I want to ask y'all about something that I have been wondering about for quite some time now.

- There are no hard and fast rules for chanting.
- God has millions and zillions of names, all imbibed with all His potencies.
- Vocalizing these names means associating with Him directly.
- Vocalizing these names purifies the heart.

So what determines if a particular combination of sounds, in vocalized or written form, constitutes a name of God?

I noticed that every name of God is never just a name without a meaning, but always refers to a characteristic, quality or activity. Even the word "God" itself is derived from the ancient Germanic gudda, meaning "the good." So that would be a name, too. Does this indicate that it depends on language? Can I chant God God Gudda Gudda, Gudda Gudda God God and get the same result as chanting Hare Krishna?

As confirmed by Prabhupada, Jehova, Adonai, Jaweh, Allah, etc. are also all names of God that have equal power and can be chanted, as are literally a myriad of Sanskrit names and names in other Indian languages.

Again, what determines if a particular combination of sounds, in vocalized or written form, constitutes a name of God?

Does it depend on culture and language? Does it depend on the consciousness of the one who is vocalizing these names? Intent?

What if in some obscure Congolese dialect coca means "all" and cola means "attractive." Would coca cola then not be a bonafide chant, despite that it refers to a soda drink in most of the rest of the world? Would it work only for those who speak this dialect?

I wonder, because it happens that names of God in one language can have a completely different meaning in another language. For instance Rama (pronounced raam) means "window" in Dutch, and Om means "uncle." I was told many times that this is fortunate for Dutch people because in this way they chant God's names without knowing, and thus offenselessly. Uhm, is this because it happens to map to some Sanskrit word? But then what about Allah, Jehova, etc.???

Bottom line:

Chanting coca cola wont purify your heart, but chanting window and uncle in Holland does.

I once made an experiment where I chanted what I called the soda-mantra instead of the mahA-mantra for some time, see here.

No difference. Both mantras yielded the same result, i.e., nothing really.

Hey, when I was a young teen my friends and I chanted:

John Lennnon John Lennon, John John, Lennon Lennon
Paul McCartney, Paul McCartney, Paul Paul, McCartney McCartney

We used to come up with all of these crazy scenarios and then make tapes of "radio programs" with our current scenario as the "news." For one of the tapes we made up a "Beatles" religion and chanted the above "mantra." I think the holy book was Lennon's In His Own Write with such hymns as "In the jumble, in the mighty jumble, Whide Hunter sleeps tonight..."

You didn't have a bona fide initiation in a bona fide, unbroken sampradaya in neither the soda-mantra nor the maha-mantra, that's why neither of them worked.

This was also one of my first internal question when I heard that. "Does it mean that jHasdjwefjvreolc" is also God's name? At the end, I decided that God's names are those words which were chosen by God and were made known to us as such. This solution - unlike my most other speculative answers to such questions - was surprisingly close to the solution suggested in Iskcon (ie. God's names come through the sampradaya), and saved me from falling into mayavada thinking that every word is God's name.

Of course, later it meant trouble too. When I read in CC that Gauranga's and Nityananda's names are supposedly more powerful than that of Krishna - and even later, when I heard such statements that Krishna's name is higher than Rama, and Radha's name is higher than that of even Krishna (that I could somehow prove to myself empirically... ), and Prabhupada still wrote that "we chant this and this mantra, even if there are names with higher potency, because that's what the acharyas of the sampradaya gave us" (not to speak about chanting Radha expressly forbidden by some temple authorities ), I couldn't relate to that argument so good. Why did the sampradaya gave us less than the most effective thing, I thought, and went into secret rebellions.



In concert with the above argument (and with sastras), I decided that if a name of God in a certain language means some other thing in another language, for the speaker it may mean the thing he thinks of (ie. the window or the uncle), but in the same time, he gots the results of chanting God's name too. I guessed it was the case not only with the Sanskrit words.

By the Way, in Hungary and in a great part of Europe, Rama (pronounced rAma, like the Sanskrit word) is a popular margarine cream.

Click to view attachment
Unilever is a big preacher.

BTW, the name Radha or as it is spelled Rada is a popular Bulgarian female name, albeit a bit old-fashioned. There many Rada's in the folk songs and classical literature. It has the same root as the word radost (радост) which means "joy".

