Maharaja

[Guest guest]

>Though I appreciate your profuse apologies, I was surprised to see that,

>after all that humility, you signed your name with the honorific

>"Maharaja". As far as I've understood, "Maharaja" is a title used to

>respectfully address others, not to refer to oneself. For a sannyasi to

>sign his name with "Maharaja" seems to me something like my signing my name

>"Mahadyuti

>Prabhu".

 

In some traditions one does use honorific titles while addressing oneself.

For example, in the Madhva sampradaya, the present acharyas sign their

letters with the prefix "Sri Sri" and the suffix "-ji". Thus the senior

acharya of the Pejavara Matha in Udupi signs his letters as "Sri Sri

Vishwesha Tirtha Swamiji". In reality every word of the name is an honorific

usage. To call oneself as "Tirtha" or even to call oneself as "Swami" is

also a glorification of sorts. "Tridandi bhikshu" is much more humble in

that regards.

 

Even the poet saint Jayadeva signs his compositions with the phrase "sri

jayadeva kavi"

 

Having said that, I havent heard in the past of any previous devotee using

the title maharaja while addressing himself. In the Gaudiya line we

generally find the opposite. Saints like Bhaktivinoda, Narottama Dasa, and

Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji have usually referred to themselves in derogatory

manners. Unfortunately some communities in Bengal and Orissa take such

statements as truth and consider these saints to be conditioned souls.

 

In regards to the present case, one reason the title "Maharaja" may have

been used is that a disciple or secretary may have typed the sannyasi's

letter, and he would have been used to addressing his guru as "maharaja" and

subsequently signed the letters with that title.

 

As far as devotees being initiated into the title "Maharaja" in ISKCON, that

does sound odd.