From elsewhere:


Why?

Oh well don't take me literally. I am just a 80s metal kid superimposing my affinities upon Krishna...

So they have krishna reggae, krishna acid rock, krishna new age, krishcore, and even krishna pop, so it is time for some...(you know what).

No, I am being serious.

Somehow, I have always been a traditionalist in this regard, and could not relate to modernized approaches to chanting.
For example, the brahmacari at the nama-hatta here once played the melody of "Stand by me" to which we were supposed to sing the Maha mantra. I was very put off by that. Same for synthesizer kirtans.

But I shall be open-minded and see if I can relate to such modernizations!


If some devotees chant the Maha mantra in the mood, of, say, heavy metal - what does that mean, what does it say about them and their relationship to the holy name and the traditional approach to chanting it?

Does it mean that they are so comfortable with chanting the holy name?
Is this their way to express their yearning for the love for God?

...?

Yes well, you know the whole thing must be done right. There is the real deal, and there is cheese out there. These boys in the video that was posted here with the mahamantra chanted to death metal was great I think. They knew what they were doing. It can get better though I think. They would have to be long time devotees and metal would have to be running through their veins a bit. Otherwise it would just turn into a mockery of musical justice.

Harikesha Maharaj put out some synth mahamantra stuff, and I thought it sucked ass. But I heard some other stuff that was kinda good. I remember a hippie band that was kind a good I think, Titiksava. And there are some guys nowadays called Kulashaker which aren't that bad. But if you check out Boy George chanting the holy name, now that's where its at totally. Total devotion. Nina Hagen...ehhh, I think doesn't cut it so well.

I think it all has to do with familiarity. If you are used to traditional Bengali tunes, then that is all that you will be able to tolerate. Back in the 70's devotees used to do Nrshinga prayers to African tunes which was more or less blues oriented, and it worked I think. Jamuna devi ripped off a classic 60's song, I think it was "turn, turn" or something, and recorded it on the album they did with George Harrison.

Mahamantra, in many ways, can immediately be turned into punk rock, because certain tunes have the same pace and what not, so that is probably why Shelter could pull it off well.

But metal, hmmmm...its not easy I guess. We need a real pro to become a devotee and see how he does it. I would nominate King Diamond.

About this, well praying to God comes in many mellows. There is love, there is renunciation, there is separation, there is community, there is longing, and sometimes even conquest.

So I think it would depend on the mood or rasa of the band. Hippies can do the love thing quite well. Punks can do the renunciation thing right well. And Metal bands would probably have to focus on some time of Ksatriya spirit in the way of conquest, kinda viking doom style. Maybe Mahamantra wouldn't work at all. They would have to some other songs like Nrshinga prayers, or Bhaja Hu Re Mana. It think it would work well. Hell, I used to do it in my bedroom all the time with my guitar, although I am not that good. But I would just bang out the power chords and chant.

Cro Mags are the proof and John often says in interviews that his band was more like the ksatriya spirit and he wouldn't want to get up on stage and chant like Shelter. He just makes his songs carry a message. If they did some intense bengali bhajans, then they would probably rock the house down. My guess is that he might not know that many bhajans, because the way I know ritviks, they don't go that deep into the braj bhakti spirit. They are too busy trying to finish their 16 rounds and they call it good.

Actually, Crispian Mills, the frontman of Kula Shaker, was the first devotee I have seen and liked. But back in 1996 when they first came to my attention, I didn't know anything about devotees. He was just attractive in a way I have never seen anyone be attractive before. (I wanted to sing along with "Tattva" but didn't know the lyrics.)



Do you mean in songs that he published? Which ones?



No, I don't find myself used to Bengali tunes at all.

I just don't understand the connection between the Maha mantra and the melody in which it is sung.

This is something I never understood in practical terms for myself... I can theoretically understand how other people can be in different devotional moods or mellows, but for me, things were always rather blank.



Wow.

Bow down,mister, Hare Rama Hare Krishna http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwg7uyy9g2c

And there are others you can search on You tube. I saw a full on bhajan by him once which was a rare clip according to the posting notes.




Well, I mean you gotta sing it to something. And there are different ragas for different times of the day. The morning melodies are different than the afternoon and the evening ones. Just think of how a lullaby song goes at night as compared with the bugle horn tune at an army boot camp.

Could you say more why you think this is an example of total devotion?