Let us say I am in love with a woman and her name is Rihila (just made that up).
Now whenever I say "Rihila" I will feel love in my heart. However, the guy next to me is not in love with Rihila and when he says her name nothing happens. He's in love with Roxshila and thats the name that turns him on.

Now you can see that both Rihila and Roxshila can turn it on and both can also NOT do so. It depends on the the experience of the person who utters the name. Experience is the arbiter of semantic, of meaning. The name is not an impersonal thing existing outside the range of personal experience. The life of a name is nourished by the personal experience.

If Raam only means a Dutch window for you you will not summon a spiritual dimension by uttering Raam. If the spiritual dimension is most strongly summoned in the presence of person who you call Guru, then the name of the Guru may be more potent for you then the name of Raam. If you have been blessed with the sight of Raam and you associate (through cultural exposure) that vision with the name Raam, this will be your "Rihila" or "Roxshila".

The Vaishnava Saint, Madhva (of Dvaitic fame), asserted that every word is primarily a reference to the Godhead and only secondarily a reference to common things. Every word! Can you understand this?

In theory, I can - in practice, it takes a very absorbed saint to remember God by each word.

What you wrote makes sense to me and also resonates with my own feelings on the matter. Ultimately, what mainly counts is intent -- everything else is relative to time, place and circumstances.

There are hundreds of languages in the world currently, and over the millennia many hundreds more have come and gone. In those languages there are words to denote the Supreme and they are potent to the degree that they are accepted as denoting the Supreme.

It is said that inadvertant uttering of the name of God is also potent, but obviously uttering it consciously is more potent. Otherwise, Madhva's assertion would indicate that we merely need to speak whatever language we speak to get purified - as every word primarily refers to God.

What do you think?

The Hungarian expression for pantyhose is "harisnya". There is nobody who never utters this word at least once in a lifetime. So considering the Vaisnava theory that chanting the name of Hari even once, even without any pious intent brings about liberation, I guess in Hungary practically everyone is liberated. Cool!

Something else I wonder about.

Apparently the maha-mantra appears in sruti only in the Kalisantarana Upanisad, verse 2 -- and then only with the two halves reversed. The entire Upanisad only counts 3 verses, so here is one of the only versions I could find (I don't know how accurate the Sanskrit or translations are):

Invocation

om saha navavatu |
saha nau bhunaktu |
saha viryam karavavahai |
tejasvi navadhitamastu ma vidvisavahai |
om santih santih santih |

"May God protect us (the Guru and the disciple). May we both enjoy the results (of this Upanishad). May we attain strength together. Let the study of this (Upanishad) be illuminating to both of us. Let us not show contempt for each other. Peace. Peace. Peace."

Verse 1

harih om |
dvaparante narado brahmanam jagama katham bhagavan gam paryatan kalim santareyam iti |
sa hovaca brahma sadhu prsto asmi sarvasrutirahasyam gopyam tacchrunu yena kalisamsaram tarisyasi |
bhagavata adipurusasya narayanasya namoccaranamatrena nirdhrtakalir bhavati |

"At the end of Dvapara Yuga, Narada, after traveling the world, approached Lord Brahma and asked him: 'How may I overcome the (evil effects of) the Kali Yuga2?' Brahma said: 'You have asked me an excellent question. I shall reveal to you the secret of all Vedas, by which you will cross over the (ocean of) samsara filled with the bad effects of the Kali Yuga. This secret must be preserved and protected. By merely uttering the names of the Primeval Person, who is Bhagavan Narayana, one is freed from the clutches of Kali.'"

Verse 2

naradah punah papraccha tannama kimiti |
sa hovaca hiranyagarbhah |
hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare |
hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare |
iti sodasakam namnam kalikalmasanasanam |
natah parataropayah sarvavedesu drsyate |
iti sodasakalavrtasya jivasyavaranavinasanam |
tatah prakasate param brahma meghapaye ravirasmimandaliveti |

"Narada asked again: 'What are those names of Narayana?' Lord Brahma said: 'O Hari, O Rama, O Hari, O Rama , O Rama O Rama, O Hari, O Hari! O Hari, O Krishna, O Hari, O Krishna , O Krishna O Krishna, O Hari, O Hari! This collection of sixteen names (of Narayana) destroys the evils of the Kali Yuga. I don't see any other effective means (of liberation) in the Vedas. (This mantra) destroys the sixteen kalas of the living being, which constitute the veil of ignorance. Then the Supreme Brahman shines forth, just as the solar disc shines forth brilliantly when the clouds vanish.'"

