Chanting of Maha Mantra

[sushanta 0]

In Vedas, it is written as Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama aHare Hare Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, but how the same has been changed and termed as Maha Mantra. Please explain.

[raga 0]

Where in the Vedas has it been written?

 

Please refer to the following document for some references on the Maha-mantra from the vast body of Vedic literature. The document has two sections, one for references from pre-Caitanya era and another for references from post-Caitanya era.

 

http://www.raganuga.com/literature/authors/madhava/maha-mantra-references.pdf

 

If I've missed out any, please drop me a note or post the references in this thread.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I think he is refering to the verse from Kalisantarana Upanishad of the Yajur Veda. Some recensions have the verse as hare rama, hare rama, etc., coming first. In South India the mantra is always chanted as Hare Rama, then Hare Krishna, from quite ancient times.

 

[krishnabhakht 0]

Hare Krsna

 

This is what I could find on the net I am not sure of the authenticity, maybe some of the learned souls here could help.

 

In article <3g4bq8$ds1@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,

anand hudli <ahudli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> sa hovaca hiraNyagarbhah |

 

> Tr: Lord Brahma said:

 

> hare rAma hare rAma rAma rAma hare hare |

 

> Tr: O Hari, O Rama, O Hari, O Rama , O Rama O Rama, O Hari, O Hari!

 

> hare kRShNa hare kRShNa kRShNa kRShNa hare hare |

 

> Tr: O Hari, O Krishna, O Hari, O Krishna , O Krishna O Krishna,

> O Hari, O Hari!

 

> Note: Gaudiyas chant this mantra by reversing the order of> the two halves, ie. the Hare Krishna first and then the Hare Rama.

 

Actually, there has been a good reason for this reversal. This is how I have heard the story; I welcome any corrections. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to spread this maha-mantra to all the fallen souls of Kali Yuga, regardless of qualification. Now, technically, there are Vedic injunctions that the Vedic mantras (such as this

mantra of the Kalisantarana Upanishad) are not to be publically chanted, and they are never to be chanted by sudras, women, etc. In order to solve the problem, while keeping within the context of the Vedas and thus not offending the Brahmins, Mahaprbhu reversed the two halves. It is equally potent either way and this way it can

be freely distributed, chanted in sankirtan, etc.

 

Also, they seem to believe that the name Rama

here indicates Balabhadra and not Ramacandra! Now there are

Actually, there are a considerable number of explanations even among Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas on the name-by-name explanation of this maha-mantra. Some say "rAma" means Ramacandra, others Balarama. Others point to a scriptural verse that indicates that rAma means "rAdhA-ramana", or

Krishna. Similarly, "hare" is seen as both vocative of "hari" and of "harA", the latter a name of Radharani.

 

 

Below is the link from which I have reproduced part here

 

http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Jan_2/msg00041.html

 

Hare Krsna

[sushanta 0]

I could not open this file and read, please send mail or link.

 

Radhey Radhey

 

Sushanta

[sushanta 0]

But as you told only a part of the people chant this where as the majority still have Hare rama, and also is there any scripture, where the same has been described from Chaitanya Mahabrabhu only, not followers.

 

Please forgive if I am wrong.

 

Radhey Radhey

 

Sushanta

[raga 0]

You would require Adobe Acrobat Reader for the .pdf file.

 

Anyway, I uploaded a Word version now.

 

http://www.raganuga.com/literature/authors/madhava/maha-mantra-references.doc

[raga 0]

 

But as you told only a part of the people chant this where as the majority still have Hare rama, and also is there any scripture, where the same has been described from Chaitanya Mahabrabhu only, not followers.

 

 

Who would that majority be?

[raga 0]

 

Actually, there has been a good reason for this reversal. This is how I have heard the story; I welcome any corrections. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to spread this maha-mantra to all the fallen souls of Kali Yuga, regardless of qualification. Now, technically, there are Vedic injunctions that the Vedic mantras (such as this

mantra of the Kalisantarana Upanishad) are not to be publically chanted, and they are never to be chanted by sudras, women, etc. In order to solve the problem, while keeping within the context of the Vedas and thus not offending the Brahmins, Mahaprbhu reversed the two halves. It is equally potent either way and this way it can

be freely distributed, chanted in sankirtan, etc.

 

 

I do not recall reading in any historical Gaudiya scripture that Mahaprabhu would have reversed anything. What is the basis of this idea? It sounds like a speculation to me. At any rate, the maha-mantra was not chanted publicly in any form at that time. The brahmins were mainly shaktas in Bengal.

 

 

 

Also, they seem to believe that the name Rama

here indicates Balabhadra and not Ramacandra! Now there are

Actually, there are a considerable number of explanations even among Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas on the name-by-name explanation of this maha-mantra. Some say "rAma" means Ramacandra, others Balarama. Others point to a scriptural verse that indicates that rAma means "rAdhA-ramana", or

Krishna. Similarly, "hare" is seen as both vocative of "hari" and of "harA", the latter a name of Radharani.

