Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Namaste Everybody, We had some great discussions about "Path" which means recitation of a scripture last weekend. Please see the transcripts in the file section, if you wish! Chanting can be done in three ways: (a) Loudly (b) Moving lips with sound barely audible and ©silently. Can you please share how you usually chant and also your thoughts on the benefits of the different ways of chanting. Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing and learning from you. Jai Maa! ramya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Mamaste , I saw your question about chanting the mantra. In indian hindu scriptures these are main three paths to recite mantra as you said . in Shastras it said that second is hundred times powerful then first and third is hundred times than second. How ever each are difficult than earliar, but as i have experienced during mantra japa the energy of mantra itself leads us to the next step,as well. Generally we should start by upanshu -something loud, so to avoid mistake in pronouncation in receiting, b'caz it is very important in japa. When we are sure about pronounsation we should go to other step. But as said earliar it is better to leave it on deity, they will automatically lead us to next step. Our main job is only to do japa, japa and japa......!!!! Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Hi Ramya, For me, chanting aloud seems to help unblock the nadis and open the chakras without so much discomfort. Chanting with just the lips moving helps me to focus inside more easily, but it is hard for me to chant this way (I haven't done it very much). I have never attempted to chant silently. Jai Maa! Chris , "n_ramya108" <n_ramya108 wrote: > > Namaste Everybody, > > We had some great discussions about "Path" which means recitation of a > scripture last weekend. Please see the transcripts in the file > section, if you wish! > > Chanting can be done in three ways: > (a) Loudly (b) Moving lips with sound barely audible and ©silently. > > Can you please share how you usually chant and also your thoughts on > the benefits of the different ways of chanting. > > Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing and learning from you. > > Jai Maa! > > ramya > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Namaste Ramya, I second all that Ankur Joshi said, #19989. In addition, I think of chanting as an extention of Om (AUM). "A" is the gross body, and vocal (physical) chanting thus enlightens and purifies the physical body and environment. "U" is the subtle body, and silent vocalization in chanting, or repetition of mantras, thus enlightens and purifies the subtle body, mind, thoughts, memories, etc, as well as the subtle environment. It also naturally leads one's attention "inward", and all the benefits resulting from that. "M" is the causal body in the "Om" paradigm, and deep and silent mental chanting should gradually lead to the deeper mind which floats on the causal sea of samskaras, etc. Traditionally, "AUM" doesn't have three letters, but four. The anusvara stands for Divine inner Silence, for turiya, the transcendental "fourth", the pure Spirit. I believe that even from the beginning of the chanting adventure or journey, one can train oneself to be mindful of the Divine, living Silence that resides between the words, between the breaths, and between the printed lines as pure White,--"White as Jasmine" As Swamiji has just now said, the ever-changing is the Divine Shakti, Vaagishwari, Saraswati, etc. The eternal Silence, the Stillness, the "Peace that passeth understanding", is Her ever-faithful, unchanging, Divine Husband, Shiva. While the "Space" between Them resonates with the highest vibration of all: the Infinite and Unconditional Love that unifies Them "into" the "One without a second", Atma/Brahman. In any case, this is my personal, view of the sadhana of Path in reply to your question. ---Just one more thing that I believe in absolutely, and about which I have no doubt whatsoever: Sri Maa came to this hemisphere at the behest of Sri Ramakrishna, with no particular agenda of Her own, but with the capacity to draw down the immense and invincible power of the Mother of the universe through whatever form or practice or ritual She decided to use. I believe Swami Satyananda's commision has been to evolve the forms, the channels, the conduits wherewith the Divine Shakti will descend into this western culture. So I believe that the methods Swami has given us, as described in his many books, are not mere transplants from India; they are forms that are entirely fresh and new, invested with a degree of transforming power about which I can only guess. Just as Christ gave the ritual of the Holy Communion, which has channeled the Holy Spirit (Divine Shakti-even if they do refer to Her as "Him") and the Spirit of Truth into Earth and humanity for 2000 years, I believe that Swami's forms of communion with the Divine, and of descent of the Divine that they engender, will be at least as powerful and as long-lasting. There are now-a-days dozens and scores of useful sadhanas, available in libraries and bookstores, which can evolve a struggling individual forward. But the forms of practice now issuing from the Devi Mandir have the power to raise, not only the individual, but the whole of humanity. It is therefore the obligation, and great privilage, of those of us who make use of any of these forms: mantras, paths, or worships, to do so with faith, and with the warrior's spirit,---and, most of all with great thankfulness at this time when the blinding Light and the blinding darkness are so close together on our Earth. Respectfully, Tanmaya , "n_ramya108" <n_ramya108 wrote: > > Namaste Everybody, > > We had some great discussions about "Path" which means recitation of a > scripture last weekend. Please see the transcripts in the file > section, if you wish! > > Chanting can be done in three ways: > (a) Loudly (b) Moving lips with sound barely audible and ©silently. > > Can you please share how you usually chant and also your thoughts on > the benefits of the different ways of chanting. > > Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing and learning from you. > > Jai Maa! > > ramya > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Namaste Ramya and all, I chant loudly. To be honest, I did not know the bare audible and silent modes applied to chanting scripture as well; I thought these were only meant for japa. One of the advantages of chanting loudly is, in my modest experience, that you can use the voice to enliven the story, f.i. in the Chandi, the dialogue between the Divine Mother and Sinful Eyes. I take great pleasure in that and it keeps me focused on the story. And there are beautiful songs in the Chandi, too, if you learned it from the recording made by Shree Maa and Swamiji. The few times I have chanted the entire Chandi out loud, my whole body sang when I had finished. Also, for the Guru Gita, I like to sing the verses and vary the melody for verses that are special to me. And chanting out loud is a great way of becoming familiar with the sounds and melody of Sanskrit. I find it difficult to distinguish between 'reading' and 'chanting' where the other methods are concerned. With japa, I can understand, because it does not take long before you know the mantra by heart and you can learn to 'listen' to it inside. But with a longer text, this seems much more difficult to me. So I am very interested to learn from those with experience of the other methods how this works and what the advantages are, with love, Henny , "n_ramya108" <n_ramya108 wrote: > > Namaste Everybody, > > We had some great discussions about "Path" which means recitation of a > scripture last weekend. Please see the transcripts