Verse 3

punarnaradah papraccha bhagavan ko asya vidhiriti |
tam hovaca nasya vidhiriti |
sarvada sucirasucirva pathan brahmanah salokatam samipatam sarupatam sayujyatameti |
yadasya sodasikasya sardhatrikotirjapati tada brahmahatyam tarati |
tarati virahatyam |
svarnasteyat puto bhavati |
vrsaligamanat puto bhavati |
pitrdevamanusyanamapakarat puto bhavati |
sarvadharmaparityagapapat sadyah sucitamapnuyat |
sadyo mucyate sadyo mucyate ityupanisat |

"Narada asked: 'O Bhagavan, what are the regulations or injunctions to be followed in chanting these names?' Brahma said: 'There are no regulations to be followed. By chanting these names always, whether in a clean or unclean state, a brahmana obtains the four kinds of liberation, salokya, samipya, sarupya and sayujya. When a brahmana chants this mantra of sixteen names for a total of 35 million times, he becomes free from the sin of killing a brahmana. He overcomes the sin of neglecting his domestic fire. He becomes free from the sin of stealing gold. He becomes free from the offences committed against forefathers, demigods and human beings. He quickly becomes free from the sin of giving up all religious duties. He becomes liberated immediately; he becomes liberated immediately.' Thus the Upanishad."

om saha navavatu |
saha nau bhunaktu |
saha viryam karavavahai |
tejasvi navadhitamastu ma vidvisavahai |
om santih santih santih |

"May God protect us (the Guru and the disciple). May we both enjoy the results (of this Upanishad). May we attain strength together. Let the study of this (Upanishad) be illuminating to both of us. Let us not show contempt for each other. Peace. Peace. Peace."

What blows my mind here is that Brahma confirms that there are no hard and fast rules, but then mentions that a brahmin only gets free from all kinds of sins after chanting the maha-mantra 35 million times. At 16 rounds a day, he'd have to chant every day for 55 years straight without fail.

So where does that leave us poor mlecchas and yavanas???

Also, the argument given for our current version of the maha-mantra is that Caitanya Mahaprabhu reversed the order to appease the brahmin community, according to whom the lower casts were not allowed to chant sruti mantras.

I have never seen any actual scriptural or biographical reference to this effect. Does anyone know where this comes from?

Dhyana, what does Ek know about this?

Also interesting thing, that the verse promises the effects only for brahmanas.

(Maryada)

Wow! This is cool! I don't know what Ek knows about it, to my knowledge he has never discussed it, as he surely would, had he noticed the contradiction. I shall ask him.

Where is this transcript/translation from? The word boundaries in this verse are badly garbled:



I believe it should be:

om sahanav avatu |
sahanau bhunaktu |
saha viryam karavavahai |
tejasvinav adhitam astu ma vidvisavahai |
om santih santih santih

Please do. I am really curious.



It was taken from various sources online and appears in whole with a link to the original(?) Sanskrit at:

http://kuruvinda.com/personal.php?c=17

Ha, reading the translation of the invocation again I am actually surprised about the mutual respect that is spoken of:

"May God protect us (the Guru and the disciple). May we both enjoy the results (of this Upanishad). May we attain strength together. Let the study of this (Upanishad) be illuminating to both of us. Let us not show contempt for each other. Peace. Peace. Peace."

That's rather new to me. It's almost hard to believe. With my fanatical education in ISKCON in the early 90s and the many lectures I sat through throughout the years, I would expect something more like this (disclaimer: this is sarcastic and excludes sincere gurus and disciples...):

"May God protect me (the Guru), because you're just a disciple and dependent on me. May I enjoy the results (of this Upanishad). You can't, because you cannot understand anything without going through me. May I attain even more strength, and if I can remember that you are one of my 5,000 disciples, I may give you some, too (what's your name again?). Let the study of this (Upanishad) be illuminating to me, and my interpretation of it to you. Do not show contempt for me, as it is reserved for me to show contempt for you. Peace for me. Peace for me. Peace for me."

