Benefits of chanting

[Chisti]

Namaste,

I often hear about the benefits of chanting divine names like Rama, Shiva etc., but for me it only results in either boredom or sleep. What is your experience? Do you feel any difference in the positive sense?

Thanks,
Chisti

 

[Madhuri]

Yes, but chanting mantra is more powerful if there is a meaning in it for you. Chanting a mantra without knowledge of the mantra or any connection to the mantra can be bland.

So somebody who already feels a connection with Rama and whose intention it is to further than connection, will gain a great experience from chanting his name. Especially because the chanting is done with love/devotion.

Even chanting without intention and without control of the mind can lead to love and spiritual experience. But from what I have observed, it just takes a lot longer.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

You may wish to read the first chapter of Woodroffe's "The Garland of Letters" to gain a better understanding of mantra.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is also mantra diksha to consider. This means being initiated into the process by a qualified teacher. There is more power in this case.

 

[Jainarayan]

There is also mantra diksha to consider. This means being initiated into the process by a qualified teacher. There is more power in this case.

I'm still unclear as to what an initiated mantra would be v. a mantra anyone can chant. I know Om, Soham, and the Maha Mantra (all of which I use) are universal. But do mantras like Om Sri Krishnaya namaha, Om namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya, Om Gam Ganapataye namaha, Om namah Shivaya require initiation, or are they "nama japa"? I've seen writings both ways, not indicating initiation one way or the other. Even though I am uninitiated, Om Sri Krishnaya namaha for example, resonates with me, whereas Om namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya does not.

 

[Me Myself]

I definetely feel power while chanting mantras. Of course I always do this with devotion.

Different moments provide different levels or intensity of conection.

That is my experience at least

:namaste

 

[Jainarayan]

I think there is still a benefit of mantra japa even if uninitiated, though it's said to be not as much as when initiated. I also found that proper breathing is essential (as if I never read that before ). The Soham mantra is excellent for establishing a rhythmic breathing pattern.

On the inhale you mentally chant Sooooo-, and on the exhale, -hummmm. Without a pause, inhale again and keep it going. Mentally chanting Soham and Om helped me fall asleep when I thought I couldn't.

I try to remember to concentrate on pulling breath in from the crown of my head to the base of my spine, then exhale in reverse, using the diaphragm like a forge bellows. For Om, I just chant it on the exhale. I am able to do Om Sri Krishnaya namaha on a full exhale, with no pause for the next inhale.

I think the reason Om namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya doesn't work for me is I can't get a breathing pattern established, so my mind runs around like a squirrel looking for its stash of acorns.

 

[Vinayaka]

This comparison is difficult, because it really depends on the nature of who is doing the initiating, and it would be hard to get a true comparison. Someone would have had to be doing a particular mantram for say, 5 years, noticing the benefit, then get initiated by a qualified SatGuru, (not just some dude offering initiation for a few bucks) do the mantram for 5 more years, and then compare. Even that wouldn't be a true test, because the 5 years of doing it without initiation would have some impact.

In traditional Hinduism, all initiations, and sacraments are considered of utmost importance. The sacred thread ceremony for Brahmins, for instance, is no small ceremony. All of the childhood sacraments like head shaving, name giving, first feeding, initiations into doing pujas, and more are considered significant. Astrologers are consulted, dates are set, guests are invited. its never some small thing, and once the vow is taken, its considered a lifetime thing. So initiation into a mantra is no small deal. Its at least once a day for the rest of your life, and if you miss a day, its fully expected you make it up. Same mantra, too, ... for life. Over here in the west some of these traditions get ... well, to put it politely ... modified.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

I would like to offer a perspective here:

Mantra is one side of the coin, dhyan is the other side. Mantra is shabdabrahman, it evokes and is non-different from the form and essence of the deity of that mantra.

The guru giving initiation - what occurs here is the sishya's access to the deva in dhyan is clarified and empowered, and it is to the extent that the mantra brings about communion with the deity that it delivers fruit. The guru, through his own shakti, evokes the shakti of the deities within the consciousness of the disciple.