No I can't. Actually, I probably could, but I shouldn't. Because...it would just amount to me trying to lay my enthusiasm with a tinge of groupie sensibility on you. Either we think a song rocks or we don't. We can break it down, and it would get nerdy just like all the heavy metal rants I have been going off on lately.

I mean, if you haven't been moved by anybody's chant before, then either something is missing in them or you, I think. Somewhere we have to be able to connect. If Krishna doesn't do it for us, then it is alright. There are plenty of other things in the world to get excited about.

When I hear Boy George sing the mantra, I feel like dancing. I see that he has love in his heart and he is not afraid to chant. Well for that matter, Boy George just isn't afraid of much. He is an uncommon musician. I first heard "Karma Chamelion" from Boy George and there was a wide consensus that Boy George was cool. Even though us guys felt a little of an identify crisis watching him dress like a woman an sound and look like one, although we know he is a he, but still somehow, he won everyone's hearts with minimal criticism that I can remember. But that was the 80's when it was kinda cool to look a little gay.

If you are having trouble relating to chanting, which I think you said somewhere on a thread before, then the only thing I can say is that if the words and syllables inspire you with devotion, then its happening. If not, then not. Its kinda like sex. Either you feel it or you don't. You can't pretend much. Everyone will know you are faking it, unless you are expert. I guess some of the 80's gurus were just that, expert at faking it. The worst thing is not when people know you are faking it, but it is when you know yourself that you are faking it. That really sucks.

Later, years after "Bow down..." he recorded some kinda bhajan or something and it was not related to his world notoriety. It was more or less secret I guess and hardly anyone knew but some folks at the temple. When you see someone avoiding name and fame, then that says something for them right there.

But beyond that, we need a connection. There are plenty of "pure devotees" in the world that we see as ordinary people. I think that is okay because we all have our own rock star in life.

For instance, my rock star and angel guardian is none other than, The Holy Diver, The Man on the Silver Mountain, The Dreamer...The Most Honorable, Most High, The Blessed, Ronnie James Dio the King of Rock 'n' Roll! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEWZ9EfuG2c

To try and tackle this question in slightly different wording as before, actually uttering the mahamantra should be done with love and compassion, and celebration. If you feel any of those emotions or feelings or perspectives, then I think you can chant the mantra. Why not? There are no hard and fast rules for chanting is what Mahaprabhu said, did he not?

But so if you have anger, then I guess you shouldn't chant. But heavy metal for instance doesn't have to be taken as a display of anger. It might be merely aggression, which isn't always bad. It might also be a displeasure with the wong state of affairs in the world or screaming against what is wrong in the war against maya.

In Tibetan Buddhism, there are many wrathful worldly protectors who protect the Dharma. They are gruesome with fangs and skulls and so forth. They are manifesting wrath against ignorance so they let out such jestures for our benefit of the attainment of enlightenment.

So when I hear the mahamantra set to death metal, I think it iscoming to save me.

That was pretty good, thanks.

I remember this scene from the "Magdalene Sisters", I first saw it soon after it was released -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvDwNl1PcOs...feature=related at 9:10 - how the young woman kneeled down and prayed and the nun who previously had so much power over her, didn't have that power anymore.

Yes well if we have humility and faith, then that is more powerful than anything that trys to dominate us in the wrong way.

When a temple authority rubs me the wrong way, then I just remember the immortal lyrics of Escape by Metallica http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnQfgDP2byE

Here are the lyrics if you don't watch the video: all the lyrics are right on for the opposition of authority and pursuit of spiritual life, but I boldfaced some important ones.

Metallica Escape
Album: Ride The Lightning

Lyrics:

Feel no pain, but my life ain't easy
I know I'm my best friend
No one cares, but I'm so much stronger
I'll fight until the end
To escape from the true false world
Undamaged destiny
Can't get caught in the endless circle
Ring of stupidity

Out of my own, out to be free
One with my mind, they just can't see
No need to hear things that they say
Life is for my own to live my own way

Rape my mind and destroy my feelings
Don't tell my what to do
I don't care now, 'cause I'm on my side
And I can see through you
Feed my brain with your so called standards
Who says that I ain't right
Break away from your common fashion
See through your blurry sight

Out of my own, out to be free
One with my mind, they just can't see
No need to hear things that they say
Life is for my own to live my own way

See they try to bring the hammer down
No damn chains can hold me to the ground
Life is for my own to live my own way

- Written by:
James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich & Kirk Hammett

But this seems to mean that you have a personal philosophy that is above the religion you follow. How does that work?

