Minimun Rounds Of Japa - Help!

Jaya Radhe!

I have been looking in the archives for hours without any result, where is stated that 4 rounds minimum is ok. in the liturature of the Goswamis. I know I read it but I cannot remember specifically where. I know Sridhar Maharaj approved such practices but he did not mention the source of the following statement

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: " But at the same time, he said that it is better to chant one lakh names. Generally, it is seen that it is not possible for missionaries to complete that many rounds. At least four rounds minimum should be chanted so that we see that the mala does not get starved."

To the question,

1)How many rounds does Ananta das Babaji Maharaja chant. How many years has he been chanting this number of rounds and how many rounds does he prescribe at the time of initiation.

Madhava ( hoping he (family) is ok) answered,

When giving harinama-initiation, he prescribes a minimum of four rounds to be chanted, and instructs the initiate to work his way up to one lakha (64 rounds) according to the his own capacity and at his own pace.


Again, where is stated that four rounds is ok? Thanks

Nandai

Jay Radhe!

Another question, Is Ramananda Raya Vishaka Sakhi or not?

Advaita said it is Advaita Acarya and Gaudiya Math said Ramananda Raya. Who is who? Moreover, 4 rounds or 16 rounds. The question above, anyone please.

As far as I know, there's no particular number given in the Gosvami-granthas. It's up to the individual guru to recommend a particular quota for a disciple.

Baba himself chants a minimum of two lakhas per day. He received initiation sometime in the 1950's, and I'd imagine from around those years he's been chanting at least one lakha. I've never asked about this.

Regarding Ramananda Raya, yes, he is Visakha-sakhi. Actually, in the Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika of Kavi-karnapura he is said to have been Lalita, while Svarupa Damodara would have been Visakha, but the popular opinion, following in the wake of the various sadhana-paddhatis, such as those of Gopal Guru and Dhyanacandra, seems to have settled in thinking of Ramananda as Visakha and Svarupa as Lalita.

See, this is what i mean, varying opinions on who is who ontologically. Is it up to the "bhav" of the devotee? Or is their an "absolute conclusion".
In my reading of Gaudiya literature it seems ...

1. everyone has multiple swarups

2. everyone ends up being everbody else at some point

3. in the end... ITS ALL ONE!

Now that's just disgusting.

Actually, spiritual "science" is not like maths, where 2+2 is always 4. Why? Because unlike the material realm, the spiritual dimension is not limited. Everything can happen there, and simultaneously its opposite can happen any time. That is why teachers often stress the point that with material senses led by the mind one can never comprehend spiritual subjects. That is where sraddha is required. Nobody has ever proven the existence of God, not even Mahaprabhu could do that. The atheists will always find some logical twists to prove there is no God, there is no spiritual realm, there is only this material world and one lifetime, so let's enjoy as much as we can! Nobody can prove that this or that devotee was this or that particular Gopi in Vrndavan. This realm is only accessible through faith, never through mental efforts, no matter how smart we think we are.

Yes, in the end it's all one. ekam evAdvitIyam. sarvaM khalvidaM brahma tajjalAniti zAnta upAsIta | sadeva somyedamagra AsIdekamevAdvitIyaM |
taddhaika Ahurasadevedamagra AsIdekamevAdvitIyaM |

But is there plurality in oneness? The bhAgavata-concept of threefold advayajJAnaparatattva is remarkable. The jIvas, being binnAmza of bhagavAn, are one but individual. The absolute can accommodate a great variety of subjectivity among its aspects.

The thing is that, to such people, believing in such and such and living in such and such way must be contradictory to enjoying life. For example, once my materialistic roommate critisized me for being "simple" (in a derogatory way), because I never have had girlfriend nor do I own 25 pairs of shoe like him or go out, drinking and smoking cigars, or even own TV. When I first came to Germany, I got ALOT of this from everyone... You see, for my roomate, due to his subjective view on life, experience in his own life, he cannot comprehend an enjoyable life without sex rapture indulgence or "being cool." Even geniuses are not understanding the subjective nature of what they consider to be worthwile or meaningful in life... The fact is, if someone were born in Russia, they would probably be Orthodox catholic... and if same person grew up in Tibet, they would be Buddhist. It is not fair to believe that there is an only way. So I try to keep belief system fluid and unstructured. Actually, the spirituality is not directly part of the mental beliefs or understandings--

lalitety ahur eke yat
tad ekenanumanyate
bhavanandam prati praha
goro yat tvam prthapatih

gopyar juniyaya sardham
eki bhuyapi pandavah
arjuno yad raya-rama-
nanda ity ahur uttamah

arjuniyabhavat turnam
arjuno 'pi ca pandavah
iti padmottare khande
vyaktam eva virajate
tasmad etat trayam rama-
nanda-raya-mahasaya

Some say that Ramananda Raya is the incarnation of Lalita and others say that because Mahaprabhu directly told Ramananda Raya's father, Bhavananda Raya, that he was the incarnation of Maharaj Pandu, Arjuna's father, therefore Ramananda Raya must be the incarnation of Arjuna. The most learned devotees say that Ramananda Raya is the incarnation of both Arjuna and a gopi named Arjuniya. This explanation is also supported by the statements of the Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda. From all this we may conclude that Ramananda Raya is the incarnation of Lalita, Arjuniya, and Arjuna.

Sri Gaura-ganoddesa-dipika vs. 122-124
Srila Kavi-karnapura

So how many rounds should we chant now?

My understanding:

There is no number given in scripture. Why should there be?
It is a matter of what your mantra guru instructs.
Often times devotees are in a situation where they have very limited time for sadhana. The guru may instruct a low minimun or none at all so as not to put the disciple in a difficult position and not be able to complete his or hers vows.