--- In achintya (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram@y...> 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.