In another thread, Jagat wrote:
QUOTE
The Bhagavatam and the Gaudiya texts state unequivocally that Harinam and even the customary initiation mantras (10 or 18 syllables) do not depend on initiation, purascharan or any other rituals.
While it is a fact that it has been said that harinAma does not depend on initiation (Padyavali) and that the customary diksha-mantras do not depend on purascharana and the such (Hari-bhakti-vilasa), I do not recall ever reading that it wouldn't depend on initiation. If this is the case, could you be so kind as to provide the reference for the same?
The famous stanza cited by Baladeva in his Prameya-ratnavali and attributed to Padma-purana is frequently cited to establish the contrary.
sampradAya-vihInA ye mantrAs te niSphalA matAH. This begs the question, "What does it take to belong to a sampradAya"?
Sometimes Visvanath Chakravarti's notes on Bhagavata 11.21.15 (
mantrasya ca parijJAnaM karma-zuddhir mad-arpaNam), are cited:
sad-guru-mukhAt yathAvat parijJAnam mantra-zuddhiH - "The purification of the mantra takes place by ascertainment from the mouth of a sad-guru."
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jul 1 2005, 09:49 AM)
(Ramarchana-chandrika, quoted in Bhakti-sandarbha 284: "Of all Vaishnava mantras, those pertaining to Rama are the most powerful. They are millions of times more potent than mantras to Ganapati or other gods. One attains perfection simply from chanting them, even without initiation, purascharan, or the performance of purification rituals.
Nice quote. But do you accept every point made in these two slokas or are you just picking and choosing what you want to accept?
What I mean is you have quoted these slokas to prove that the potency of a mantra does not depend EVEN on initiation. (Something I happen to agree with) However specifically these slokas are about RAMA mantras.
They state Rama mantras:
1. To be the most powerful of all Vaisnava mantras.
2. To be millions of times more potent that mantras to Ganapati or other devatas.
So my question is IF you accept these two slokas as proof that a mantra has potency without initiation, then do you also accept the above two conclusions of this sloka?
And then apart from that you are extrapolating that what is true for RAMA mantras is also true for Krsna mantras.
Naturally since these two slokas also appear in HBV 1.148-9 we should probably look at the whole quote in context. Here it is:
atha shrI-rAma-mantrANAM mAhAtmyam
agastya-saMhitAyAm—
sarveShu mantra-vargeShu shreShThaM vaiShNavam uchyate .
gANapatyeShu shaiveShu shAkta-saureShv abhIShTadam ..147..
vaiShNaveShv api mantreShu rAma-mantrAH phalAdhikAH .
gANapaty-Adi-mantrebhyaH koTi-koTi-guNAdhikAH ..148..
vinaiva dIkShAM viprendra purashcharyAM vinaiva hi .
vinaiva nyAsa-vidhinA japa-mAtreNa siddhidAH ..149..
mantreShv aShTasv anAyAsa-phalado.ayaM ShaD-akSharaH .
ShaD-akSharo.ayaM mantras tu mahAghaugha-nivAraNaH ..150..
mantra-rAja iti proktaH sarveShAm uttamottamaH .
dainandinaM tu duritaM pakSha-mAsa-rtu-varShajam ..151..
sarvaM dahati niHsheShaM tUlAchalam ivAnalaH .
brahma-hatyA-sahasrANi j~nAnAj~nAna-kRRitAni cha ..152..
svarNa-steya-surApAna-guru-talpa-yutAni cha .
koTi-koTi-sahasrANi hy upapApAni yAny api .
sarvANy api praNashyanti rAma-mantrAnukIrtanAt ..153..
Note that the section is entitled "Glories of Rama mantras" so naturally we expect the quotes to glorify Rama mantras above all others. (The next section starting 1.155 is about Gopal mantra and then 18 syllable mantra)
The first sloka mentions that Vaisnava mantras are the best, better than those of the other 4 deities (of pancopasana, Ganesa, Siva, Devi or Surya). Interesting that it is put like that, this seems to indicate an understanding of the Pancopasana system by the author. Then of course come the quotes given by Jagat above mentioning that of Vaisnava mantras those to Rama are the most powerful, etc. Then the rest of the slokas seem just to be a glorification of the six syllable Rama mantra.
QUOTE
Ordinarily mantras are described as sAdhya, siddha, susiddha and ari. These categries do not apply in the case of the Gopala mantra because it is self-manifest.
These categories are fully explained in the section atha siddha-sAdhyAdi-shodhanam HBV 1.201-9. Then there is a section devoted to special mantras that are exceptions to the rules mentioned.
Actually if Jagat or someone else would like to post the meanings of the sections before and after this in HBV it would perhaps shed some more light on the subject of adhikara for mantra chanting.
The sections I mean are HBV 1.194-200 athAdhikAra-nirNayaH
and 1.210-225 tathA cha tantre, asya cha mantra-visheShe.apavAdaH
No I agree with you. As does Jiva Goswami. The context is that of initiation. These quotes are in the purva paksha. In my original quote also, I made mention of this.
The HBV context, by the way, glorifies Rama mantra and then goes on to say that Gopala mantra is superior. Since not needing initiation is taken as a sign of the mantra's innate power, diksha being seen as a way of empowering the disciple and the mantra through hearing it from a siddha.
That's fine. I am sure HBV goes on to extol Gopal mantra over Rama mantra. However as far as the need for mantra diksha is concerned, you say that this verse is only a purva paksa argument. Please show the siddhanta arguments that counter this purva paksa. I mean personally I have no problem with the no-necessity-for-mantra-diksha paradigm (and I also have no problem if people want to pursue traditional forms of mantra diksha). It really would solve a lot of problems (and of course can create other ones).
My interpretation of sampradaya vihinam ye etc, is simply that you have got to use a mantra that is traditional. Not that you have to get it necessarily from someone in an "unbroken" apostolic chain (as if we can find any paramapara that does not have some historical problems).
Keshava