Reading this letter of Sadananda Swami I got amazed about his understanding of singing the maha mantra in public. How to harmonize this with our practice and the way Srila Prabhupada has taught us?
Can it be harmonized at all?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maha-mantra and Nama
(Svami Sadananda in two letters to Vamandas in 1960 and 1972)
© Kid Samuelsson 2006
One thing made me very astonished, though, that you (in your lecture) played the
record “Hare Krishna”. You must have forgotten that the gift of Mahamantra also
depends on the qualification of the listener, and that we don’t have the power to
convey the ENERGY of bhakti to the listeners, which makes them qualified to
listen to the Name in the form of the 16 Names of the MANTRA.
People may listen to the Name, by no means the Mahamantra! The record was
intended for you and a few advanced bhakta friends, by no means for the public.
One is NOT allowed to present etc. the Mahamantra to THOSE, who lack
shraddha, who lack the inner conviction and resolution that seva for Bhagavan, for
the sake of pleasing Him only, is one’s eternal path and goal – that is
APARADHA!
When it is said that there are no rules for the Name, this is not true, if one thinks
about the 9th Nama-aparadha, i.e. to give instructions about the Name to someone,
who lacks the inner conviction and resolution that seva for Bhagavan, for the sake
of pleasing Him only, is one’s eternal path and goal.
A vaishnava on the highest level, a parama-bhakta, can bestow the gift of
shakti-sancara, can transfer bhakti-shakti, but as long as he is not more than a
vaishnava on the middle level, a madhyama-vaishnava, he is not able to bestow
shakti-sancara and consequently he cannot offer the maha-mantra, let alone its
artha, its import. Otherwise he becomes an aparadhi.
Only Krishna-Caitanya Himself could request His Own, to sing the mahamantra
without prior instructions in sambandha-jnanam, the knowledge of the main
tattvas, principles, and their interrelation, i.e. the clear knowledge of Bhagavan,
atma, maya etc., but (as a record) in a lecture or in the streets by groups –
completely impossible – Yes, Krishna’s Name, but not the mahamantra.
Radhe! Radhe!
Always from my heart
Sadananda
Sadananda was one of the pioneers of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in Europe, and for that we offer our koti dandavats at his feet. But we should also realise that in many ways, his understanding of Gaudiya Vaishnavism differs from that which we have heard from Srila Prabhupada. He had his own opinions on many things. I don't think we need to harmonise them, better just to respect him from a distance.
Whose disciple is Sadananda Swami?
Whose disciple is Sadananda Swami?
BSST.
How can we know if the ideas which he expresses are his own or from his Gurudeva?
How can we know if the ideas which he expresses are his own or from his Gurudeva?
I also wonder that.
How can we know if the ideas which he expresses are his own or from his Gurudeva?
What difference does that make?
You don't make difference if someone expresses the ideas of his Gurudeva or his own ideas which might differ at 180 degrees from those of his Gurudeva? Does it make any difference to you also that his Gurudeva happens to be Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati Thakur, our pram Guru and that it's about the Mahamantra?
And yes, for me it makes difference. I would like to know what was the opinion on that important topic of my param Guru and why. It does not mean that it will diminish in my eyes the opinion of my own Gurudeva, but in order to learn the art of "Dynamic Orthodoxy" one should be able to follow the process of these dynamic changes with understanding and know the history of our sampradaya and how the changes are happening. Because it matters for me to be a dynamically orthodox devotee, not a "yes Sir!" one, lacking deeper understanding.
I think that this is one of the core problems of ISKCON, that they don’t know the history of their own sampradaya and to any contradiction which might be pointed they “answer” with “What difference does it make? Shrila Prabhupad did it this way. Period.”
Some day each of us will have to make decisions and most probably they will be connected to that dynamic orthodoxy and the art of "dancing"... so we have to learn it… from those who knew it.
I think the important thing to understand is the ninth offense - instructing those who have no faith about the intricacies of the Holy Name - and also, what is sankirtan - how we are spreading Hari Nama and giving people some sukriti so that they do become faithful. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu told us that 'wherever you go, whoever you meet - tell them about Krsna'. Since we know that Krsna is non-different from his name and we also know that not everyone we meet has faith - how shall we carry out this instruction? Shall we consider that Mahaprabhu has instructed us to beome aparadhis? Apply a little of that dynamic orthodoxy you are talking about and think this through and then you will see why Brighu's comment is quite correct.