in the file > section, if you wish! > > Chanting can be done in three ways: > (a) Loudly (b) Moving lips with sound barely audible and © silently. > > Can you please share how you usually chant and also your thoughts on > the benefits of the different ways of chanting. > > Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing and learning from you. > > Jai Maa! > > ramya > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 Namaste Tanmaya, Wow. Thank you for your powerful and eloquent thoughts. ty_maa wrote: amaste Ramya, > > > I second all that Ankur Joshi said, #19989. > > In addition, I think of chanting as an extention of Om (AUM). "A" is > the gross body, and vocal (physical) chanting thus enlightens and > purifies the physical body and environment. > Be Love Egyirba -=-=- .... When you play it too safe, you're taking the biggest risk of your life...Time is the only wealth we're given. ~Barbara Sher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 Dear Family, Namaste! I posed the following question on chanting and Swamiji's answer follows: What are the different benefits from the three types of chanting: audible, barely audible with lips, silent? Do they apply only to japa or to chanting of scripture as well? Answer: They apply to the recitation of scripture as well. Silent is the most potent for internal meditation. But also it is the most difficult to maintain. It more easy to at least move our lips, because the action of the physical body helps us to remember the mantras. Audibly reciting is the first step, where we learn the pronunciation, become accustomed to the asana, and train our minds to focus attention. Sincerely, srini , "n_ramya108" <n_ramya108 wrote: > > Namaste Everybody, > > We had some great discussions about "Path" which means recitation of a > scripture last weekend. Please see the transcripts in the file > section, if you wish! > > Chanting can be done in three ways: > (a) Loudly (b) Moving lips with sound barely audible and ©silently. > > Can you please share how you usually chant and also your thoughts on > the benefits of the different ways of chanting. > > Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing and learning from you. > > Jai Maa! > > ramya > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 Tanmaya, I don't know...something tells me the difference between vocal, subvocal, and silent chanting is more deep than simply saying that subvocal is so many times more powerful than vocal, and silent is so many times more powerful (or effective) than subvocal chanting. In the tradition I came from mantra japa was very important, and the general teaching was the same as what has just been said here, by yourself and by Ankur Joshi, essentially, that silent is best. But as in every instance where language is used to describe Truth (even in scripture) the result is only a partial truth; I find myself wondering "More powerful how?" or "More effective in what way?". I don't really have an answer, but I do have some ideas, and more questions. The primary difference between the three forms appears to be one of intensity of focus, or perhaps you could say, subtlety of expression. Everyone has had the experience of chanting a familiar text, while at the same time the mind is playing movies. Obviously, it is harder for the mind to do this if it must be occupied with silent chanting. So one could say that silent chanting makes it easier to quiet the mind and focus it only on the mantras, and so become more one-pointed and connected to the mantra on a more subtle level. It is possible that the common saying that silent is best refers to this. But does it follow that the opposite is also true, that with vocal chanting it is impossible, or even, difficult, to control the mind, make it one-pointed, and connect to the mantras on a subtle level? I do not think it is necessarily so. In the tradition I came from we practiced mantra meditation. In mantra meditation japa is performed silently with the idea that we make the mantra more and more subtle in the mind, until only the shakti of the mantra and of the guru remains to lead us into samadhi. To achieve samadhi it is necessary that everything is still and quiet, both mind and body. Only silence is possible here. But samadhi is not all there is in spiritual life, nor is vocal chanting necessarily an obstacle to samadhi, the two simply cannot occur at the same instant (I'm talking about savikalpa and nirvikalpa here, I think bhava samadhi does occur during vocal chanting). So, silence is necessary for samadhi, but is samadhi all there is to chanting and mantra japa, no. I think it is clear from Maa's and Swamiji's examples that one can practice with the intention to benefit others. As you pointed out Tanmaya, and I agree, it seems likely that the vibrations of verbal chanting or japa have a positive effect on the physical manifestation that is not as strong in the other forms. It seems common for scriptures to declare the benefits of merely hearing a given scripture chanted. And again, I don't think that the act of manifesting the mantras on a gross level (chanting aloud), necessarily precludes experience of the subtle affects. There is also worship. It takes two for worship to occur. While someone could argue that savikalpa samdhi is the ultimate experience of worship, since there are still two, and a relationship, even though it is "understood", (and here I run into my lack of experience with puja, and samadhi), it seems likely there are benefits to physical worship, whether puja, path, or japa, that are not manifested by simply sitting in samadhi (perhaps it is, again, the positive benefits to the physical world - worship as an act of service). Swami Rama wrote once that while his students all struggled with repeating the gross form of their mantra in their minds, over and over, that when he said his mantra that it just kind of expanded in his mind as one great Sound; there was no japa, no repitition, no word, really, just the subtle form of the mantra, filling his mind. [understand, this is just a description of what I recall reading a long time ago, and so it has been filtered by my memory and preconceptions] This kind of experience, direct experience of the subtle form of the mantra, is what we all hope for. It takes place inside, and therefore beyond the realm of physical sound, but I believe it can be experienced, at least partially, even as we chant aloud. This is largely supposition, of course, since I don't have this level of attainment, myself. But I do experience a couple of things that suggest the possibility, and Swamiji's example is highly suggestive. When I sit to chant, at first it is just the words and the intention, but soon the mantras stir the shakti and the shakti begins to control the mind. I read the words and I repeat them, but the shakti does everything else. Perhaps, eventually, as I progress, it will be Shakti doing the reading and the speaking too, and there will be no more "I" to do anything but worship as the mantras unfold themselves before me. Even though I appear to be very active and engaged, physically, a lot of "me" is actually gone. This supports the idea that verbal chanting is not an obstacle to samadhi, even though samadhi necessarily takes place in silence and stillness. When the chanting stops, I find the my mind is often very quiet and my body very still, perfect for meditation as a prelude to samadhi. [Now if I could only learn to sit without so much pain!] Swamiji described a period of time when he would always go into samadhi after he finished chanting the Chandi. I think this shows that far from being an obstacle to samadhi, chanting aloud definately leads one to samadhi. The question of just how absorbed one can become in the subtle form of the mantra while chanting