in need of spiritual help

[Radha]

Namaste

I've been a long time lurker here but first time poster. I'm in need of some spiritual guidance and I hope someone can help. I've been a practitioner of Sanatana Dharma for a year and half. I started out worshiping Lord Narayana. Over the last 10 months or so I've been going to the Hare Krishna temple in my area as they are the only really active Hindu group. I like the people a lot and the temple is very nice but lately I've been thinking that I should worship God as Lord Narayana again and maybe the HKs aren't for me. Their standard sadhana alone doesn't fit my school/work schedule (16 rounds of the Mahamantra a day plus puja) I also don't like that they don't offer the sacred thread or brahmana initiation to women, although we can serve as pujaris.

So I don't want to leave the group because I have good friendships there and they always have kirtan, lectures, and other religious events so it gives me a strong sense of community which is important to me. Is there a middle ground I can take between them and Sri Acharyaji's teachings? I know Narayana and Krishna are the same can I still worship them equally?

I really need some direction and any help would be so greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Hari Om!
Hare Krishna!

[Tulasi Devi]

Namaste Radha,

I'm sorry it took a while for someone to get back to you. You have a very important question that is definitely worth asking. I took classes at a Hari Krishna temple in Houston for six months and attended other functions of theirs before I attended the Dharma Satsanghas in Omaha, Nebraska for over two years by Sri Acharyaji. Therefore I do have some things to say about your question.

The Hari Krishnas have valuable information to convey and a good understanding of many aspects of Bhakti but a few of their practices are not the best for most people to practice in a healthy way. It takes two hours to say their prescribed mantras every day and this could make it difficult for the typical person to meet all of their other obligations in order to live a balanced life. A person practicing Sanatana Dharma must balance their life with the study of scripture, meditation, seva, worship, exercise, work and of course family. Most people's jobs alone take up much of their time today. (Many of us today seem to be living in a system that is designed to give us little free time outside of work while people in the past were able to juggle many more interests much more freely.)

The scriptures indicate that the mantra to Narayana ('Om Namo Narayana') is the highest mantra of all. I would recommend saying the mantra to Narayana first and getting initiated into this mantra by a qualified authentic Guru. That is the correct way to fully practice the mantra. Krishna and Narayana are actually the same being so it is still great to worship either. The Hari Krishna mantra is being taught backwards today for some unknown reason since it is supposed to start with Hari Rama instead of Hari Krishna! It is never as helpful to say a mantra backwards from how it was said in the scriptures.

Women are meant to practice Sanatana Dharma as fully as men and women wore the sacred thread in ancient times so there is no reason why women should not be allowed to take Brahman initiation. Once you are ready for it, you may request Sri Acharyaji to consider giving you Brahman initiation but first you must take mantra initiation.

You can still enjoy your Dharmic friendships and community where you are as long as you don't feel overly pressured to anything that doesn't make sense. There are many teachings and recommended books on dharmacentral so don't feel that you have to rely on your current community to gain all of your spiritual knowledge. It is wise though to ultimately choose one Guru as your main teacher and stay committed, loyal and supportive of them as you commit to your path in Sanatana Dharma.

I hope that is helpful. Please let me know if you have more questions.

Om Shanti
Tulasi

[Braja Bhushan das]

Dear Tulasi devi,

I like and agree with what you have written but there were two things that were unknown to me: that the highest of all mantras is that dedicated to Narayana, and that Hari Krishna (you mean Hare Krishna, don't you) mantra is said backwards these days, although sastra states otherwise.

Could you please tell me where I can find a mention of these two issues in the sastra?

[Tulasi Devi]

Dear Braja Bhushan Prabhu,

Thank you for your kind comments. My guru-maharaja, Sri Dharma Pravartaka
Acharyaji, has written several, yet to be published, articles explaining
the origins, history, meaning and use of several of the most important
Vedic Vaishnava mantras. With your indulgence, I've decided to take a few
small snippets from two of his articles to explain the origins of both the
Narayana mantra and the Hare Krishna mantra. Sri Acharyaji is an
extremely orthodox Vaishnava to put it very lightly. His words are below.
I hope this is helpful. Take care.

