Doubt

[Guest guest]

I came to know that `Hari Om' should not be told aloud or written. Is

it so? If so, why?

 

I was a member of the Chinmaya Mission, where this is the greeting

 

R. Dinakaran

 

 

 

 

 

 

+--+

| R. DINAKARAN |

| Chief Sub Editor |

| The Hindu Business Line |

| Kasturi Buildings |

| Anna Salai |

| CHENNAI 600 002 |

| |

| Phones: 8535067 (Ext. 460,452,490) |

| 8534574 ( do ) (After office hours) |

| 8531328 (News Editor) |

| |

| Pager : 9622701590 |

| 9622702590 |

| (Please dial all the numbers) |

| |

| E-mail: dynes |

| |

| Residence |

| |

| Plot No. 2, Flat No. 7 |

| Otraivadai Street |

| West KK Nagar |

| Chennai 600 078 |

+--+

[Guest guest]

>I came to know that `Hari Om' should not be told aloud or written. Is

>it so? If so, why?

>

>I was a member of the Chinmaya Mission, where this is the greeting

>

>R. Dinakaran

 

 

I remember this also from my brief association with the Chinmaya Mission

during my misguided youth.

 

As far as I know, there is no fault for speaking either "Hari" or "Om," both

of which are sound representations of the Lord. That "Om" is a sound

representation of Lord Krishna is confirmed in both Bhagavad-Gita and

Gopala-tapani Upanishad. In many Upanishads the phrase "Hari Om" is seen

usually somewhere near the beginning.

 

In any case, the problem with the Chinmaya Mission people is not the fact

that they chant "Hari Om" but rather the mood with which they chant it. They

chant "Hari Om" because for them the Supreme Godhead is devoid of all

attributes, personality, pastimes, etc. Thus, they consider Om to have an

impersonal meaning and they chant this to the exclusion of any other Holy

Name of Lord Krishna which they consider to be of the material modes of

nature (saguNa). While I'm sure their chanting will get them some spiritual

benefit, it is nonetheless an annoyance for those of us who know better.

 

yours,

 

-- HKS

[Guest guest]

Sincerity is always appreciated, nay requested, of

Bhakti list members. However, I request correspondents

to refrain from condescending, abusive tones such as

the following:

> [the mood with which Chinmaya Mission members say "hari om"]

> is nonetheless an annoyance for those of us who know better.

 

While we may often fall short of the ideal, the Bhakti

list is intended to be a polite group.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Mani Varadarajan <mani

>Sincerity is always appreciated, nay requested, of

>Bhakti list members. However, I request correspondents

>to refrain from condescending, abusive tones such as

>the following:

>

>> [the mood with which Chinmaya Mission members say "hari om"]

>> is nonetheless an annoyance for those of us who know better.

>

>While we may often fall short of the ideal, the Bhakti

>list is intended to be a polite group.

 

 

Hare Krishna. My apologies. Perhaps I should say that such chanting is

actually "differently appreciated." :-)

 

Anyway, the original question by R. Dinakaran was, why should "Hari Om" not

be said aloud or written? Since this phrase is found in many Upanishads, it

obviously must not be a scriptural directive. Hence, my point is that since

Vaishnavas generally regard such chanting by mayavadis as offensive, this

might explain why some of them discourage or forbid such chanting.

 

Why they regard such chanting as offensive might seem hard to understand.

After all, don't Vaishnavas always appreciate the chanting of the Holy

Names? An example of this is seen in the Sixth skandha of the Bhaagavatam,

wherein the Yama-duttas, after having failed to capture Ajaamila from the

Vishnu-duttas, complained to their master Yamaraaja that Ajaamila simply

chanted "Narayana" and thus they (the Yama-duttas) were defeated. Yamaraaja,

upon hearing his servants chant the Holy Name of the Lord (while

recollecting what had happened to them), was very pleased and thus

instructed his servants on how Lord Vishnu is the Supreme Personality of

Godhead. The point here is that great devotees, even when hearing accidental

chanting of the Lord's names from nondevotees, are very pleased.

 

Yet there is a world of difference between the chanting of an innocent

person and that of an offensive person. While both get transcendental

benefit, they are not received by devotees in the same way. The Yama-duttas

were simply fallen and ignorant, and thus they were basically innocent. On

the other hand, mayavadis will chant the Lord's names while actively

asserting that His names and form are made out of maya. They will assert

that the archa-vigraha of the Lord (as well as any other conceptions of the

Supreme Brahman having form) are merely means to an end, to be discarded

when one has reached some higher understanding. Thus, to them, Lord Vishnu

and the chanting of His names are simply a diversion for those whose

intelligence is less developed.

 

In particular, the preference of some mayavadis to chant "Hari Om" is pretty

easy to understand. "Om" to them brings up their conception of the formless,

nameless Brahman which is superior to all "saguNa" conceptions of Brahman

(such as Vishnu). The Chinmayananda people will probably say that "Hari Om"

somehow symbolizes the idea that one approaches God with a personalist

conception and later abandons it in favor of the "superior," impersonal

conception. This of course fits in well with their philosophy which holds

that the forms of Lakshmi and Vishnu are simply very elaborate symbols that

symbolize the gradual path to liberation. Of course, if your "heart is

better developed than your brain," as their leader once put it, you can

worship such "symbols," but this will only lead you to the understanding

that that's all they are.

 

So it's not hard to understand why some Vaishnavas might forbid the chanting

of holy names that are preferentially used by mayavadis. Personally, I have

mixed feelings about this. Although I can understand why one might regard as

offensive a nondevotee who chants "Hari Om" and similar phrases with an

impersonal understanding, to instruct others not to chant them also seems to

imply that that the Holy Names of the Lord can somehow be tainted by such an

act. Obviously, this can not be the case since the Lord, His Name, His

qualities, forms, and pastimes are always transcendental to the three modes

of material nature (the guNa-s). Then again, I suppose there are propriety

issues at stake; similar concerns are no doubt the basis of directives to

the effect that one should not even visit temples of demigods (even though

some of these demigods are very exalted devotees).

 

yours,

 

-- HKS