Guest guest Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 as you said it is very difficult to ascertain he "truth" of the matter with respect to what is the original mantra - hare krishna, hare rama or both. hare rama is chanted widely in the smartha tradition. though adi sankara taught the importance of chanting the holy name incuding harer namaiva kevalam, he did not teach this mahamantra. it is possible it was passed down in the privacy of guru - sishya relationship as it is a vedic mantra. now the question of who popularized the hare rama mantra remains unanswered. one possibility is caitanya taught this during the south indian tour. but the opinion of the gaudiya acharyas is that caitanya chanted hare krishna mahamantra. so caitanya's role in preaching hare rama mantra can be eliminated by finding reference to hare krishna mahamantra in the contemporary works of caitanya. is there any such reference ? even if we eliminate caianya as the preacher of hare rama mantra, one important question remains unanswered : who is the preacher of hare rama mantra, when did he live and why was it preached that way ? if he is not caitanya. one way to ascertain is to look for original palmscript manuscripts of the kalisantarana upanishad to see if he has either one or both. those who wrote critical editions would have looked at these manuscripts and preserved it. if the manuscripts were not available, they would preserved interview records with the proponents. i am looking for that data as the question is fundamental to the practice of devotees all over the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2004 Report Share Posted September 12, 2004 achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote: > as you said it is very difficult to ascertain he "truth" of the > matter with respect to what is the original mantra - hare krishna, > hare rama or both. It may also be academic. Regardless of which version you chant, it sounds the same to others. It is like the legend of Vaalmiiki being told to chant "ma raa ma raa ma raa ma raa ma raa ma..." etc. So, was he chanting "maraa" or "raama?" Obviously the former has no meaning. The point is that it has a palindromic quality to it. hare rama is chanted widely in the smartha > tradition. though adi sankara taught the importance of chanting the > holy name incuding harer namaiva kevalam, he did not teach this > mahamantra. it is possible it was passed down in the privacy of guru - > sishya relationship as it is a vedic mantra. now the question of who > popularized the hare rama mantra remains unanswered. The question assumes that chanting of the "hare raama" mantra was "popularized." Why is it necessary to invoke such a figure to explain the mantra's existence? Is it not enough to that the mantra is present in that form in South Indian recensions? Would this not be sufficient reason to explain why it is chanted that way in South India? I don't see where you are coming from with this. one possibility > is caitanya taught this during the south indian tour. but the opinion > of the gaudiya acharyas is that caitanya chanted hare krishna > mahamantra. so caitanya's role in preaching hare rama mantra can be > eliminated by finding reference to hare krishna mahamantra in the > contemporary works of caitanya. is there any such reference ? Chaitanya left only two works of His own - one being Srii Shikshaashtaka, and the other being a work on grammar written during His early years. So no luck there. even if > we eliminate caianya as the preacher of hare rama mantra, one > important question remains unanswered : who is the preacher of hare > rama mantra, when did he live and why was it preached that way ? if > he is not caitanya. I don't really understand why there had to be a "preacher of hare rama mantra" to explain its popularity in South India. > one way to ascertain is to look for original palmscript manuscripts > of the kalisantarana upanishad to see if he has either one or both. But then it would not be shruti by definition - all you have done is looked at a version that is ostensibly faithful to the oral tradition, but without hearing it in the paramparaa you cannot verify this. Assuming of course, that determinining the "original version" is still the point. > those who wrote critical editions would have looked at these > manuscripts and preserved it. if the manuscripts were not available, > they would preserved interview records with the proponents. i am > looking for that data as the question is fundamental to the practice > of devotees all over the world. Like I said, it seems pretty academic to me. I am not even sure to what extent the authority of Kalisantaarana Upanishad is accepted outside of Shankara and Gaudiiya circles. I have in my posession a Skanda Upanishad, published by Adyar Library, which is presumably the same one mentioned in the list of 108 Upanishads given in the Muktika Upanishad. This Skanda Upanishad betrays its sectarian influence with a quote from the Vishnu Puraana (taken out of context) equating Shiva to Vishnu, and furthermore stating that Shiva is a jiiva when in ignorance, and when out of ignorance the jiiva is Shiva. This had to come from the pen of someone believing in Advaita or some version thereof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2004 Report Share Posted September 14, 2004 > Like I said, it seems pretty academic to me. I am not even sure to > what extent the authority of Kalisantaarana Upanishad is accepted > outside of Shankara and Gaudiiya circles. yeah it is only academic in nature. apart from KSU, i understand that some puranas also list this mantra. does any one have the exact verses so as to know in what form ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.