Re : critical edition of kalisantarana

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

> 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 ?