Namaste

 

[Jainarayan]

This comparison is difficult, because it really depends on the nature of who is doing the initiating, and it would be hard to get a true comparison. Someone would have had to be doing a particular mantram for say, 5 years, noticing the benefit, then get initiated by a qualified SatGuru, (not just some dude offering initiation for a few bucks) do the mantram for 5 more years, and then compare. Even that wouldn't be a true test, because the 5 years of doing it without initiation would have some impact.

Very interesting, thanks. And then there's the possibility that there would be no difference in the benefits of the mantra after initiation, if it seemed that it was providing positive benefits before initiation. That would render the initiation a waste. I understand that there are a lot of self-important, self-styled gurus today who would be happy to separate a prospective disciple and his money for no benefit.

In traditional Hinduism, all initiations, and sacraments are considered of utmost importance. The sacred thread ceremony for Brahmins, for instance, is no small ceremony. All of the childhood sacraments like head shaving, name giving, first feeding, initiations into doing pujas, and more are considered significant. Astrologers are consulted, dates are set, guests are invited. its never some small thing, and once the vow is taken, its considered a lifetime thing. So initiation into a mantra is no small deal. Its at least once a day for the rest of your life, and if you miss a day, its fully expected you make it up. Same mantra, too, ... for life. Over here in the west some of these traditions get ... well, to put it politely ... modified.

The west, especially people in the US, tends to co-opt and corrupt eastern philosophies, religions, and practices. Certainly all the sacraments should be given the utmost respect. There were two child-naming ceremonies going on at temple last Sunday that I was witness to while waiting for the aarti. The families dressed in their finest, and smiles all around, picture-taking, the works.

 

[Vinayaka]

And then there's the possibility that there would be no difference in the benefits of the mantra after initiation, if it seemed that it was providing positive benefits before initiation.

My personal belief would be that this is not possible. Another thing the tradition Hindus don't take lightly are qualified SatGurus. Many will in fact, basically run the other way, the opposite of what happens in the west.

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaste

I would like to offer a perspective here:

Mantra is one side of the coin, dhyan is the other side. Mantra is shabdabrahman, it evokes and is non-different from the form and essence of the deity of that mantra.

The guru giving initiation - what occurs here is the sishya's access to the deva in dhyan is clarified and empowered, and it is to the extent that the mantra brings about communion with the deity that it delivers fruit. The guru, through his own shakti, evokes the shakti of the deities within the consciousness of the disciple.

Namaste

Isn't dhyan the state where you are in meditation but don't know you are in meditation? If so I'd think that is pretty advanced.

If as a non-initiate I can use Om and invoke and commune with Brahman, is there a difference in using a self-chosen mantra such as the aforementioned Om Sri Krishnaya namaha, to evoke and commune with Brahman as Sri Krishna?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Namaste,

I often hear about the benefits of chanting divine names like Rama, Shiva etc., but for me it only results in either boredom or sleep. What is your experience? Do you feel any difference in the positive sense?

Thanks,
Chisti

In my case it's an internal massage. Albiet sutras. Feels pretty good.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

Isn't dhyan the state where you are in meditation but don't know you are in meditation? If so I'd think that is pretty advanced.

That might be a level of dhyan - or samadhi (perhaps you are referring to nirvikalpa samadhi, where one does not cognize such things as "I am meditating"), but it's not the meaning of dhyan.

For example, "dhyan shloks" - passages which describe the appearance of a deity. The visualization of the deity accompanies the mantra, though usually the mantra is taught first, and then the visualization after lots of japa has been performed already.

If as a non-initiate I can use Om and invoke and commune with Brahman, is there a difference in using a self-chosen mantra such as the aforementioned Om Sri Krishnaya namaha, to evoke and commune with Brahman as Sri Krishna?

I am not qualified to answer this, perhaps someone else can.

Namaste

 

[Jainarayan]

My personal belief would be that this is not possible.

I see, you did say satguru. That flew by me.