Instructing someone without faith about the intricacies of Hari Nama would not help them, rather it would be an impediment for most in terms of actually developing faith - so it's pretty obvious why it is offensive. However - teaching people to chant in general with a very general conception like Prabhupada said 'Like a child crying for the attention of it's mother' - that is not offensive and is in fact the way in which so many people have come to the feet of Mahaprabhu.
The other thing is that there are people who are inimical - the offense could be taken that way as well - not that they don't have faith - but that they have the very opposite of faith. In that sense it would be very offensive indeed to instruct such persons about the intricacies of Hari Nama.
Actually - it's the seventh offense that the concern is being raised about. Here is some text from an aritcle by Sripad B.B. Vishnu Maharaja:
7. "Asraddadhane vimukhe'py asrnvati.The verdict of the scriptures is that sraddha,firm faith, is an indispensable ingredient for proper chanting of the holy name. Therefore, it is an offense to intiate someone into the chanting of the holy name when that person does not have faith in the name and is not able to appreciate the spiritual significance of the holy name.
Sraddha means to have complete conviction that chanting the holy name automatically fulfills all duties. One without this faith will simply commit increasing offenses to the holy name and burden the intiating guru with a bad reaction. Should the guru inadvertently intiate a faithless person, he must immediately reject the insincere disciple and announce his mistake to the Vaisnava community.
By hearing the public chanting of the holy names even fallen and faithless people can obtain sufficient sukrti to meet a pure Vaisnava and receive the holy name from him. Therefore, the holy name should be congregationally chanted everwhere."
I should think that this would clear up the 'issue' for most devotees.
Excuse me Audarya-lila prabhu, but the "issue" was "What difference does that make?" (both the philosophy and the feeling of this question) and I responded to the question what difference does it make for me (again both philosophically and as a feeling).
And I don't see how the quoted from you clears up the "issue".
"Sraddha means to have complete conviction that chanting the holy name automatically fulfills all duties."
Excuse me, but Krishna did not instruct Arjuna at Kurukshetra "chant and be happy!" but "raise and fight because this is your duty here and now!"
"Should the guru inadvertently initiate a faithless person, he must immediately reject the insincere disciple and announce his mistake to the Vaisnava community."
Excuse me, but who can tell a guru what he "should" do? And who from our sampradaya did ever reject an "insincere disciple" of his and "announce his mistake to the Vaisnava community"?
What kind of quotes are you citing? And why?
Everything that we say or write conveys not only a meaning, but also a feeling... What kind of a feeling is in:
"What difference does that make?"
Let me respond with your own words:
"Apply a little of that dynamic orthodoxy you are talking about and think this through and then you will see why..."
Actually - it's the seventh offense that the concern is being raised about. Here is some text from an aritcle by Sripad B.B. Vishnu Maharaja:
7. "Asraddadhane vimukhe'py asrnvati.The verdict of the scriptures is that sraddha,firm faith, is an indispensable ingredient for proper chanting of the holy name. Therefore, it is an offense to intiate someone into the chanting of the holy name when that person does not have faith in the name and is not able to appreciate the spiritual significance of the holy name.
Sraddha means to have complete conviction that chanting the holy name automatically fulfills all duties. One without this faith will simply commit increasing offenses to the holy name and burden the intiating guru with a bad reaction. Should the guru inadvertently intiate a faithless person, he must immediately reject the insincere disciple and announce his mistake to the Vaisnava community.
By hearing the public chanting of the holy names even fallen and faithless people can obtain sufficient sukrti to meet a pure Vaisnava and receive the holy name from him. Therefore, the holy name should be congregationally chanted everwhere."
I should think that this would clear up the 'issue' for most devotees.
Visnu Maharaja is paraphrasing BVT very closely here. Otherwise BSST engaged his disciples in public chanting of the maha mantra and strongly criticized the few such as Caran dasa babaji who opposed this practice. Outside of this Babaji's sect practically all Gaudiya Vaisnavas chant the Hare Krsna maha mantra in sankirtana.
