aśuddha) power of the mantra is that of this entity, expressed in words in the language of gods. The explanation of a Sanskrit mantra’s vibration that resonates with specific energies when pronounced accurately is probably a later interpretation. It diminishes the role of a mythological or supernatural being’s utterance.

Moreover, later, the correct Sanskrit pronunciation of a mantra mattered less, and its transmission through a guru-śiṣya parampara became crucial. Faith matters more than orthopraxy and orthodoxy, and always has the right vibration… between heart and Heart. Moreover specific mantras are pronounced at the end of a ritual to apologize for possible mispronunciations and to repair mistakes. Faith is the key.

If we look at the form of a Tibetan sādhana, the ritual acts (the first meaning of karma) are fully described in Tibetan, but captured in Sanskrit mantra formulas so as to produce the right effect, together with a consecrated hand gesture (mudrā). Moreover the mantras to be recited remain in Sanskrit, in the original divine language of its first utterance. By carrying out the ritual properly, the creative power of the Sanskrit mantras allow practitioners to (re)create the pure realm (maṇḍala) of the deity and access pure vision or sacred outlook (t. dag snang). “Conceptual” ritual gestures, words and thoughts are transformed (empty and luminous), to make them compatible with the eternal pure (nonconceptual) realm of saṃbhogakāya and its entities. The two (samayavatta and jñānasattva), conceptual and nonconceptual are united.

This notion of the creative power of words can be found back too in other traditions. The word Abracadabra comes from the Arameic, and is often (wrongly) translated as “As I speak I create”, but this seems to be folk etymology. The Roman scholar Serenus Sammonicus (early 3rd century AD) used "Abracadabra" in his "Liber Medicinalis". In this book he prescribes to write out the word repeatedly, removing one letter each time, until the letter A, to form a triangle shape. This amulet was then worn by the patient as a cure for their ailments. Possibly an allegorical use of amulets?

Another folk etymology word is Hocus Pocus (Pilatus Pas). Following this etymology "Hoc est corpus meum" (This is my body) pronounced during Latin mass became “Hocus Pocus”, and "sub Pontio Pilato passus est" (suffered under Pontius Pilate) became “Pilatus Pas”. Probably a joke, but it shows that Divine words of creation, here to realize the consubstantiation, can be creatively used for other purposes, often magical. If he indeed did, Jesus probably pronounced these words in Aramaic, which would then have been first translated into Greek and then into Latin. The original Aramaeic seems not to be required for its efficiency during the consubstantiation.

Buddhist Tantras were a way to integrate these older traditions and to have them pronounced and authenticated by the Buddha appearing as a Buddhist deity, and to use mantras not only for “higher status”, but for Deification and Buddhafication as well, and to consecrate the Vajra Body, including through mantric power. These practices really took off when the Buddhist scholastic nominalism of Madhyamaka definitely lost out to Yogācāra. A similar phenomenon happened took place in Europe during approximately the same period.

"The attitude of the first Christians towards [conjuring formulas] is relatively ambiguous. The Copts of Egypt commonly used them to drive out demons and cure illnesses, and the structural form they gave them has hardly changed to this day. Origen does not take a position: he merely considers that an incantation translated into another language loses its power. Saint Augustine and Saint John Chrysostom denounced those who used enchantments to heal illnesses, although the latter did not deny the efficacy of the name of Jesus and the virtue of the sign of the cross in healing wounds. Severe condemnations of these practices were issued by Eligius (St Eloi) at the Council of Noyon and repeated by the Council of Rome in 721.

However, it seems that the Christianisation of conjuring formulas enabled them to be partially integrated into medico-religious customs from the Middle Ages until around the twelfth century. St Hildegard of Bingen used incantations to prepare her remedies. This suggests that the intellectual elite of the time remained aware of their intrinsic value.

With the triumph of scholasticism, the Roman Church continued to severely criticise the use of conjuring spells, although priests and monks continued to use them frequently. They are still used today in some rural parishes.[3]”

See my blog Realist Revolution: "How the Occult Transformed Philosophy & Spirituality" on the ongoing struggle between scholastic nominalism and realism, and the sustainable return of realism as the occult from the 15th century onwards.