Another thing the tradition Hindus don't take lightly are qualified SatGurus. Many will in fact, basically run the other way, the opposite of what happens in the west.

I'm not sure I understand...is this to say that born-Hindus will typically avoid a satguru because of the serious commitments, while a westerner will take it as a passing fancy or faddish thing to do?

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaste



That might be a level of dhyan - or samadhi (perhaps you are referring to nirvikalpa samadhi, where one does not cognize such things as "I am meditating"), but it's not the meaning of dhyan.

For example, "dhyan shloks" - passages which describe the appearance of a deity. The visualization of the deity accompanies the mantra, though usually the mantra is taught first, and then the visualization after lots of japa has been performed already.

OK, I think I understand. I'll read up on it, just for education if nothing else.

I am not qualified to answer this, perhaps someone else can.

Namaste

Fair enough, thanks.

 

[Storm]

Yes, but chanting mantra is more powerful if there is a meaning in it for you. Chanting a mantra without knowledge of the mantra or any connection to the mantra can be bland.

It can be, but it needn't.

Back in Portland, there was this community sauna, where a bunch of strangers got together, and chanted. I didn't know any word but "om," but it was a profound experience nonetheless. Just the union of voices, the rhythms, the deep sense of oneness with perfect strangers reduced to disembodied voices in the dark.....

I miss Portland! :sad4:

 

[Vinayaka]

I see, you did say satguru. That flew by me.

I'm not sure I understand...is this to say that born-Hindus will typically avoid a satguru because of the serious commitments, while a westerner will take it as a passing fancy or faddish thing to do?

This varies from Guru to Guru, of source. In the east, people know the Satguru knows about them, everything about them, their faults, their history, etc. Not willing to 'share' all this, for fear of pride, etc., some will step lightly in the Satguru's presence. (Be on their best behaviour) That's all I'm saying. Westerners, because of the many who have come here, just don't seem to take the whole thing quite so seriously. This has been my experience at least. Part of it is cultural also. Here in the west the programming is we're all equal, but in the east the Self-realised Guru is given a ton of respect, definitely not treated like an equal, not because the Guru demands it like some Napolean-act-alike, but because the devotees literally see God in Him.

Its all very tricky to describe.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

OK, I think I understand. I'll read up on it, just for education if nothing else.



Fair enough, thanks.

Namaste

For reading up, i suggest the first two chapters of John Woodroffe's "The Garland of Letters" maybe published under his pen name "Arthur Avalon." I can send you a copy if you'd like.

John Woodroffe was one of the first early indologist-practitioners, and was knighted for his service to indology (I think mostly to shut him up as he was a British judge in India gone rogue - he wore the dress of, and was initiated as, a sanyassin). He is a true guru in the ink, and so perhaps rather than calling him as Sir John Woodroffe, I should call him as Sri John Woodroffe . Anything he writes is gold, really.

 

[Jainarayan]

This varies from Guru to Guru, of source. In the east, people know the Satguru knows about them, everything about them, their faults, their history, etc. Not willing to 'share' all this, for fear of pride, etc., some will step lightly in the Satguru's presence. (Be on their best behaviour) That's all I'm saying.

OK, I see. It would seem that the disciple would be doing him/herself a disservice by not letting the satguru "in", because of the pride. I'd think that you would want to open yourself to your guru. But, this is literally foreign to me.

Westerners, because of the many who have come here, just don't seem to take the whole thing quite so seriously. This has been my experience at least. Part of it is cultural also. Here in the west the programming is we're all equal, but in the east the Self-realised Guru is given a ton of respect, definitely not treated like an equal, not because the Guru demands it like some Napolean-act-alike, but because the devotees literally see God in Him.

Its all very tricky to describe.

No, I understand and you are right. "Over here" we have little respect for authority except under penalty of law; or expulsion from school; or being fired. There is no reverence even for those who have, what I learned in a management course is called, "legitimate authority". That is authority based on some quality they possess... knowledge, experience, age, wisdom, charisma (in a positive sense), etc.