aloud is, I think, pretty well answered by Swamiji's experience as described by Maa in Shree Maa the Life of a Saint (I think), when Swamiji became so absorbed in his chanting of the Chandi that he let the fire get so large it caught his clothes on fire, and they were literally burned off of him, and he was completely unaware. So, it seems that even though silent repitition of mantra is necessary for mantra meditition leading to samadhi, and is also a more direct means to concentrate the mind, verbal repitition also brings the mind to silence (through the intention to worship, I believe) and prepares it for samadhi. Though it seems likely that silent worship, any kind of sadhana, really, benefits the surrounding physical world, it seems likely that verbal, or physically active forms, have a greater direct affect. Lastly, while it is true that at its subtlest, the subtle form of mantra can only be experienced in silence, absorption in the mantra shakti, to the exclusion of any physical perceptions or sensations, can be achieved, not only while verbally chanting, but while tending a fire and making offerings, as well. Such is the mystery of path. Jai Maa! Chris P.S. I've certainly gone on far too long here. Forgive me, I'm getting over a cold, and try as I might, I just cannot think clearly enough to condense it all. Jai Swamiji! , "ty_maa" <ds.james wrote: > > > Namaste Ramya, > > I second all that Ankur Joshi said, #19989. > > In addition, I think of chanting as an extention of Om (AUM). "A" is > the gross body, and vocal (physical) chanting thus enlightens and > purifies the physical body and environment. > > "U" is the subtle body, and silent vocalization in chanting, or > repetition of mantras, thus enlightens and purifies the subtle body, > mind, thoughts, memories, etc, as well as the subtle environment. It > also naturally leads one's attention "inward", and all the benefits > resulting from that. > > "M" is the causal body in the "Om" paradigm, and deep and silent > mental chanting should gradually lead to the deeper mind which floats > on the causal sea of samskaras, etc. > > Traditionally, "AUM" doesn't have three letters, but four. The > anusvara stands for Divine inner Silence, for turiya, the > transcendental "fourth", the pure Spirit. > > I believe that even from the beginning of the chanting adventure or > journey, one can train oneself to be mindful of the Divine, living > Silence that resides between the words, between the breaths, and > between the printed lines as pure White,--"White as Jasmine" > > As Swamiji has just now said, the ever-changing is the Divine Shakti, > Vaagishwari, Saraswati, etc. The eternal Silence, the Stillness, the > "Peace that passeth understanding", is Her ever-faithful, unchanging, > Divine Husband, Shiva. > > While the "Space" between Them resonates with the highest vibration of > all: the Infinite and Unconditional Love that unifies Them "into" the > "One without a second", Atma/Brahman. > > In any case, this is my personal, view of the sadhana of Path in reply > to your question. > > ---Just one more thing that I believe in absolutely, and about which I > have no doubt whatsoever: Sri Maa came to this hemisphere at the > behest of Sri Ramakrishna, with no particular agenda of Her own, but > with the capacity to draw down the immense and invincible power of the > Mother of the universe through whatever form or practice or ritual She > decided to use. > > I believe Swami Satyananda's commision has been to evolve the forms, > the channels, the conduits wherewith the Divine Shakti will descend > into this western culture. So I believe that the methods Swami has > given us, as described in his many books, are not mere transplants > from India; they are forms that are entirely fresh and new, invested > with a degree of transforming power about which I can only guess. > > Just as Christ gave the ritual of the Holy Communion, which has > channeled the Holy Spirit (Divine Shakti-even if they do refer to Her > as "Him") and the Spirit of Truth into Earth and humanity for 2000 > years, I believe that Swami's forms of communion with the Divine, and > of descent of the Divine that they engender, will be at least as > powerful and as long-lasting. > > There are now-a-days dozens and scores of useful sadhanas, available > in libraries and bookstores, which can evolve a struggling individual > forward. But the forms of practice now issuing from the Devi Mandir > have the power to raise, not only the individual, but the whole of > humanity. > > It is therefore the obligation, and great privilage, of those of us > who make use of any of these forms: mantras, paths, or worships, to do > so with faith, and with the warrior's spirit,---and, most of all with > great thankfulness at this time when the blinding Light and the > blinding darkness are so close together on our Earth. > > Respectfully, > > Tanmaya > > > > > > > > , "n_ramya108" <n_ramya108@> wrote: > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > We had some great discussions about "Path" which means recitation of a > > scripture last weekend. Please see the transcripts in the file > > section, if you wish! > > > > Chanting can be done in three ways: > > (a) Loudly (b) Moving lips with sound barely audible and ©silently. > > > > Can you please share how you usually chant and also your thoughts on > > the benefits of the different ways of chanting. > > > > Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing and learning from you. > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > ramya > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2006 Report Share Posted September 16, 2006 Namaste Everybody Thanks very much Ankur, Chris, Tanmaya, Henny and Berijoy for your interest and answers! It helped me a lot to clarify my thinking on chanting. Henny - hope Swamiji's answer helped you! Thanks very much Ankur for bringing the light of scriptures to the discussion. Tanmaya and Chris - Thanks for your thoughtful posts! I want to to add to Berijoy's thank you to Tanmoya. Your post was so beautiful and totally inspiring! Thank you! I heard that Swamiji said this today - When you chant audibly you benefit others around you by creating energy in the space outside of you. When you chant silently you create energy within you in the inner space. Regardless of whether you chant audibly or silently or just moving lips, Swamiji said that pranayam is important. Thank you all! Jai Maa! ramya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2006 Report Share Posted September 16, 2006 Dear Chris, When you write , "more deep than simply saying--", I hear you as expressing a reservation that the map is not the territory, i.e that layers of spiritual depth are not gained without being earned, merely because some particular practice is followed. My reference was to the famous Om meditation of the Manduka Upanishad in which one is instructed to meditate on the sound of Om, beginning in the front, as A, and going deeper through U and dissolving through M into the transcendental. And these are equated with the gross, subtle and causal sheaths or "bodies", and turiya, the transcendental. And why cannot path be the same? I believe it can. So I was refering to this as a sadhana or meditation, not Reality. And I agree that there are no free rides--except that meditation should lead to Reality. [by the way, Gaudapada, the grand-guru of Shandara wrote a long philosophical treatise on this upanishad which became one of the most austere advaitic texts, and this, and later Shankara, scared all the bhakta-devotees in India away from so-called "higher realizations" for centuries. They even hired their own philosophers to prove that though one can "see" God, but can never merge wholly into Him and become intimately one with