Your Servant,

Tulasi

The Narayana mantra (Aum Namo Narayanaya) is known historically as the
Tiru-mantra, and constitutes the most important Vaishnava mantra in
existence. It was the primary mantra of the Alvars, Sri Nathamuni, Yamuna
Acharya, and Ramanuja Acharya. It is still the primary mantra of the Sri
Vaishnava sampradaya to this day.

The Narayana mantra is a revealed Vedic mantra and is first recommended as
the primary Vaishnava mantra in the Narayana Upanishad, which is one of
the 108 traditionally recognized Upanishads, and the entire text of which
is devoted to extolling the virtues and importance of this mantra.

The Hare Krishna mantra has an interesting history that, unfortunately,
almost no follower of the Hare Krishna movement knows about, and that
almost no leader of that movement will openly acknowledge. Like the
Narayana mantra, the mantra known as the "Hare Krishna" mantra is a
revealed Vedic mantra. However, the actual mantra is not quite the "Hare
Krishna" mantra that has become popular in recent decades. The earliest
extant mention of it is found in the Kali Santarana Upanishad. The exact
Sanskrit verse is this:

naradah punah papraccha tannama kimiti |
sa hovaca hiranyagarbhah |
hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare |
hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare |
iti sodasakam namnam kalikalmasanasanam |
natah parataropayah sarvavedesu drsyate |
iti sodasakalavrtasya jivasyavaranavinasanam |
tatah prakasate param brahma meghapaye ravirasmimandaliveti |

The actual mantra in the Kali Santarana Upanishad is thus actually:

hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare
hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare

Thus, to this very day, orthodox Hindu brahmanas, panditas and Sanskrit
experts recite the mantra in this correct fashion. All indologists, Hindu
scholars, professional Sanskritists and professors of Hinduism Studies
acknowledge that this is, indeed, the correct wording of the text. In
fact, even most Gaudiya Acharyas and sannyasis with whom I've discussed
this issue also readily acknowledge that this is the correct wording in
the original Sanskrit.

Interestingly, the mantra was recited in the above, correct, manner even
in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya during the first two to three
centuries of its history. Where this specifically changed within the
Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya was in the early 18th Century with Sri
Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

According to the traditional court records, the history is this: The
Gaudiyas residing in the Mathura/Vrindavana area at that time were known
for being very egalitarian and open about offering mantra diksha to any
sincere soul, regardless of their previous caste designation. This is, of
course, in keeping with true Vaishnavism and bhakti-yoga.

However, after several decades of disagreements between the Gaudiyas and
certain important Mathura-based caste brahmanas, the local raja was
approached with the brahmanas' complaints. Their specific complaint was
that the Gaudiyas were initiating shudras, etc. with Vedic mantras, which
they felt was not acceptable. The raja threatened to disfavor the Gaudiya
movement if they did not cease in offering Vedic mantras to non-twiceborn
devotees.

After some serious deliberation, the Gaudiya leaders of the
Mathura/Vrindavana community offered the compromise of switching the
mantra - thus saying the Hare Krishna portion first, followed by the Hare
Rama - rather than initiating people into the actual Vedic mantra. In
this way, they were not initiating people in a Vedic mantra, would
satisfied the caste brahmana complainants. Thus was born the "Hare
Krishna" mantra as: " hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare / hare
rama hare rama rama rama hare hare.

In actuality, there is not a "Hare Krishna" mantra found in any Vedic
scripture and never has been; and no such mantra even existed previous to
the 18th Century. Rather, what we always had both historically and in the
Vedic canon was what we could term the "Hare Rama" mantra:

hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare
hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare

Now, having said this, I do need to make one very important point clear on
this matter. Even though the mantra was, indeed, altered only a few
centuries ago, and cannot thus be considered a revealed or Vedic mantra in
the strict sense of the term, this is not to say in any way that reciting
the "Hare Krishna" mantra is in any manner wrong, offensive, devoid of
worth, or in any way a negative thing.