Buddhist Tantras were a way to integrate pre-Buddhist traditions and to have them taught and authenticated by the Buddha appearing as a Tantric Buddhist deity (heruka), and to use mantras not only for "higher status", but moreover for Deification and Buddhafication, and to consecrate the Vajra Body, including through mantric power.

In spite of everything it takes to uphold the “vehicle of mantras” and the techniques of the Vajra Body, these are still considered as “nonconceptual” methods, because they operate in a true Luminous reality, that doesn’t need “mind”, the intellect, sensorial perception etc. to "directly" access it. The same goes for the Luminous reality of the subtle “Light Body” and the “Luminous Self”. These are by definition “nonconceptual”, because they are “luminous” and pre-exist before body and mind, and will continue after their dissolution. This Luminous reality and its Luminous Body can be reconnected with through nonconceptual Luminous practice. Visualisations, mantras and yoga serve as a link.

Mainstream Buddhist “conceptual” practice (threefold training triśikṣā) is replaced by “nonconceptual” practice, or rather practice that is said to result in direct access to the nonconceptual true Luminous reality. Since there is a continuity of Ground Path and Result, the nonconceptuality of the Result is already present in the Ground and permeates Ground Path and Result. Sounds a bit like scholasticism, doesn’t it?

 

Hocus Pocus by Focus

***   

[1] English translation on the zensite. Internet Archive, tra. Jeffrey Hopkins (2007)

“The Precious Garland of Advice for a King by the great master, the Superior Nagarjuna, is translated by the Indian professor Vidyakaraprabha and the Tibetan translator and monastic Bel-dzek. Consulting three Sanskrit editions, the Indian professor Kanakavarman and the Tibetan monastic Ba-tsap Nyi-ma-drak corrected translations and other points that did not accord with the unique thought of the Superior [Nagarjuna] and his spiritual son [Aryadeva]. It was printed at the great publishing house below [the Potala in Hla-sa]”

[2] EDGERTON, F. (1953). Buddhist hybrid sanskrit grammar and dictionary 2. 2. New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, p. 1

[3] “L'attitude des premiers chrétiens à leur égard est relativement ambiguë. Les Coptes d'Egypte s'en serviront couramment pour chasser les démons et guérir les maladies et la forme structurelle qu'ils leur donneront ne variera plus guère jusqu'à nos jours. Origène ne prend pas position: il considère seulement qu'une incantation traduite dans une autre langue perd son pouvoir. Saint Augustin et saint Jean Chrysostome dénoncent ceux qui se servent d'enchantements pour la guérison des maladies, ce dernier ne niant pas toutefois l'efficacité du nom de Jésus et la vertu du signe de croix pour guérir les blessures. De sévères condamnations de ces pratiques sont prononcées par Eligius (St Eloi) au concile de Noyon et reprises par le concile de Rome en 721.

Cependant, il semble que la Christianisation des formules de conjuration ait permis une intégration partielle de celles-ci dans les mœurs médico-religieuses, du Moyen-Age jusqu'au XII siècle environ. Sainte Hildegarde de Bingen fait usage d'incantations pour la préparation de ses remèdes. Ceci laisse à penser que l'élite intellectuelle de l'époque reste consciente de leur valeur intrinsèque.

Avec le triomphe du courant scolastique, l'Eglise romaine ne cessera de critiquer sévèrement l'emploi des formules de conjurations, bien que prêtres et moines aient continué d'en user fréquemment. L'emploi s'est maintenu jusqu'à nos jours dans certaines paroisses rurales.”

“Inquisiteurs et démonologues de la Renaissance dénoncèrent constamment la pratique des charmes, enchantements et conjurations. Jean Wier, dans son Histoire, disputes et discours des illusions et impostures des diables, magiciens et sorciers... parue en 1579, en cite un certain nombre, auquel il n'accorde d'ailleurs aucun crédit, ce qui lui vaudra pourtant d'être considéré comme sectateur du démon puisque, au travers de sa publication, il diffusait de paroles que l'on considérait comme directement inspirées par lui.”

Hugues Berton, Formes et structures des thérapeutiques traditionnelles : Convergences et divergences en regard de la programmation neuro-linguistique, 1999 p. 127