Him. As a result, a needless and wasteful arguement has gone on for way too long. I believe that devotees can climb just as high up the spiritual mountain as the philosophers, and that no unnecessary divisions or qualifications need to be made between levels of spiritual attainment.] But, however that may be, the fact remains that none of us gets anything for nothing in this world, or in spiritual life. And it may be that this is one of the lessons or readjustments that Sri Maa and Swamiji are working to bring to the West. For all its present worldliness and free-thinking, the West is still, at root, a Christian society. I mean that the Christian world-view still influences our conscious or unconscious thinking. When Christ died, the disciples were expecting an immediate and literal return of their Master. And, as such, they may have overly emphasized His sacrificial death, to the exclusion of the long teaching demonstration of His life of hard work, so that one now expects merely to say, "I believe", and at once go forth to make disciples. Maybe that is one of the reasons that Swami Satyananda spent long years doing strenuous, traditional austerities, before meeting Sree Maa and coming to America-- perhaps to show another point of view on this matter Shraddha, faith, is the saving grace, no doubt, but we exist in the realm of karmabhumi, the world of karma, of doing and action; so we must ground our aspirations in sustained and determined work in order to make them our own. So I agree that it is definitely not merely a thinking matter. Swami Vivekananda said at the close of his life, " I have had divine grace, no doubt, but oh, the pound of blood every ounce of divine grace has cost me!" And he was a special person; a nitya siddha-eternally free--one of the seven rishis. The young boy disciples of Sri Ramakrishna, just after his mahasamadhi, renounced the world and began years and years of the most intense sadhana and tapasya. The householders disciples would visit their monastery-which was a partially collapsed wreck of a house-a home of ghosts and cobras-and ask in wonder why they were working so hard now, when their Master had blessed them with every kind of realization during His lifetime. Their answer was that they must now "ground" the spiritual gifts they had received into their life and character to really make them their own. It often happens that when the great teacher departs, only then do the disciples really get busy and "go on duty'-Sree Maa's phrase that the austere tapaswi Devananda likes to quote. When I was quite young and new to spiritual life, I had the opportunity of serving the needs of a very holy guest monk from India during the time he was in our city. I had already come to understand that "samadhi" was important, and suddenly-at the end of the third day, and after we had already said goodby and he was walking down the long hall of the temple, never (by me) to be seen again- the thought crossed my mind that I should have asked this great Swami for it. So I, even then, began to think mentally, "You must give me samadhi, you must give me samadhi--". He had just about reached the end of the hall as I repeated it the third time, when he partially turned and looked back at me and said, " I could give you samadhi right now, but you couldn't retain it"---and he quickly turned again and was gone. I believe anecdotes like this are valuable to remember because they contain lessons, and this one has been instructive to me for years. God or guru may have the power to lift us up a half mile into the sky, but, if we have not built the scaffolding, the superstructure, the platform on which to stand, we can't remain there, and we may suffer a dangerous fall back to earth. Grace must indeed be combined with hard, sustained work--karma. So a true, effective ashram is not merely a refuge of peace--it is more likely bursting at the seams with strenuous work of all kinds and on all levels if it is really to produce saints. Vivekananda would say, "put them in the purification- drilling machine and turn it on". We have no choice in any case. There is a notary present, and God is the witness, when we evolve to the point of being "seriously interested in spiritual life". Sri Ramakrishna said, "Once you enter the hospital, you will not be allowed to leave until you are fully cured". So one has no choice but to buckle down for the long haul. And---when the cure is complete and our garments and belongings are returned to us, we will pass out through the big glass doors of the hospital to re-enter the world's bustling marketplace-like a drop of water re-absorbed into the great cosmic sea of creation- but with new eyes and new vision, and-by those distracted by desires for worldly pleasures and the adventures of the ego-ever unknown and unknowable. Respectfully, Tanmaya , "Chris Kirner" <chriskirner1956 wrote: > > Tanmaya, > > I don't know...something tells me the difference between vocal, > subvocal, and silent chanting is more deep than simply saying that > subvocal is so many times more powerful than vocal, and silent is so > many times more powerful (or effective) than subvocal chanting. > > In the tradition I came from mantra japa was very important, and the > general teaching was the same as what has just been said here, by > yourself and by Ankur Joshi, essentially, that silent is best. But as > in every instance where language is used to describe Truth (even in > scripture) the result is only a partial truth; I find myself wondering > "More powerful how?" or "More effective in what way?". > > I don't really have an answer, but I do have some ideas, and more > questions. > > The primary difference between the three forms appears to be one of > intensity of focus, or perhaps you could say, subtlety of expression. > Everyone has had the experience of chanting a familiar text, while at > the same time the mind is playing movies. Obviously, it is harder for > the mind to do this if it must be occupied with silent chanting. So > one could say that silent chanting makes it easier to quiet the mind > and focus it only on the mantras, and so become more one-pointed and > connected to the mantra on a more subtle level. It is possible that > the common saying that silent is best refers to this. > > But does it follow that the opposite is also true, that with vocal > chanting it is impossible, or even, difficult, to control the mind, > make it one-pointed, and connect to the mantras on a subtle level? I > do not think it is necessarily so. > > In the tradition I came from we practiced mantra meditation. In mantra > meditation japa is performed silently with the idea that we make the > mantra more and more subtle in the mind, until only the shakti of the > mantra and of the guru remains to lead us into samadhi. > > To achieve samadhi it is necessary that everything is still and quiet, > both mind and body. Only silence is possible here. But samadhi is not > all there is in spiritual life, nor is vocal chanting necessarily an > obstacle to samadhi, the two simply cannot occur at the same instant > (I'm talking about savikalpa and nirvikalpa here, I think bhava > samadhi does occur during vocal chanting). > > So, silence is necessary for samadhi, but is samadhi all there is to > chanting and mantra japa, no. I think it is clear from Maa's and > Swamiji's examples that one can practice with the intention to benefit > others. As you pointed out Tanmaya, and I agree, it seems likely that > the vibrations of verbal chanting or japa have a positive effect on > the physical manifestation that is not as strong in the other forms. > It seems common for scriptures to declare the benefits of merely > hearing a given scripture chanted. And again, I don't think that the > act of manifesting the mantras on a gross level (chanting aloud), > necessarily precludes experience of the subtle affects. > > There is also worship. It takes two for worship to occur. While > someone could argue that savikalpa samdhi is the ultimate experience > of worship, since there are still two, and a relationship, even though > it is "understood", (and here I run into my lack of experience with > puja, and samadhi), it seems likely there are benefits to physical > worship, whether puja, path, or japa, that are not manifested by > simply sitting in samadhi (perhaps it is, again, the positive benefits > to the physical world - worship as an act of service). > > Swami Rama wrote once that while his students all struggled with > repeating the gross form of their mantra in their minds, over and > over, that when he said his mantra that it just kind of expanded in > his mind as one great Sound; there was no japa, no repitition, no > word, really, just the subtle form of the mantra, filling his mind. > [understand, this is just a description of what I recall reading a > long time ago, and so it has been filtered by my memory and > preconceptions] This kind of experience, direct experience of the > subtle form of the mantra, is what we all hope for. It takes place > inside, and therefore beyond the realm of physical sound, but I > believe it can be experienced, at least partially, even as we chant aloud. > > This is largely supposition, of course, since I don't have this level > of attainment, myself. But I do experience a couple of things that > suggest the possibility, and Swamiji's example is highly suggestive. > > When I sit to chant, at first it is just the words and the intention, > but soon the mantras stir the shakti and the shakti begins to control > the mind. I read the words and I repeat them, but the shakti does > everything else. Perhaps, eventually, as I progress, it will be Shakti > doing the reading and the speaking too, and there will be no more "I" > to do anything but worship as the mantras unfold themselves before me. > > Even though I appear to be very active and engaged, physically, a lot > of "me" is actually gone. This supports the idea that verbal chanting > is not an obstacle to samadhi, even though samadhi necessarily takes > place in silence and stillness. When the chanting stops, I find the my > mind is often very quiet and my body very still, perfect for > meditation as a prelude to samadhi. [Now if I could only learn to sit > without so much pain!] > > Swamiji described a period of time when he would always go into > samadhi after he finished chanting the Chandi. I think this shows that > far from being an obstacle to samadhi, chanting aloud definately leads > one to samadhi. > > The question of just how absorbed one can become in the subtle form of > the mantra while chanting aloud is, I think, pretty well answered by > Swamiji's experience as described by Maa in Shree Maa the Life of a > Saint (I think), when Swamiji became so absorbed in his chanting of > the Chandi that he let the fire get so large it caught his clothes on > fire, and they were literally burned off of him, and he was completely > unaware. > > So, it seems that even though silent repitition of mantra is necessary > for mantra meditition leading to samadhi, and is also a more direct > means to concentrate the mind, verbal repitition also brings the mind > to silence (through the intention to worship, I believe) and prepares > it for samadhi. Though it seems likely that silent worship, any kind > of sadhana, really, benefits the surrounding physical world, it seems > likely that verbal, or physically active forms, have a greater direct > affect. Lastly, while it is true that at its subtlest, the subtle form > of mantra can only be experienced in silence, absorption in the mantra > shakti, to the exclusion of any physical perceptions or sensations, > can be achieved, not only while verbally chanting, but while tending a > fire and making offerings, as well. Such is the mystery of path. > > Jai Maa! > Chris > > P.S. > I've certainly gone on far too long here. Forgive me, I'm getting over > a cold, and try as I might, I just cannot think clearly enough to > condense it all. Jai Swamiji! , "ty_maa" ds.james@ wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Ramya, > > > > I second all that Ankur Joshi said, #19989. > > > > In addition, I think of chanting as an extention of Om (AUM). "A" is > > the gross body, and vocal (physical) chanting thus enlightens and > > purifies the physical body and environment. > > > > "U" is the subtle body, and silent vocalization in chanting, or > > repetition of mantras, thus enlightens and purifies the subtle body, > > mind, thoughts, memories, etc, as well as the subtle environment. It > > also naturally leads one's attention "inward", and all the benefits > > resulting from that. > > > > "M" is the causal body in the "Om" paradigm, and deep and silent > > mental chanting should gradually lead to the deeper mind which floats > > on the causal sea of samskaras, etc. > > > > Traditionally, "AUM" doesn't have three letters, but four. The > > anusvara stands for Divine inner Silence, for turiya, the > > transcendental "fourth", the pure Spirit. > > > > I believe that even from the beginning of the chanting adventure or > > journey, one can train oneself to be mindful of the Divine, living > > Silence that resides between the words, between the breaths, and > > between the printed lines as pure White,--"White as Jasmine" > > > > As Swamiji has just now said, the ever-changing is the Divine Shakti, > > Vaagishwari, Saraswati, etc. The eternal Silence, the Stillness, the > > "Peace that passeth understanding", is Her ever-faithful, unchanging, > > Divine Husband, Shiva. > > > > While the "Space" between Them resonates with the highest vibration of > > all: the Infinite and Unconditional Love that unifies Them "into" the > > "One without a second", Atma/Brahman. > > > > In any case, this is my personal, view of the sadhana of Path in reply > > to your question. > > > > ---Just one more thing that I believe in absolutely, and about which I > > have no doubt whatsoever: Sri Maa came to this hemisphere at the > > behest of Sri Ramakrishna, with no particular agenda of Her own, but > > with the capacity to draw down the immense and invincible power of the > > Mother of the universe through whatever form or practice or ritual She > > decided to use. > > > > I believe Swami Satyananda's commision has been to evolve the forms, > > the channels, the conduits wherewith the Divine Shakti will descend > > into this western culture. So I believe that the methods Swami has > > given us, as described in his many books, are not mere transplants > > from India; they are forms that are entirely fresh and new, invested > > with a degree of transforming power about which I can only guess. > > > > Just as Christ gave the ritual of the Holy Communion, which has > > channeled the Holy Spirit (Divine Shakti-even if they do refer to Her > > as "Him") and the Spirit of Truth into Earth and humanity for 2000 > > years, I believe that Swami's forms of communion with the Divine, and > > of descent of the Divine that they engender, will be at least as > > powerful and as long-lasting. > > > > There are now-a-days dozens and scores of useful sadhanas, available > > in libraries and bookstores, which can evolve a struggling individual > > forward. But the forms of practice now issuing from the Devi Mandir > > have the power to raise, not only the individual, but the whole of > > humanity. > > > > It is therefore the obligation, and great privilage, of those of us > > who make use of any of these forms: mantras, paths, or worships, to do > > so with faith, and with the warrior's spirit,---and, most of all with > > great thankfulness at this time when the blinding Light and the > > blinding darkness are so close together on our Earth. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "n_ramya108" <n_ramya108@> wrote: > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > We had some great discussions about "Path" which means recitation of a > > > scripture last weekend. Please see the transcripts in the file > > > section, if you wish! > > > > > > Chanting can be done in three ways: > > > (a) Loudly (b) Moving lips with sound barely audible and ©silently. > > > > > > Can you please share how you usually chant and also your thoughts on > > > the benefits of the different ways of chanting. > > > > > > Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing and learning from you. > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > > > ramya > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 17, 2006 Report Share Posted September 17, 2006 Tanmaya, I think you misapprehended my intentions. I agree completely that you can experience the three levels of laya and pralaya (Not knowing sanskrit, I cannot seem to remember which is evolution and which is involution!) through verbal path. In fact, that was a large part of my intention in writing that post. No, I wasn't trying to suggest that a method (even the "best" one) without practice is useless (even though it is). My intention was really to, firstly, explore this assertion that silent is better, and secondly, to explore this experience, this phenomena, that is verbal path. As I mentioned in my post, I was, you might say, "brought-up" to believe that silent is better (as it relates to japa)and I never questioned it until I began to practice path. Understand, I'm not trying to refute, or argue, with either the scriptures, or the masters who teach this (my own gurudeva among them), but rather, trying to explore the nature and limits of "what is 'better'". It is the habit of my mind, and I suspect of most other's, that what is not "best" is necessarily no good. Of course, this isn't true at all. In this world of tremendous variation and degree of purity there is nothing that is absolutely "best"; there is always a degree of situational relativity involved. A hammer is obviously the best tool for driving a nail, but it makes a mess of a screw. Path was really kind of a revelation to me. All my practice before, with silent japa and meditation, was the experience of slow and gradual quieting of the mind and senses and deepening of experience. Path is very different, at least to me. It is more akin to what I imagine Sufi dancing is. There is all this activity, this movement and outward directed effort, but instead of bringing one further out into "the world", as one might expect, there is a corresponding deepening of inner experience that is hard to describe. And then, at the end, when the final syllable of the final mantra is spoken, there is a profound silence and stillness, the kind of silence and stillness that comes from prolonged meditation. The conclusion I reached in my post was that verbal chanting and silent repetition of mantra both have a place, that both are "better" in some respects, and, at least, of nearly equal "power" or potential. Swamiji recently said that silent chanting is more "potent" than verbal but is harder to do. In my post I suggested that this intensity may occur because you really do have to concentrate to perform it. Unlike verbal japa, it is harder to get away with letting the mind wander and still convince yourself you're doing mantra. It is harder to perform for the same reason - the mind has to be able to concentrate, at least a little, to perform silent mantra recitation. To be entirely fair, there are, in my experience, other subtle obstacles in silent japa that one does not experience directly in verbal japa, the conquest of which brings even more intensity. But because the two experiences are so different, it is really hard to generalize about such things. What seems important to me is that in the end, one can achieve the same advanced states, in an efficient manner, with either practice, as Swamiji has demonstrated. If it takes a certain individual three hours to achieve samadhi sitting in meditation, does it matter if she requires two hours of verbal path followed by an hour of meditation to achieve samadhi, or even three hours of verbal path followed by a half-hour of meditation to achieve samadhi? It is the same samadhi, is it not? For me, the whole experience of path is still kind of mysterious. It's like I said in my previous post, in some ways it's as if it's not me doing the practice, and I never really know where it's going to lead. Of course, most of the time it's similar to the time before and the time before that, but there is always just enough difference to create an expectation of...something...something...something...wonderful. Jai Maa! Chris , "ty_maa" <ds.james wrote: > > > Dear Chris, > > When you write , "more deep than simply saying--", I hear you as > expressing a reservation that the map is not the territory, i.e that > layers of spiritual depth are not gained without being earned, merely > because some particular practice is followed. > > My reference was to the famous Om meditation of the Manduka Upanishad > in which one is instructed to meditate on the sound of Om, beginning in > the front, as A, and going deeper through U and dissolving through M > into the transcendental. And these are equated with the gross, subtle > and causal sheaths or "bodies", and turiya, the transcendental. And why > cannot path be the same? I believe it can. So I was refering to this as > a sadhana or meditation, not Reality. And I agree that there are no > free rides--except that meditation should lead to Reality. > > [by the way, Gaudapada, the grand-guru of Shandara wrote a long > philosophical treatise on this upanishad which became one of the most > austere advaitic texts, and this, and later Shankara, scared all the > bhakta-devotees in India away from so-called "higher realizations" for > centuries. They even hired their own philosophers to prove that though > one can "see" God, but can never merge wholly into Him and become > intimately one with Him. As a result, a needless and wasteful arguement > has gone on for way too long. I believe that devotees can climb just as > high up the spiritual mountain as the philosophers, and that no > unnecessary divisions or qualifications need to be made between levels > of spiritual attainment.] > > But, however that may be, the fact remains that none of us gets anything > for nothing in this world, or in spiritual life. And it may be that this > is one of the lessons or readjustments that Sri Maa and Swamiji are > working to bring to the West. For all its present worldliness and > free-thinking, the West is still, at root, a Christian society. I mean > that the Christian world-view still influences our conscious or > unconscious thinking. When Christ died, the disciples were expecting an > immediate and literal return of their Master. And, as such, they may > have overly emphasized His sacrificial death, to the exclusion of the > long teaching demonstration of His life of hard work, so that one now > expects merely to say, "I believe", and at once go forth to make > disciples. Maybe that is one of the reasons that Swami Satyananda spent > long years doing strenuous, traditional austerities, before meeting Sree > Maa and coming to America-- perhaps to show another point of view on > this matter > > Shraddha, faith, is the saving grace, no doubt, but we exist in the > realm of karmabhumi, the world of karma, of doing and action; so we > must ground our aspirations in sustained and determined work in order > to make them our own. So I agree that it is definitely not merely a > thinking matter. Swami Vivekananda