And why would you say that? By the way, this is "Gaudiya-Repercussions," where people fit into different categories, of burnt out and pissed off with Hare Krishna, not fanatical about the religion, converted to something else, and many more. So I am in one of the categories mentioned or not mentioned, because i can't mention them all, because I don't even know them all. But for some reason I am here.

Sure I have my own personal current religious beliefs, but to my knowledge, I haven't professed them publicly as yet, have I? Something in the archives ? If so, I didn't remember, so I should say publicly now, my religion or way of life is an official secret, by golly !

But assuming I am a devout follower of Lord Shri Krishna, if that is what you meant (but if it wasn't then please tell me what you meant)

then I would say that the temple authorities don't know everything in life. Even Prabhupada, according to my readings of his letters, from time to time thought that management should not restrict another devotee's devotion, if the devotion could be seen clearly as a benefit to the living entities. He showed this many times in his defiance of the GBC. One devotee who was doing service was getting restriction and mandates from the GBC to stop his service, but Prabhupada intervened and told the GBC to leave him alone. (that was when a big book distributor was being told not to do his stuff).

So authoritarian control is something I was against, and I believe Krishna was against it also. He was an anarchist as far as I can see, but some of the acharyas for some reason were conformists. So Metallica tells me to break a way from the so-called standards (vaidhi bhakti rules and regs), and see through people's blurry site (maya), and live my own way (personal bhajan), thus breaking away from the endless cycle (of repeated birth and death).

In fact, the members of Metallica, before they formed Metallica in 1983, met with one of Iskcon's eleven acharyas, Jayatirtha das Adhikari, before Jayatirtha went off the deep end taking too much LSD. But he managed to dose the members and offered a guided session, where he showed the members that each one of the bandmates had their eternal swarup in the spiritual world.

Story has it, that James Hetfield and Dave Mustaine both had manjari forms in the position of opposing camp leaders who were seriously devoted to Radharani. But the bass player's siddha deha, fell down and became a ritvik devotee, and the drummer's deha became a temple manager who embezzled funds. So eventually, in the perverted reflection of the spiritual world, here on earth, James kicked Dave out of the band, and the bass player died, and the drummer became a dickwad who wanted to make all the money he ever could in the world and make all the fans poor.

Umm, hopefully the story became more and more ridiculous with every line and I won't be censored for any character assassination by the mods or fabrication of events which never took place. Plus, you would have to know both Iskcon Siddhanta, and Metallica History to know what the joke was that I was making.

For more information, on:

Metallica History, please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qRfF5M-7Tw

For more information, on:

Iskcon Fallvada vs Non-Fall-Vada theory, please read "Even the Leaves Don't Fall from Vaikuntha" by Satya Narayan das and Kundali Prabhu and any assortment of weird essays by whoever came up with a Biblical rendering of jiva tattva even though Krishna says, "My devotee never falls..."


PS: please watch this youtube video about Lars Ulrich because it is totally hilarious

PSS: please pardon me if anyone knows Lars personally, because I don't want to offend him, but I think even the New York Times thought his court cases against fans were kinda funny.

Metallica really p-ssed off a lot of fans when they went ballistic over Napster ...

The saddest thing about it is that their are a whole new generation of Metallica fans who don't know the dark covered history of Lars Ulrich's censoring of "loving free exchanges of goods" among fans

just in the same way

that there is a whole new generation of Hare Krishna devotees that don't know the dark covered history of the GBC altering the instructions of Srila Prabhupada,

or Srila Prabhupada altering the teachings of the Gaudiya Math, or the Gaudiya Math altering the teachings of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, or BVT altering the teachings of the Goswamis, or the Goswamis altering the teachings of the Bauls, or the Bauls mixing Islam with Hinduism, or Islam altering the teachings of the Goddess Ishtar hidden in the moon crescent, or the Goddess cult hiding the teachings of Shiva within the Kabbah, or Shiva hiding the teachings of Israel by worshipping idols, or Israel hiding the teachings of Jesus our Lord and Savior who sacrificed his own flesh for our salvation, or Jesus hiding the true history of the lost tablets of Enki which reveal that we are crafted of clay and meant to be slaves to mine gold to supply Nibiru in the outer solar system with enough material to keep their atmosphere intact without burning out from the sun's radiation.

Conspiracy is just plain wrong and it should be stopped. The Buddha taught that we must refrain from telling lies.