Being comprised of the sacred and eternal names of Sriman Narayana
(specifically Hari, Rama and Krishna), whether one chants either the "Hare
Rama" mantra or the "Hare Krishna" mantra, the holy names of God have the
ability to purify our hearts, awaken bhakti within us, and take us back
home to the realm of Vaikuntha. It is for this reason, understanding the
ultimate salvific efficacy of the divine names of Krishna, that even the
most orthodox of Vedic Vaishnavas have never seen the use of the "Hare
Krishna" mantra as being worthy of contention.

In giving the Hare Krishna mantra to the world, Srila Prabhupada gifted us
all with the hari-nama, the sacred names of Narayana, the chanting and
divine grace of which constitute the highest spiritual practice that one
can participate in within the Kali Yuga.

[Braja Bhushan das]

Dear Tulasi Devi

thank you for answering so promptly and efficiently.

Once again, I learned some new things but there is something which is not clear to me.

You (or your guruji) say

Interestingly, the mantra was recited in the above, correct, manner even in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya during the first two to three centuries of its history. Where this specifically changed within the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya was in the early 18th Century with Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana.

I don't understand how this can be possible if one of Sri Caitanya's associates, Sriman Narahari Thakur, said very clearly in Bhakti Candrika, a traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava book, that first comes the hare krishna part and only then the hare rama.

Here goes the original (Bhakti-candrikā 7.2):

"tasyoddhāraṁ pravakṣyāmi samāhita-manāḥ śṛnu
hare-dvandvaṁ tathā kṛṣṇa-dvandvaṁ vyutkramaṇāt punaḥ
hare-rāma-dvayaṁ paścād vilomenaiva tat paṭhet"

Translation:
"I will now explain the formation of this mantra. Please listen attentively.
First "hare krishna" is said twice, then each word doubled is said in reverse order. Then "hare rama" is said twice, and after that each word doubled is said in reverse order."

So could you please shed light on this?

[Dharmapala]

Hi, Braja Bhushan Dasa,

"Hare Krishna"! (Only slight pun intended) I think the quote from Narahari Thakura that you stated above actually supports what Acharyaji said in the articles quote in Tulasi's message.

Just a few thoughts. First, Acharyaji's point was a simple one; namely that the "Hare Krishna" mantra is not a Vedic one, and that this fact has been both historically recognized by Hindus themselves as well as scholars of Hinduism (I'm a grad student at the University of Chicago and I asked Professor Wendy Doniger about this when I first heard this from Acharyaji, and she confirms that the Sanskrit states the Hare Rama first. She's one of the most famous scholars of Hinduism in the world). By "Vedic manta", I know what Acharyaji means is that it isn't found anywhere in the Sruti literature, which it definitely isn't. For that matter, I don't think it's found anywhere in the Smrti literature either. But I'm open to correction on that.

Second, Acharyaji didn't say that the "Hare Krishna" mantra did not possibly exist in some form previous to the 18th century, but that it did not become the official sampradaya mantra until that time. Thus, that the mantra being said incorrectly (i.e., with the Hare Krishna section first) is alluded to by Narahari Thakura doesn't negate the fact that it was not the primary mantra of the Gaudiya sampradaya until the 18th century.

Third, that Narahari Thakura had to positively enforce the proactive alteration of the mantra by stating that "Then "hare rama" is said twice..." proves that he is altering an already well-known mantra from its original form. Otherwise, he wouldn't have to describe this new ("Hare Krishna") mantra in such depth. And I will have to take your word for the translation since I don't really know much Sanskrit.

Thus, what Acharyaji stated in his articles on mantras remains correct.