said at the close of his life, " I > have had divine grace, no doubt, but oh, the pound of blood every ounce > of divine grace has cost me!" And he was a special person; a nitya > siddha-eternally free--one of the seven rishis. > > The young boy disciples of Sri Ramakrishna, just after his mahasamadhi, > renounced the world and began years and years of the most intense > sadhana and tapasya. The householders disciples would visit their > monastery-which was a partially collapsed wreck of a house-a home of > ghosts and cobras-and ask in wonder why they were working so hard now, > when their Master had blessed them with every kind of realization during > His lifetime. Their answer was that they must now "ground" the spiritual > gifts they had received into their life and character to really make > them their own. It often happens that when the great teacher departs, > only then do the disciples really get busy and "go on duty'-Sree Maa's > phrase that the austere tapaswi Devananda likes to quote. > > When I was quite young and new to spiritual life, I had the opportunity > of serving the needs of a very holy guest monk from India during the > time he was in our city. I had already come to understand that > "samadhi" was important, and suddenly-at the end of the third day, and > after we had already said goodby and he was walking down the long hall > of the temple, never (by me) to be seen again- the thought crossed my > mind that I should have asked this great Swami for it. So I, even then, > began to think mentally, "You must give me samadhi, you must give me > samadhi--". He had just about reached the end of the hall as I repeated > it the third time, when he partially turned and looked back at me and > said, " I could give you samadhi right now, but you couldn't retain > it"---and he quickly turned again and was gone. > > I believe anecdotes like this are valuable to remember because they > contain lessons, and this one has been instructive to me for years. God > or guru may have the power to lift us up a half mile into the sky, but, > if we have not built the scaffolding, the superstructure, the platform > on which to stand, we can't remain there, and we may suffer a dangerous > fall back to earth. Grace must indeed be combined with hard, sustained > work--karma. So a true, effective ashram is not merely a refuge of > peace--it is more likely bursting at the seams with strenuous work of > all kinds and on all levels if it is really to produce saints. > Vivekananda would say, "put them in the purification- drilling machine > and turn it on". > > We have no choice in any case. There is a notary present, and God is > the witness, when we evolve to the point of being "seriously interested > in spiritual life". Sri Ramakrishna said, "Once you enter the hospital, > you will not be allowed to leave until you are fully cured". So one > has no choice but to buckle down for the long haul. > > And---when the cure is complete and our garments and belongings are > returned to us, we will pass out through the big glass doors of the > hospital to re-enter the world's bustling marketplace-like a drop of > water re-absorbed into the great cosmic sea of creation- but with new > eyes and new vision, and-by those distracted by desires for worldly > pleasures and the adventures of the ego-ever unknown and unknowable. > > Respectfully, > > Tanmaya > > > > > , "Chris Kirner" <chriskirner1956@> > wrote: > > > > Tanmaya, > > > > I don't know...something tells me the difference between vocal, > > subvocal, and silent chanting is more deep than simply saying that > > subvocal is so many times more powerful than vocal, and silent is so > > many times more powerful (or effective) than subvocal chanting. > > > > In the tradition I came from mantra japa was very important, and the > > general teaching was the same as what has just been said here, by > > yourself and by Ankur Joshi, essentially, that silent is best. But as > > in every instance where language is used to describe Truth (even in > > scripture) the result is only a partial truth; I find myself wondering > > "More powerful how?" or "More effective in what way?". > > > > I don't really have an answer, but I do have some ideas, and more > > questions. > > > > The primary difference between the three forms appears to be one of > > intensity of focus, or perhaps you could say, subtlety of expression. > > Everyone has had the experience of chanting a familiar text, while at > > the same time the mind is playing movies. Obviously, it is harder for > > the mind to do this if it must be occupied with silent chanting. So > > one could say that silent chanting makes it easier to quiet the mind > > and focus it only on the mantras, and so become more one-pointed and > > connected to the mantra on a more subtle level. It is possible that > > the common saying that silent is best refers to this. > > > > But does it follow that the opposite is also true, that with vocal > > chanting it is impossible, or even, difficult, to control the mind, > > make it one-pointed, and connect to the mantras on a subtle level? I > > do not think it is necessarily so. > > > > In the tradition I came from we practiced mantra meditation. In mantra > > meditation japa is performed silently with the idea that we make the > > mantra more and more subtle in the mind, until only the shakti of the > > mantra and of the guru remains to lead us into samadhi. > > > > To achieve samadhi it is necessary that everything is still and quiet, > > both mind and body. Only silence is possible here. But samadhi is not > > all there is in spiritual life, nor is vocal chanting necessarily an > > obstacle to samadhi, the two simply cannot occur at the same instant > > (I'm talking about savikalpa and nirvikalpa here, I think bhava > > samadhi does occur during vocal chanting). > > > > So, silence is necessary for samadhi, but is samadhi all there is to > > chanting and mantra japa, no. I think it is clear from Maa's and > > Swamiji's examples that one can practice with the intention to benefit > > others. As you pointed out Tanmaya, and I agree, it seems likely that > > the vibrations of verbal chanting or japa have a positive effect on > > the physical manifestation that is not as strong in the other forms. > > It seems common for scriptures to declare the benefits of merely > > hearing a given scripture chanted. And again, I don't think that the > > act of manifesting the mantras on a gross level (chanting aloud), > > necessarily precludes experience of the subtle affects. > > > > There is also worship. It takes two for worship to occur. While > > someone could argue that savikalpa samdhi is the ultimate experience > > of worship, since there are still two, and a relationship, even though > > it is "understood", (and here I run into my lack of experience with > > puja, and samadhi), it seems likely there are benefits to physical > > worship, whether puja, path, or japa, that are not manifested by > > simply sitting in samadhi (perhaps it is, again, the positive benefits > > to the physical world - worship as an act of service). > > > > Swami Rama wrote once that while his students all struggled with > > repeating the gross form of their mantra in their minds, over and > > over, that when he said his mantra that it just kind of expanded in > > his mind as one great Sound; there was no japa, no repetition, no > > word, really, just the subtle form of the mantra, filling his mind. > > [understand, this is just a description of what I recall reading a > > long time ago, and so it has been filtered by my memory and > > preconceptions] This kind of experience, direct experience of the > > subtle form of the mantra, is what we all hope for. It takes place > > inside, and therefore beyond the realm of physical