 

 

Where do you find Gaudiya acaryas explaining the name "Rama" as anything other than Radha-Ramana?

[Pritesh01 0]

Is chanting Vishnu Sahasranaam more powerful then doing 16 rounds on the mahamantra?

[raga 0]

 

Is chanting Vishnu Sahasranaam more powerful then doing 16 rounds on the mahamantra?

 

 

How do you measure "power"?

[sushanta 0]

Majority means majority of the faction of the people, who chant either of these two mantras.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Is chanting Vishnu Sahasranaam more powerful then doing 16 rounds on the mahamantra?

 

 

The phala-shruti of the Vishnu Sahasranama states the following:

 

sri rama rama rameti rame rame manorame

sahasra nama tat tulyam rama nama varanane

 

"If one chants the name of Lord Rama three times it is equal to chanting this thousand names of Lord Vishnu."

 

This is usually chanted along with the Sahasranama.

 

One single mahamantra has four Rama's contained within it. If you chant sixteen rounds of the mahamantra it will contain thousands of Lord Rama's names, thus bringing you the result of having chanted the Vishnu Sahasranama 1,000 times over.

[raga 0]

 

Majority means majority of the faction of the people, who chant either of these two mantras.

 

 

Yes, I do understand English. The idea was that you'd name some groups of people who chant the mantra in a certain way, and we could then examine whether it is a majority or not.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Both the Madhva and Sri sampradaya chant this mantra as Hare Rama and then Hare Krishna. Virtually every other group in South India follow this same pattern.

 

This is also the custom in Rishikesh. I'm not sure about the rest of North India.

 

[theist 1]

I've heard that three Rama's are equal to one Krsna.True?

 

I am also wondering about the definition of power here.Power in destroying sins?In awarding bhakti?Why wouldn't one of each be sufficent if chanted without offense?Questions along these lines.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

"...it is said in the scriptures that one thousand names of Vishnu are equal to one name of Rama, and three names of Lord Rama are equal to one name of Krishna."

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.19.6 purport by Srila Prabhupada

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

In the Brahmanda Purana we find the following verse:

 

sahasra-namnam punyanam

trir-avrittya tu yat phalam

ekavrittya tu krishnasya

namaikam tat prayacchati.

 

"The pious results achieved by chanting the Vishnu Sahasranama three times can be attained by one utterance of the name of Lord Krishna."

 

[Pritesh01 0]

Panch Tatva Mantra was this added after Mahaprabhu's time? is this not more powerful then the mahamantra do any other samprady chant this also?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

krishna-caitanyeti nama

mukhyan mukhyatamam prabhoh

helaya sakrid uccarya

sarva-nama-phalam labhet.

 

"The name Krishna Caitanya is the topmost and most important among all the names of the Lord. By chanting this name once, a person attains the results of chanting all the holy names of the Lord."

 

 

...do any other samprady chant this also?

 

 

Other sampradayas do not consider Sri Chaitanya to be an incarnation of Lord Krishna, thus they don't chant this mantra. Those belonging to other sampradayas who have come to understand Chaitanya as Krishna Himself generally take to the teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

 

 

[sushanta 0]

In stead of writing about "English" "power", etc. would you please try to answer the questions straighforwd as others are answering?

 

 

[raga 0]

 

In stead of writing about "Englishpower", etc. would you please try to answer the questions straighforwd as others are answering?

 

 

If you bothered to follow the links I presented, you will find 30+ pages of references on Maha-mantra in a document I've collected.

 

I cannot locate the exact question for which you are waiting for a straightforward reply, kindly repeat that. The post in which you commented is as follows:

 

 

In reply to:

 

<hr>

Majority means majority of the faction of the people, who chant either of these two mantras.

 

<hr>Yes, I do understand English. The idea was that you'd name some groups of people who chant the mantra in a certain way, and we could then examine whether it is a majority or not.

 

 

How about you replying to the question here?

 

[sushanta 0]

I have received your mail in woed, but due to some other preoccupied time factor, is not able to read the same so far, anyway thanks very much for the same.

 

My question is still as early, why the Mantra is sung as Hare Rama by ISCKON only where as in Vedas it starts with Hare Rama.

 

And there is no scriptures, which shows that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has changed this mantra from Hare Rama to Hare Krishna.

 

FOrgive me if I am wrong.

 

Sushanta

[krishnabhakht 0]

Even I would like to know if in Kalisantarana Upanishad of the Yajur Veda its Hare Rama first then Hare Krishna why do we chant it as Hare krishna first.

 

I am sorry for my ignorance but I am just a bit curious about this. I am not looking for any scriptural verse to support anything, I just want to know of this out of curiosity.

 

Prabhuji please help.

[Guest guest]

Because Lord Krsna more attractive than Lord Rama?