How strange then that Svami Sadananda had such an opinion completely contradicting that of his own Gurudeva and at the same time was a faithful disciple of his.
There is not much to add after Audarya-lilada's answer to the philosophical side of the question, but I cannot resist replying to this:
I think that this is one of the core problems of ISKCON, that they don’t know the history of their own sampradaya and to any contradiction which might be pointed they “answer” with “What difference does it make? Shrila Prabhupad did it this way. Period.”
That may be, but I maintain that it is sometimes better to just keep a respectful distance to such differences of opinion rather than trying to sort out everything. There is the chance of starting to think that one Vaishnava is right and the other wrong, and then to commit aparadha. As I think I said before, Sadananda Swami was a very strong personality, and he had plenty of opinions of his own on many different issues, as you will see if you acquaint yourself with his writings. Vaishnavas have their own, unique personalities, and they may reach different viewpoints on important issues without any of them being strictly wrong (of course, there is something called apasiddhanta as well).
Thank you, Brighu.
Maybe I am rather kshatria type and this is why I see the siddhanta in our scriptures leading rather to the conclusion of "raise up an fight" than "leave it"... but I really see it this way, believe me.
For example I do respect and love my own Gurudeva much more for trying very hard to repair the things in ISKCON than just waving a hand and leaving ISKCON for good. For me this is a proof that he cared a lot for the institution started by his Gurudeva and finally it was them who kicked him out, not he leaving. Also those who are my ideals as persons followed the same active (fighting) line - Arjuna, Ramachandra, Hanuman, the prophets from the Old Testament, St John the Baptist, Jesus, Socrates... even Mahatma Gandi if you want. They did fight for what they believed in. Also Shrila Prabhupad was a fighter. So was Shridhara Maharaj... so was Bhakti Siddhanta... so was my Gurudeva. How can I decide that "not fighting" is the right conclusion if all my heroes were active agents of the Truth, not passive ones? Also in Mahabharata it is stated that if one knows the truth and would not say it, he would get half of the amount of karma as for telling a lie. Again it is stressed the same idea as in Gita – be an active agent of the truth because there is no such thing as neutrality. Krishna tried himself to avoid the war by using diplomacy, and it did not work. The fight is inevitable, one can just postpone in time, but finally will have to face it and fight.
For me Tripurari Maharaj is also a fighter for the truth and for tattva. For 10 years he is responding to all these questions in Sanga, he is not keeping a distant neglectful silence or giving brief sharp and cutting answers to the questions, which are sometimes quite aggressive… neither is he ignoring them. He is patiently and in details answering and explaining and giving examples from shastra... to prove his point.
So tell me Bhrigu, how could I see that the right thing to do is "leave it" if all the shastra and all my ideals say and set the example of just the opposite?
I do agree with you that if somebody does not want to hear something, finally we shall have to leave it up to him, but my point is that first we have to try, and to try hard, very hard... to say the right things with the right voice volume to be heard by the person and by the rest. Only then we can leave and not before!
Even about vegetarianism it is also this way - the doctors, the fitness instructors and the advertisers are shouting about the "irreplaceable 16 amino acids" and one has to seriously raise voice to shut them down: "This is a legend (or if you prefer it's a brutal lie) because if these amino acids were indeed irreplaceable me and so many other vegetarians should be dead! And the independent world health statistics would not point the difference of 35-40 % better health for the vegetarians compared to the non-vegetarians!" I would not expect them to give me the word to say this because they never will. I would take the word and speak out loudly with facts. Because this is what I've learned from shastra and from my personal heroes... and if they give me arguments I will stay and respond again with facts... Only then I will leave, not before!
And if you would ask me again "what difference does that make?" I would answer you: "the difference is that I did my best and left the rest in the hands of God. And he knows it."
There was an article published along with the V.P. '09 booklet entitled' "On Faith". This questionable, apparent difference which Svami Sadananda may have had with his Guru and God-Brothers, regarding the Maha Mantra, certainly falls within the scope of the article. It is clear that Svami Sadananda had a high regard for the Maha Mantra. This same high regard is shared amongst all Gaudiya Vaishnavas although his regard may have been more restrictive. So this brings up 2 questions of mine..., "Do we know the context with which he wrote?" and "Do we have faith enough in the Maha Mantra?" to judge what he wrote as being against his Guru. He addressed the "tatrarpita niyamita smarane na kalah" quote by Mahaprabhu, by also emphasizing that there are offenses which can be committed towards Hari Nama. His emphasis was certainly that the Name should not be taken lightly.
