reply to Sanjay Dadlani Rama-nama in the mahamantra

[Guest guest]

Sanjay Dadlani wrote:

 

"Isn't this a clear case of rasabhasa?

 

Even if we are not referring to Sri Ramachandra, but

in fact Sri Baladeva, isn't that still rasabhasa?

 

Is there any clear sastric evidence that suggest that

either of the two Ramas have a relationship of some

sort to Srimati Radharani?"

 

Reply: Without addressing the presupposition that Hare in the maha-mantra

must refer to Srimati Radharani, I may simply quote Srila Prabhupada, who we

may presumably accept as competent in understanding rasa:

 

In the maha-mantra -- Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare

Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare -- people sometimes object when Rama

is accepted as Balarama. But although devotees of Lord Rama may object, they

should know that there is no difference between Balarama and Lord Rama. Here

Srimad-Bhagavatam clearly states that Balarama is also known as Rama

(rameti). Therefore, it is not artificial for us to speak of Lord Balarama

as Lord Rama. Jayadeva Gosvami also speaks of three Ramas: Parasurama,

Raghupati Rama and Balarama. All of them are Ramas.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 10.2.13

 

 

 

In the maha-mantra -- Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare

Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare -- the word "Rama" refers to Balarama.

Since Lord Nityananda is Balarama, "Rama" also refers to Lord Nityananda.

Thus Hare Krsna, Hare Rama addresses not only Krsna and Balarama but Lord

Caitanya and Lord Nityananda as well.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Adi Introduction

 

 

 

In this connection we may mention an incident that took place between two of

our sannyasis while we were preaching the Hare Krsna maha-mantra in

Hyderabad. One of them stated that "Hare Rama" refers to Sri Balarama, and

the other protested that "Hare Rama" means Lord Rama. Ultimately the

controversy came to me, and I gave the decision that if someone says that

the "Rama" in "Hare Rama" is Lord Ramacandra and someone else says that the

"Rama" in "Hare Rama" is Sri Balarama, both are correct because there is no

difference between Sri Balarama and Lord Rama. Here in Sri

Caitanya-caritamrta we find that Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami has stated the

same conclusion:

yei yei rupe jane, sei taha kahe

sakala sambhave krsne, kichu mithya nahe

If someone calls Lord Ramacandra by the vibration Hare Rama, understanding

it to mean "O Lord Ramacandra!" he is quite right. Similarly, if one says

that Hare Rama means "O Sri Balarama!" he is also right. Those who are aware

of the visnu-tattva do not fight over all these details.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Adi 5.132

 

 

 

There is no difference between the forms of Krsna, Rama, Narayana and Visnu.

All of them are one. Sometimes foolish people ask whether when we chant

"Rama" in the Hare Krsna mantra we refer to Lord Ramacandra or Lord

Balarama. If a devotee says that the name Rama in the Hare Krsna maha-mantra

refers to Balarama, a foolish person may become angry because to him the

name Rama refers to Lord Ramacandra. Actually there is no difference between

Balarama and Lord Rama. It does not matter whether one refers to Balarama or

to Lord Ramacandra when chanting Hare Rama, for there is no difference

between Them. However, it is offensive to think that Balarama is superior to

Lord Ramacandra or vice versa. Neophyte devotees do not understand this

sastric conclusion, and consequently they unnecessarily create an offensive

situation. In text 154 Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu clarified this in a very

lucid way: isvaratve bheda manile haya aparadha. "It is offensive for one to

differentiate between the forms of the Lord."

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 9.155