You can't change your mother but you can change your god and his teachings.

Not only are we stardust we are golden stardust. That is, if your synopsis of the history of everything is accurate.

I hope accurate. You can read more about our slaveowners, the Aunnunaki, and their home Planet X, Nibiru, over here: http://nibiruplanetx.org/

But there is one problem...one linguist that can read Summerian script says Zechariah Stitchin's account of Planet X is bogus because he mistranslated the discovered tablets.

But just what is that gentleman's agenda and related conspiracy is the real question...?

It is something that seems to almost suggest itself, and it is very common with many people, inside and outside of religious institutions.

One can see this personal philosophy at work when asking a member of a religion "How did you come to this religion?" and they answer something like "I read many books and then I decided on my own".
The crux is that this very religion has doctrines on how it is that people come to said religion - and the answers that people give about how they came to this religion are not the same as the religion's doctrine about how people come to it.

So it is as if those religious people have a meta-system which they deem neutral, independent from the religion they profess. Like acting on plan A, but always being ready and making allowances for plan B.
(Once one learns what the pattern is, one can easily observe it in other people, even without knowing much about them personally.)



Then you would be a devotee with reservations. If a follower of a religion has reservations, and doesn't see those in position of authority in this religion as being the highest authorities - then is he really a follower?

And more importantly, if he is not really a follower, than what is he doing there?



This is interesting. My impression has always been that unquestioning submission to the authorities is necessary, or one is an apostate (and should repent or leave). Because in some instances, SP did make the point that the GBC and the 11 were as good as him as far as instructing people is concerned.



This is a rather individualistic way to see things!

My impression has always been that thinking, feeling, speaking and doing in any way differently than ordered by those above me, is a mistake, that I have to understand such thinking, feeling, speaking and doing that is in any way different than ordered by those above me as a rebellion against the authorities and thus a rebellion against God; and that I will forfeit my chances for making spiritual progress should I ever not think it a mistake and rebellion.

Different authorities will give you different orders. Which ones will you accept as being in the name of the divine?

If you think that thinking is endangering your spiritual life then you must decide...........but, deciding requires thinking...........but, thinking is sinful unless I am thinking about how to carry out the orders of my superiors...........but, how do I know who are my superiors?.............maybe it is just easier to use your very own blessed brain?

Which means what, in practice? Discarding all KC books? Dismissing every premise which I can identify as having learned it in GV?

I can't tell you that. Can't means won't.

I follow my own personal radar. This life is not a rehearsal. Trusting that another person has the ability to successfully steer your life for you is a very big trust. Too much, in my opinion.

Have a good look at the long succession of disciples and at the many intrigues, corruption, murders and deception - not only ISKCON - where ever masters have power over slaves.

I always figured that Krsna couldn't be that much of a jerk and expect me to let someone else live my life for me.

There is a lot of things here, and I didn't understand the first quote/response...so let me make a swooping statement and maybe put forth some new questions if I am not being clear.

Swooping statement: Religion is not meant to establish authoritarian control. God gives us freedom and liberation from bondage. Rules and regulations and even institutions are for the purpose of facilitating the spiritual growth of an individual, not restricting it. Further their are many paths to God and many paths to management. So some paths are more restrictive and some paths are less restrictive in either category.

Personally I find for instance the Buddha's teaching to be the most free in terms of a spiritual path, but some Buddhist management systems such as centers and so forth can have just as many trappings as any other corporation or small business (religous or secular) in the world.

Hm. I have not actually thought about it like that. This bigger picture eluded my attention.

Believe it or not, I first started considering this concept while being in Iskcon. Iskcon seems real bad, but not everyone there is so bad. There are plenty of free thinkers who are ready to tilt the boat when needed.

Prabhupada himself was a revolutionary within his own framework and context, if you consider his life and background and so on. Initiating women and offering them an equal opportunity for ashram life was unheard of and many of his godbrothers were opposed to this. However, compared to other spiritual movements within India, I think he was totally backward, so I don't want to go too far to give him a lot of credit.

But anyway, to stay within the confines of an ashram that was led at one time by a revolutionary, is pretty revolutionary in it of itself, so some good ideas come forth. When the best of the ideas come forward and nobody wants to listen, then you leave and follow your heart, follow Krishna or whatever you want to call it. You follow your true beliefs.

Most esoteric principles of spirituality are totally anarchistic in my opinion. Prabhupada said also that brahmins are more disposed to anarchy.