That being said, I need to reiterate what Tulasi said about this not needing to be a big bone of contention. Whether said with Hare Rama first, or with Hare Krishna first, these are still the names of God. That being the case, they are sacred and have the ability to liberate. The fact that the mantra found in the hare krsna hare krsna krsna krsna hare hare /
hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare form is not the exact form that is found in the scriptures is merely a technicality in my humble opinion. If you chant Hare Krishna, you should please continue doing so with all sincerity and devotion, and you will know Krsna. That's the important thing.

On a side note, I look forward to reading the full articles by Acharyaji that Tulasi quoted from above. I know he's been finally releasing several hundred articles that he had not shared with the public before. Do you know, Tulasi, when he'll have a chance to get to the mantra papers specifically? Time to sleep! Take care!

Jaya Sri Krishna!,

Dharmapala Dasa

[Braja Bhushan das]

Dear Dharmapala

thank you for your elaborate answer.

I completely agree with you that the point in question is not something to be quarrelled over. Let everyone chant the Lord's name as per his or her tradition, guru etc... That's absolutely allright, and whether this or that version has been official in GV since 18th century doesn't matter, either. A sincere sadhaka will follow his or her path anyway.

This, however, should not prevent us from discussing the issue in a sattvic way if someone feels the need to clarify things or better understand them (even if it is a technicality). Personally, after I read Tulasiji's post I felt a little uneasy as I knew Bhakti-candrika said something else, so I wanted to know how you will see the issue in the context of my question. My only objective is to understand the reality as it is, and all I say is done in this spirit without me wanting to enter into rajasic discussion flames and the like.

So, coming back to our question, let me please address the particular points you have raised.

First, Acharyaji's point was a simple one; namely that the "Hare Krishna" mantra is not a Vedic one, and that this fact has been both historically recognized by Hindus themselves as well as scholars of Hinduism (I'm a grad student at the University of Chicago and I asked Professor Wendy Doniger about this when I first heard this from Acharyaji, and she confirms that the Sanskrit states the Hare Rama first. She's one of the most famous scholars of Hinduism in the world). By "Vedic manta", I know what Acharyaji means is that it isn't found anywhere in the Sruti literature, which it definitely isn't. For that matter, I don't think it's found anywhere in the Smrti literature either. But I'm open to correction on that.

If you read my post you will see I did not refer to this part of Tulasiji's post so it is difficult to accept it as an answer to my question. Indeed, it is something I would like to explore later on.

Second, Acharyaji didn't say that the "Hare Krishna" mantra did not possibly exist in some form previous to the 18th century, but that it did not become the official sampradaya mantra until that time. Thus, that the mantra being said incorrectly (i.e., with the Hare Krishna section first) is alluded to by Narahari Thakura doesn't negate the fact that it was not the primary mantra of the Gaudiya sampradaya until the 18th century.

Neither does it negate the fact it was the primary mantra in GV before 18th century. In fact, if an associate of Mahaprabhu writes a book on GV mantras, I don't see why he would put there some secondary version of a mantra which is so essential to GV sadhana. Any thoughts?

Third, that Narahari Thakura had to positively enforce the proactive alteration of the mantra by stating that "Then "hare rama" is said twice..." proves that he is altering an already well-known mantra from its original form. Otherwise, he wouldn't have to describe this new ("Hare Krishna") mantra in such depth. And I will have to take your word for the translation since I don't really know much Sanskrit.

No, it was no positive enforcement. He simply said, in a neutral way, that something comes after something. The reason why he described the mantra in such a depth is that Bhakti Candrika is a book on mantras and other ritual proceedings. Other mantras are described in a similar manner.

Thus, what Acharyaji stated in his articles on mantras remains correct.

Unfortunately, seeing the three points above, I am not convinced. Anyway, thank you for your effort to help me understand it. I know it is not easy to discuss things which are quite technical. Hari Hari!