Question. Since we can only understand sastra through the spiritual master, why are so many Prabhupada disciples reading all this really esotheric sastric literature without his guidance?

Srila Prabhupada was only there to give his guidance in persona for 10 years. Sure, all his other guidance can be found in his books, letters, lectures, etc. But I have found that this non personal guidance is being (ab)used quite a lot. There's a quote for everything and for everything a quote.

And what about the claim that his grand disciples can only understand him through his disciples? Doesn't that make all his books completely useless after his disciples have died out???

Help me out here, dammit!

I once typed up the KalisantaraNopaniSad for the GGM, see here.

There are, as far as I know, two recensions, one in which the order of the mantra is reversed, the other where it is as ISKCON devotees know it.

This is based on some inane puranic stories, the thrust of which are easily countered by other devotional literature, logic and field experience. I am sure you are aware of the countless injunctions against chanting the holy names without appropriate intent and feeling.

For a God conscious person even a dogbite may denote the Divine. This is driven by his or her consciousness and not by the sound of the word "dogbite". Such a person sees the dog that bit them with love. The mere thought of the dog summons a sense of spiritual ecstasy. But you and I cannot so easily connote the dirty biting mongrel in such a way. We feel the dog bite as a suffering rather than an opportunity for heightened awareness.

As a diehard subjective idealist before even knowing the term, with a practically incurable tendency to see meaning and even reality as a product of intent, imagination, organization, construction or what have you, i took to gaudiya theology because it challenges you to believe the opposite.

You can see why one who describes themselves as above would want to challenge themselves into the opposite.

The potency of chanting hare krishna is not due to imagination.

This is the most interesting offense and one of my favourite lines.

If you want to bother to look at it logically, it negates its own self, or becomes a paradox. First there is the preambule that the potency of chanting goes away if u commit any of the following ten offences, and then there is the idea that the mantra is potent indepedant of anything that you can do, whether you believe in it or not, it is real, it is fact.

There are different "levels" or types of imagining. Without the highest imagining we could not apprehend the Divine in the so-called personal form. To consider one self lower than the straw in the street is itself a form of imagining. Imagining is indispensable to all facets of piety and more so in its advanced manasik forms. Contentions regarding the imaginal are ones that turn on the content rather than on the process.

Our capacity to imagine is our being in the image of God. How we choose to direct this gift will determine whether our life leads to divinity or devilry.

If the potency of the holy names was naked and independent of intent, feeling and directed imaging (acculturation) then the incidence of woman bashing, sleaze, child molestation etc should have decreased rather than increased in the circles of mechanical chanters.

So without a high level version imagining we cannot see the personal form of the Divine? Do RadhaKrsna really depend on our ability to creatively conjure them into reality?

What is the difference between having an objection to using imagination when it comes to content vs. using imagination when it comes to process.

It is a scientific fact that even the process of sensual seeing of everyday objects involves a process of re-creation in the seeing part of our brains. If Mata Miriam appears before you, a heightened imaging process will meet her on your part.

If you eat a fatty or oily mouthful, your pancreas and gall bladder will exude the right level of appropriate digestives for it. Imagination also is an innate capacity that responds to input.





I am interpreting the biblical assertion that we are made in the image of God to mean that our capacity to imagine, to create is that reflection of the divine. I don't mean procreation which is something that all living things do anyway. I mean our developed sense of aesthetic and philosophical play is something that is ultimately sourced in the divine play. Our "ability to creatively conjure" is itself God sourced and ultimately non-different from God. As for your "reality" there is no perceived reality without a subjective component and that reality which is beyond perception is beyond subject/object correlates. Where are you going then on the question of "reality"?

I would have no where to go with my question if radhakrishna-reality, which i assume you are referring to as beyond perception, were indeed beyond subject-object correlates. We are used to describing "transcendental reality" as being beyond subject-object binaries, followed by reverent silence at the indescribabilty of this. This is true. But also true is that RadhaKrishna are just as much part of the binary, subject/objet reality as they are part of the reality which knows no such poles. Why place the latter in a more exalted position, after all the funnest part of Krishna is when he is enjoying as two.