sound, but I > > believe it can be experienced, at least partially, even as we chant > aloud. > > > > This is largely supposition, of course, since I don't have this level > > of attainment, myself. But I do experience a couple of things that > > suggest the possibility, and Swamiji's example is highly suggestive. > > > > When I sit to chant, at first it is just the words and the intention, > > but soon the mantras stir the shakti and the shakti begins to control > > the mind. I read the words and I repeat them, but the shakti does > > everything else. Perhaps, eventually, as I progress, it will be Shakti > > doing the reading and the speaking too, and there will be no more "I" > > to do anything but worship as the mantras unfold themselves before me. > > > > Even though I appear to be very active and engaged, physically, a lot > > of "me" is actually gone. This supports the idea that verbal chanting > > is not an obstacle to samadhi, even though samadhi necessarily takes > > place in silence and stillness. When the chanting stops, I find the my > > mind is often very quiet and my body very still, perfect for > > meditation as a prelude to samadhi. [Now if I could only learn to sit > > without so much pain!] > > > > Swamiji described a period of time when he would always go into > > samadhi after he finished chanting the Chandi. I think this shows that > > far from being an obstacle to samadhi, chanting aloud definately leads > > one to samadhi. > > > > The question of just how absorbed one can become in the subtle form of > > the mantra while chanting aloud is, I think, pretty well answered by > > Swamiji's experience as described by Maa in Shree Maa the Life of a > > Saint (I think), when Swamiji became so absorbed in his chanting of > > the Chandi that he let the fire get so large it caught his clothes on > > fire, and they were literally burned off of him, and he was completely > > unaware. > > > > So, it seems that even though silent repetition of mantra is necessary > > for mantra meditition leading to samadhi, and is also a more direct > > means to concentrate the mind, verbal repetition also brings the mind > > to silence (through the intention to worship, I believe) and prepares > > it for samadhi. Though it seems likely that silent worship, any kind > > of sadhana, really, benefits the surrounding physical world, it seems > > likely that verbal, or physically active forms, have a greater direct > > affect. Lastly, while it is true that at its subtlest, the subtle form > > of mantra can only be experienced in silence, absorption in the mantra > > shakti, to the exclusion of any physical perceptions or sensations, > > can be achieved, not only while verbally chanting, but while tending a > > fire and making offerings, as well. Such is the mystery of path. > > > > Jai Maa! > > Chris > > > > P.S. > > I've certainly gone on far too long here. Forgive me, I'm getting over > > a cold, and try as I might, I just cannot think clearly enough to > > condense it all. Jai Swamiji! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "ty_maa" ds.james@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > Namaste Ramya, > > > > > > I second all that Ankur Joshi said, #19989. > > > > > > In addition, I think of chanting as an extention of Om (AUM). "A" > is > > > the gross body, and vocal (physical) chanting thus enlightens and > > > purifies the physical body and environment. > > > > > > "U" is the subtle body, and silent vocalization in chanting, or > > > repetition of mantras, thus enlightens and purifies the subtle body, > > > mind, thoughts, memories, etc, as well as the subtle environment. It > > > also naturally leads one's attention "inward", and all the benefits > > > resulting from that. > > > > > > "M" is the causal body in the "Om" paradigm, and deep and silent > > > mental chanting should gradually lead to the deeper mind which > floats > > > on the causal sea of samskaras, etc. > > > > > > Traditionally, "AUM" doesn't have three letters, but four. The > > > anusvara stands for Divine inner Silence, for turiya, the > > > transcendental "fourth", the pure Spirit. > > > > > > I believe that even from the beginning of the chanting adventure or > > > journey, one can train oneself to be mindful of the Divine, living > > > Silence that resides between the words, between the breaths, and > > > between the printed lines as pure White,--"White as Jasmine" > > > > > > As Swamiji has just now said, the ever-changing is the Divine > Shakti, > > > Vaagishwari, Saraswati, etc. The eternal Silence, the Stillness, the > > > "Peace that passeth understanding", is Her ever-faithful, > unchanging, > > > Divine Husband, Shiva. > > > > > > While the "Space" between Them resonates with the highest vibration > of > > > all: the Infinite and Unconditional Love that unifies Them "into" > the > > > "One without a second", Atma/Brahman. > > > > > > In any case, this is my personal, view of the sadhana of Path in > reply > > > to your question. > > > > > > ---Just one more thing that I believe in absolutely, and about which > I > > > have no doubt whatsoever: Sri Maa came to this hemisphere at the > > > behest of Sri Ramakrishna, with no particular agenda of Her own, but > > > with the capacity to draw down the immense and invincible power of > the > > > Mother of the universe through whatever form or practice or ritual > She > > > decided to use. > > > > > > I believe Swami Satyananda's commision has been to evolve the forms, > > > the channels, the conduits wherewith the Divine Shakti will descend > > > into this western culture. So I believe that the methods Swami has > > > given us, as described in his many books, are not mere transplants > > > from India; they are forms that are entirely fresh and new, invested > > > with a degree of transforming power about which I can only guess. > > > > > > Just as Christ gave the ritual of the Holy Communion, which has > > > channeled the Holy Spirit (Divine Shakti-even if they do refer to > Her > > > as "Him") and the Spirit of Truth into Earth and humanity for 2000 > > > years, I believe that Swami's forms of communion with the Divine, > and > > > of descent of the Divine that they engender, will be at least as > > > powerful and as long-lasting. > > > > > > There are now-a-days dozens and scores of useful sadhanas, available > > > in libraries and bookstores, which can evolve a struggling > individual > > > forward. But the forms of practice now issuing from the Devi Mandir > > > have the power to raise, not only the individual, but the whole of > > > humanity. > > > > > > It is therefore the obligation, and great privilage, of those of us > > > who make use of any of these forms: mantras, paths, or worships, to > do > > > so with faith, and with the warrior's spirit,---and, most of all > with > > > great thankfulness at this time when the blinding Light and the > > > blinding darkness are so close together on our Earth. > > > > > > Respectfully, > > > > > > Tanmaya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "n_ramya108" <n_ramya108@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Namaste Everybody, > > > > > > > > We had some great discussions about "Path" which means recitation > of a > > > > scripture last weekend. Please see the transcripts in the file > > > > section, if you wish! > > > > > > > > Chanting can be done in three ways: > > > > (a) Loudly (b) Moving lips with sound barely audible and > ©silently. > > > > > > > > Can you please share how you usually chant and also your thoughts > on > > > > the benefits of the different ways of chanting. > > > > > > > > Thank you very much! Looking forward to hearing and learning from > you. > > > > > > > > Jai Maa! > > > > > > > > ramya > > > > > > > > > > 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.