Thread: does it matter which mantra you use ?

Go with the one that holds the most meaning - the most power - to you. The second one is pretty good, all in all. Short, sweet, powerful.

mantra is somewhat not necessary. Use any sentence you want as long as it's meaning is to tell you that you know you are dreaming

Originally Posted by Mario92

Go with the one that holds the most meaning - the most power - to you. The second one is pretty good, all in all. Short, sweet, powerful.

Mario hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by Justinn

like the title says , will the mantra i use make a difference ?

e.g- the next time i sleep, i will do a reality check, and realize i am dreaming
or
i will know when i'm dreaming

will the mantra i say make a difference in the outcome ?

Concentrating on what you desire to do in state is not a Mantra. A mantra is meant to disable the mind, the opposite effect.

whats the difference between a sentence and a mantra ?
i think philosopher tried to explain it but i didn't quite understand

Originally Posted by Justinn

whats the difference between a sentence and a mantra ?
i think philosopher tried to explain it but i didn't quite understand

A mantra is designed to empty the mind. Stop it. It is a meaningless word. I paid 300$ for mine a long time ago. It is designed to relax--completely--even the mind.
A sentence for lucid dreaming is the focal point of intended action, the starting point of human will.

Lucid dreaming has its origin in the jewish nations, mantras in the Indian culture. They are as opposed as inaction and action.

For a complete understanding of mental discipline, one learns both--but they do not confuse them.

However, common to both is getting under the myths of their origin and meaning. The Yoga Sutras were written in a language that was almost dead when written, and they have never been translated correctly. If one undertake the task, one might discover a similarity between the idiology of the sutras with a certain Greek philosophy. Both initiated by language scholars--not mystics. One important anomaly is a phrase that is not common to Indian Lituratue in the Sutras, and has been always missed, but common in Greek formal presentation. "it is a given" if I remember, in about 4 of the suturas. It is a formal presentation about language and the mind.

Another thing, common to Greek thinking, but not Indian, is that the Sutras us a Geometric metaphor "parallel" which, quite frankly is the prime meaning of the idea of yoking in the sutras. What you see is what you think. Perception is the modification of the mind. One learns to cut off perception, blank all imput to isolate the mind. An exercise in mental discipline.

Here is what mystics do. It was known that there was one Patanjali at the time who was a language scholar. Sanskrit was near a dead langauge at the time, a language of scholars. Patanjali hated mysticism, was a realist. So, A new Patananjali was created, one of myth. but here is the rub, how did he also get to be a language scholar to write in Sanskrit? And a third really difficult thing, the name Patanjali itself is composed of two words which denote the core idea of the sutras themselves. There is much more, but what I concluded is that it is probably more than coincidental that the Patanjali lived at the same time as Plato, came up with with a foundation and method of learning very similar with the theory of forms, Both language students, and the name Patanjali a construction. And, that this character appeared in India, but his origins were unknown.


When you search for understanding, you have to dig really deep sometimes. I gave up on it, put it aside for a later restudy of the whole mess.

Whatever, to your mind, encapsulates your intention best.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

A mantra is designed to empty the mind. Stop it. It is a meaningless word.

it is ironic that you are so confining in your definition.

the word and perception of "mantra" is different across cultures and philosophies, with dozens of Buddhist or Hindu schools espousing various approaches to "mantra." not all of them are meant to empty the mind, some of them, such as japa (prayer beads) are meant to focus the mind on an intention. In the context of the Vedas, mantra means entire portions of the text. And a mantra can symbolize thought-forms or higher powers, it can be a form of worship, or it can be simply a sound / thoughtform.

it is semantically accepted on this forum, and amongst lucid dreamers, that the mantra is used to focus one's intention.

to the OP, i would try out different mantras, and see which one works best for you. try to find a resonance with your intent.

allow me to add to the question... How long does it generally take for the mantra to make you fall asleep casue i always stay awake and never fal alsleep

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Lucid dreaming has its origin in the jewish nations, mantras in the Indian culture. They are as opposed as inaction and action.