That is true. And it relates to the notion of how we never see anything directly, but through our visual reconstruction of that thing in our mind's eye. Does this imply that we are not able to see RadhaKrishna directly outside of our solitary represention of them in our private imagination? Also could this imply that there is no such thing as RadhaKrishna at all outside of that constructed visual that we imagine into being on the momentum of the potency of our japa?

So the endeavor is not entirely as solipsistic as it sounds since we use the input of raw material that exists independantly outside of us, in order to then create meaning out of it inside of us.

But you can also say that the endeavor is as solipsistic as it sounds since even the very external input that we go about personalizing by organizing it in our mind is an input that we also experience only as mental representation.

And if we want to be extreme, we can say that we have no real proof that the input even exists in the first place but could itself very well be the result of an idle mind projecting phantasmagoria outward from lack of any object to rest its focus on.

Thanks for your response. However I do not recall saying this. I simply said that there is no reality that is perceived that is without a subjective component. I was challenging your simplistic reference to reality as something exclusive to the subjective and imaginal. You are not alone in this.

(This is not a negative criticism but an attempted clarification.)

Maybe ritviks got it right.

A similar question:

What happes to sankirtana devotees after the whole world converts to ISKCON and everyone has the whole set of BBT books?

These are some of the implications and underpinnings of what I have said:-


1. There is no perception of anything without self.
2. The capacities of self are universally sourced.
3. The experiential locus of self is private.
4. The experiential content of self is universal.
5. The border between inside and outside is a relative construct.

Do you find it relevant to the discussion?

Here's what he wrote (and I edited):


tnx 4 the link

They seem to have fun there on grepercs. I have answered some questions
about Kalisantarana in the past. It is not an ancient text. Hardly a "sruti"
or part of the Vedas. It is one of those countless texts in the tantric
tradition that extol the virtues of some particular mantra. Puranas are
full of this. And then there are some stand alone texts, such as this one,
cooked up after the standard recipe. So it's got a shanti mantra [saha
nau..] that makes up its fake lineage by adding it to the family of
black-yajur-veda upanishads. It's got Narada asking and Brahma answering, a
standard Puranic device. And it's got the keywords that should be of
interest to a person who seeks a cool mantra: what are the rules, and how
often does one have to repeat the mantra to get a certain result. [Other
texts add to this the name of the devata, the name of the meter, the bIja
and the kIla. But since this one has no rules, most that stuff is not
mentioned].

Jagat once wrote a note about the kalisantarana on some discussion forum:

Jagat Member posted 01-08-2000 11:53 AM
--------------------------------------------------------

As far as the chanting of the mantra backwards being a concoction, I cannot
answer that. This is a question that can only be answered historically. The
Kalisantaran Upanishad is a relatively late Upanishad (13th-15th centuries),
but is the first scriptural reference to the mantra. Rama bhaktas usually
chant Rama's name first, Krishna bhaktas the name of Krishna. In all
Mahaprabhu's biographies the mantra is given in the order that we know it. I
don't believe that it is a big problem.

Jagat
--------------------------------------------------------

A nice, sooper corney translation of the text can be found in: Thirty Minor
Upanishads, English Translation with Sanskrit Text, by K. Narayanaswami
Aiyar, Delhi 1914. The original has the Sanskrit words in italicis and with diacrits, which I rendered in regular font with no diacrits. All the other weirdnesses of the text are in the original.

At the end of Dvapara yuga, Narada went the Brahma and addressed him thus: "O Lord, how shall I, roaming over the earth, be able to cross Kali"? To which Brahma thus replied : "Well asked. Hearken to that which all Srutis (the Vedas) keep secret and hidden, through which one may cross th samsara (mundane existence) of Kali. He shakes off (the evil effects of) Kali through the mere uttering of the name of the Lord Narayana, who is the primeval Purusa." Again Narada asked Brahma: "What is the name?" To which Hiranyagarbha (Brahma) replied thus : (the words are : )" 1. Hare, 2. Rama, 3. Hare, 4. Rama, 5. Rama, 6. Rama, 7. Hare, 8. Hare; 9. Hare, 10. Krsna] 11. Hare, 12. Krsna, 13. Krsna, 14. Krsna, 15. Hare, 16. Hare. These sixteen names) (words) are destructve of the evil effects of Kali. No better means than this is to be seen in all the Vedas. These (sixteen names) destory of avarana (or the centripetal force which produces the sense of individuality) of jiva surrounded by the sixteen kalas (rays). Then like the sphere of the sun which shines fully after the clouds (screening it) disperse, Parabrahman (alone) shines.