So, knowing that Svami Sadananda is a respected member of the Gaudiya Matha, and without knowing the specific context of the letter, and possibly not having the necessary faith, but simply belief, in the Maha Mantra to know perfectly that he was going against his guru, we should focus on what our Guru prescribes for us, which is both, trnad api sunicena taror eva sahisnuna amani na mana dena kirtaniya sada hari, and Hari, Guru, Vaishnava Seva. In this way, I think it best not to judge a respected Vaishnava, on whether they are right or wrong, for ourselves, but perhaps ask a Vaishnava from whom we have received a drop of faith in order for our hearts to be peaceful.
So tell me Bhrigu, how could I see that the right thing to do is "leave it" if all the shastra and all my ideals say and set the example of just the opposite?
Who do you want to fight with about this thing? You make this sound like some huge issue. Sadananda Swami has a handful of (shiksha) disciples who very much keep to themselves. Or do you see many people arguing in the same way as he did in the letter quoted above? As far as I know, this is not an issue at all in the West -- for obvious reasons. If Srila Prabhupada had not given out the name as liberally as he did, none of us would have ever become devotees. It is self-evident that he was not an aparadhi. Denying the value of Srila Prabhupada's campaign would be the same as denying ourselves.
I am the first to admit that I am at times too timid when it comes to controversy, but here I cannot see any point in it. If Sadananda Swami was still around preaching this and making people doubt Srila Prabhupada it would be a different thing. Now that he is long since gone and is almost forgotten in the world of GV I think it is best to respect him from a distance and consider this (and his other peculiar ideas) his little eccentricism. As Prahlad points out, there may be some specific context to the letter that we are not aware of. It may be something as simple as shyness -- I have heard that tape, and from a mundane point of view, Sadananda had no singing voice at all. Perhaps he was afraid people would make fun of his singing? We will most likely never know.
Who do you want to fight with about this thing? Did you read in my points the name of Svami Sadananda? And how did you figure out that I am making a big point out of it when I was not at all talking about him?
My points were about what you wrote and the meaning and feeling it conveys asking me "what difference does that make?" All what I wrote was to you, nothing to do with Svami Sadananda. He was only the starting point for this conversation. And I am very sorry to say it but the sharp and aggressive manner in which you are responding reminds me so sadly of ISKCON... same aggressive mood and not touching the gist...
You can re-read what I wrote... and how calm and neutral my questions were as whose disciple he is and why would he have such a different opinion than that of his Gurudeva... very normal questions. And now you can re-read your responses... and see how they sound.
Clearly our communication is not working here, Yamuna, so I will leave it be. I am sorry that I seemed aggressive to you. I hope the answers Audaryalila, Swami and Prahlad gave were satisfactory to you.
I am also very sorry Bhrigu that it happened so. Our goal is rasa and for me preaching is speaking tasteful things in a tasteful way. And in argumentation this should also be followed maybe with very few exceptions in very rare and extreme cases.
Another aspect which has to be followed in argumentation is also consideration what will happen if the same arguments we point out would be directed towards us. For example regarding your argument that Sadananda Swami had a handful of (shiksha) disciples. First of all we are not concerned with numbers, are we? Second did you ever meet any Guru who started his "career" of a Guru with thousands of disciples? And third and last, imagine how this very same argument would sound applied for Shrila Prabhupada for example since he also as far as I know had no disciples in India when he left for the West: "a loser whose business failed and who had no disciples in India went to USA during the 60s and caught the hippie wave and this is how someone who was not able to have disciples in his own country got thousands at the West."
Even if something is a fact it should not necessarily be used as an argument if it is not tasteful and we want to preach rasa, neither if it could be shot backwards.
I am also leaving this argument sad that I had to write this. The only excuse which I can find for myself is that TV is a family place and inside the family some things should be said when necessary for the welfare of our family.