Lucid dreaming is definatly in in Indian culture. Look up yogic dreaming. The Indians are masters of it. Also you can use a mantra to focus intention, why not?

An Idea I'm throwing out there that works for me: Meditate before bed to empty your mind then say an affirmation to state your intention. Then go to sleep.
You can use mantras too of course. All thought is energy, but if your saying the mantra and your mind doubts it and says bullshit I'm not becomeing lucid tonight that is attracting that outcome to you. So a major factor is confidence. Also get a healthy night sleep (don't go to bed exhausted)

Originally Posted by zhineTech

it is ironic that you are so confining in your definition. .

You mean focused. In formal presentations it is called "WELL DEFINED TERMS." My approach to the study of philosophy and religion appears to be quite different from yours. I do not search out the variations and spread and how opinions of meaning have changed when I study something. I study the founding document. I believe I mentioned the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. I did define my topic. You can take almost any word in history and watch it change to mean exactly the opposite of its original meaning, but I am not looking for a cluster frill of nonsense, simply an understanding of what was on the mind of the writers of original documents.

One thing I learned as a child. When you study a thing, you do so to the limit of your own ability. To study those who had opionions about a thing switftly leads to an exponential degradation of understanding. The highest integrity you can acquire is to go one on one with the source, nothing else matters. I think we all learned about the telephone effect in grade school, however, I don't see many using the idea to guide their method of study.

Even my studies of the Judeo-Christian Religions did not start with churches or bibles, but I went to the source, actually stubled across it in my studies. I learned in dreams and visions, I actually became a prophet even before I knew what one was. I learned the distinction between being a prophet and being a prophet sent--a prophet sent is very, very rare. It was only after much of my learning was over, was it hinted to me to search the scripture. Needless to say, you have no idea how frightening that can be. You do not understand the same as is popular.

As for the specific term of "mantra" I paid for mine, complete with lecture, when the Self-Realization Institute (SRI) was popular in the West. However, the term is used in the translations of the sutras, but it's origin is not in that work--it never was.

As for the varius branches of the Yogic tradition, you can see plainly, when you study the original document, how these branched off from particular lines in the text, as if someone got stuck. The part became the whole for them. It is like a child who gets stuck on something, and embellishes it over and over, because they cannot get beyond it. When you see a fragmentation, straying from a path, it is, and always has been, called "being lost."

So, you fault me for not using hearsay, the telephone effect, I fault you for using it. Those who do not seek understanding rely on the effect to challenge clear distinctions--for I think they desire others to share in their confusion. You missed the most important distinction. A mantra is personal, secret, and never changes. Learning in the Lucid dreamstate one changes their focus commensurate with their intended destination. The one is fixed, the other is not, it is alive. A mantra is given to one by one's human teacher, the focal point for lucid dreaming is often suggested by what men call God--that is when one learns to listen.

At the foundation of language, any language, is a convention of names. This drive to make words mean everything and nothing is no more than the lack of ability to formulate and participate in a convention of names, thus civil discourse. It is not well defined terms that limits language, it is what makes langauge and understanding possible--i.e. provides a focus for attention. The very same thing required for student intiated lucid dreaming.

You of all people should know that the definitions of words can change over time to suit the needs of a person or group of people. We've redefined mantra to mean a repeated verbal phrase of self-affirmation or autosuggestion. Perhaps not officially, but when referenced within the bounds of lucid dreaming, this is what it means. Consider it a slang term if it makes you feel better.

Originally Posted by Mario92

You of all people should know that the definitions of words can change over time to suit the needs of a person or group of people. We've redefined mantra to mean a repeated verbal phrase of self-affirmation or autosuggestion. Perhaps not officially, but when referenced within the bounds of lucid dreaming, this is what it means. Consider it a slang term if it makes you feel better.

When I took my GED, completely stoned, my reading comprehsion was still above what you just displayed.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

When I took my GED, completely stoned, my reading comprehsion was still above what you just displayed.

Why did you keep your sentence short? Did you think you were going to make a mistake?

