 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
> Manufactured mantras and mantras received from sources outside the
> authorized disciplic successions (apasampradayas) will not be
> effective or produce the desired results. Thus, receiving the mantra
> from a bona fide source, is as, or more important than the chanting of
> it.
>
> Many Hindus unknowingly receive the gayatri mantra from unauthorized
> sources (books, so-called svamis and gurus, etc.). Though the
> external chanting of the mantras may appear to be the same the potency
> is as different as bullets and blanks. The gayatri mantra, to be
> effective and potent, must be received by a bona fide guru in
> disciplic succession, who represents one of the 4 Vaisnava sampradayas
> begun by Lord Krishna for this purpose.
Oh, good. You have managed with your argument to invalidate Saivite,
Shakta and Smarta, not to mention some Vaisnava, paths.
While accepting that transmission is important, the person who initiated
this discussion on Gayatri should be aware that the vast majority of
Hindus, including many Vaisnavites, recognize the validity of lineages
other than their own.
Hinduism is usually regarded as a Vedic-based religion. The acceptance
of the holy Vedas is what unites us all, no matter how different we may
otherwise seem. In the Vedas, it is clearly stated that though "the
Truth is One, the sages call it by many names."
I submit that this statement, if any statement is worthy of being taken
literally, should be taken literally.
> Hearing the pure spiritual sound vibration (sabda brahma) from a pure
> spiritual source is like pure milk, whereas the same apparently white
> milk, when touched by the lips of a serpent (one who is against
> Krishna's principle of disciplic succession--He mentions in
> Bhagavad-Gita 4.2) the same milk produces poisonous effects. So there
> is a quality to the hearing and chanting of the mantra.
Use metaphor to make your point, by all means, but an actual reading of
the Gita reference makes it clear there is no mention of being against
Krishna Bhagavan Ji's disciplic succession, or of the serpent-milk
analogy. The Lord simply says that what He originally taught became
lost.
> Krishna also mentions in the Bhagavad-gita that "Of poetry I am the
> Gayatri." (Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 10.35)
And in the next sloka, Krishna Bhagavan Ji says: "I am the gambling of
the gambler and the radiance in all that shines. I am effort, I am
victory, and I am the goodness of the virtuous."
Surely the intent of this whole chapter, which is full of the Lord's "I
am..." statements is to show the Lord and creation are not two, but are
intrinsicly one. He is reinforcing the lesson of the Atmic reality
which He began to teach Arjuna earlier, and which is in keeping with the
statement in answer to Arjuna's question to describe the person of
wisdom: "They live in wisdom who see themselves in all and all in them."
(2:55)
In this context, it makes sense that the Lord would say, "Of poetry, I
am the Gayatri." Of coruse, you realize that Gayatri refers not only to
the mantra we call by that name, but also to a specific poetic meter in
Sanskrit. Do you think, perhaps, that Krishna Bhagavan Ji was referring
to the poetic meter in this sloka?
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|