...and on it goes.

The translator explains in the footnote how long the chanting of these three and a half kotis (thirty-five millions) of the mantra will take:

"This number can be reached by uttering the mantra completely within one year if uttered at the rate of a lakh per day : and within ten years if uttered at the pace of 10,000 per day; and within 100 years if uttered at the rate of 1,000 per diem."

-ek


But I noticed one discrepancy in the list of sins the chanter becomes purified from. Aiyar's translation has, after the sin of stealing gold and before wrong done to pitrs etc., the "sin of cohabitation with a woman of low caste" (vrsaligamanat puto bhavati | in the Sanskrit transcript you have posted). Something á propos the fact that this mantra is being marketed to brahmanas!

Who knows? Maybe if you are guilty of a sin of cohabitation with a man of low caste, then you should reverse the mantra to get full effect!

nice new avatar. i do not mind even negative criticism i find the worst pitfall of chat is being reticent to speak spontaneously in case a reader takes what you wrote badly, so then you have to pepper everything you say with safeguards to avoid that, which i find too formal and too careful a way to chat!

I am postulating reality as something exclusive to the subjective and imaginal, but I am also at the same time postulating the contradictory claim that the potency of the mahamantra is not dependent on our subjectivity or imagination.

You are saying that "there is no reality that is perceived that is without a subjective component." To you this does not boil down to saying that reality is exclusive to the subjective and the imaginal. You see me as subscribing to this latter claim wholly, though from all angles, I can't say I wholly do.

From how I read it, you are saying that there is an objective world out there, except that we perceive it through the filter of our subjectivty and imagination, therefore there is always a subjective component to all perception.* You are not being an absolute subjectivist about it, because you imply that the input exists even outside of our subjectivity, except that our perception of that input always relies on our imagination's interplay with it. To that I had said that this apparently objectively existing input could be very well be the result of an idle mind projecting phantasmagoria outward from its lack of ability to remain wholly idle. This is sort of akin to simplistically saying that all reality is imaginal, but is there a way for us to prove that the input exists independant of our subjectivity?

* As a side note, it could be an inspiring thing or a terrifying thing that all of our perceptions have the fingerprint of our subjectivity inextricably bound to them. Wouldn't it be interesting to postulate the existence of something that did not in any way involve even a modicum of our subjective imagining for us to experience it.

I find all those 5 points relevant but I had only focussed on the fifth point.

This fifth point is reminiscent of when I asked:
"Do RadhaKrsna really depend on our ability to creatively conjure them into reality?"
And you replied:
"... that reality which is beyond perception is beyond subject/object correlates."

This is like saying that the very question is unaskable because creatively conjuring something implies a subject and an object whereas transcendental reality is beyond subject / object correlates.

This is true. Yet stopping at this could be an overlingering on the non-distinct, non-dual, non-binary aspect of Divinity. After all did divinity not divide itself in Two to be able to enjoy itself? Where is the pleasure in subjectobjectless sweetness without the binary of a clear distinct self-enclosed Second to taste that sweetness.

This is a question that can have many answers according to theological position. For instance:-
1. The activity of the Divine is causeless. Ergo divine division has no reason.
2. As the Divine is eternal, its aspects are also eternal (whether monadic, dyadic, triadic or "polyadic") and therefore not the result of a division or a result in any sense or by any means.
3. The divisions of One do not diminish the qualatitative pervasion of oneness in as much as 2, 3, 4 and all numbers up to infinity all comprise units of ONE.




The Vedantists assert that the reality beyond subject/object correlates is sad chid ananda which can be translated as being knowing bliss.

All Vedantic devotional streams espouse the idea that true devotion only begins on the platform of this reality. (See Ramanuja and Madhva).

So, all in all the origin of the maha mantra is not well-known or known at all.

I am wondering why, if chanting God's names is the only way, is there no mention of the mantra in the Bhagavatam or Gita.