P.S You spelled "Comprehsion" wrong its actually spelled Comprehension. So much for that GED.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Why did you keep your sentence short? Did you think you were going to make a mistake?

P.S You spelled "Comprehsion" wrong its actually spelled Comprehension. So much for that GED.

lol.

PS, I already had college credits when I took the GED stoned. I thought it was funny. First time I tried answering questions when short term memory was almost completely gone.

Philosopher...kindly get off your high horse and gtfo of DV.

Also:

Talking about high horse, who in the fuck to you think you are? If you have nothing to contribute, stfu.

Well, I tried to contribute, but you promptly insulted my intelligence for baseless reasons without explaining where I went wrong in my explanation for how we're using the term "mantra." At the same time, you retorted with long-winded, pointless posts that have no relevance whatsoever to this thread. You are trolling. GTFO.

Yeah that was uncalled for there Philosopher. Mario gave his opinion and you just blasted him and didn't give any real reason as to why.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Well, I tried to contribute, but you promptly insulted my intelligence for baseless reasons without explaining where I went wrong in my explanation for how we're using the term "mantra." At the same time, you retorted with long-winded, pointless posts that have no relevance whatsoever to this thread. You are trolling. GTFO.

He addressed your point, before you made it, in this post.

He's explicit here:

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

So, you fault me for not using hearsay, the telephone effect, I fault you for using it.

Essentially, he looks down on us for using the word "mantra" in a way that is contradictory to its original meaning, social precedences be damned.

I'm more inclined to agree with Mario on this one. After all, one can't overlook social norms when operating within that society.

Thank you. I've long since given up trying to make sense of his nonsensical posts and metaphors.

And yes, that is a silly, arbitrary reason for thinking less of someone. Grow up, Philosopher.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Yeah that was uncalled for there Philosopher. Mario gave his opinion and you just blasted him and didn't give any real reason as to why.

As if he either did not read what I posted, or did not understand. Now, it pisses me off, because when I study, I do not attack a piece as if I had an opinion, but I compare . . . hold on. I think I got it. I am thinking as I am typing here.

I need to think about this for a while. I don't believe that I have the patience any longer to push someone to remember what they read and process it by comparison. Not that I don't want to, but I have a lot of work I have to do, rather, I really want to get done. My lack of patience is due to my lack of time. I should not be in this kind of environment. My fault.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

Essentially, he looks down on us .

What do you call it when you blame the world for your complexes and paranoia? Your inability to see only what is written? How do you study anything, when it is your own shadow that is always getting in your way? Don't you think it is the least bit arrogant and rude to make the world suffer you? Do you really think you can hear when it is your own voice shouting in your ear?

You want to talk about those who pioneered mental discipline, because they did care about communicating, but you have not even taken the first step. That is rude. That is arrogance. That is selfish. Yes, I say to helll with public opinion and go back to the sources. I say use your own mind and not be a freaking pack animal. Otherwise you don't have a damn thing to contribute.

In the history of man there has never been "a" public opinion.
There has never been "a" public understanding.
There has never been a great work sponsored by anyone called "public opinion".

These principles should be somewhere in one's mind when studying "an individual".

All of these are metaphors for "the one is not the many and the many are not the one."

Which is itself a metaphor for, "the form is not the material in the form, nor is the material in a form the form."

Or in set theory definition and enumeration. Understanding and ignorance. This distinction is not opinion, it is the biological foundation of your own body.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

What do you call it when you blame the world for your complexes and paranoia? ...Otherwise you don't have a damn thing to contribute.

How is this relevant to anything? You come off as a pretentious, holier-than-thou ass, dude. If you don't actually look down on us, your communication skills could use some work.

In the history of man there has never been "a" public opinion.
There has never been "a" public understanding. ... This distinction is not opinion, it is the biological foundation of your own body.

This is what I'm talking about. Maybe it's because your posts are so far removed from anything we're talking about, but they always throw me for a loop. It's okay to talk without using metaphors. Your point is a lot clearer without them. Kindly take your supreme reading comprehension down a couple pegs, if you can.