Mantras without initiation?

[Satyamavejayanti]

When one wants to chant a mantra one needs initiation first, otherwise it's useless, the mantra is just words.
I find that it is impossible to find a genuine Guru nowadays who could choose a mantra for me and give me initiation, especially since I have no oportunity of flying to India.
And even if I had, how to find a genuine Guru amongst all the fakers?
So my question is: Are there mantras that are free to all, without need for initiation?

All Mantras are open to all, as Mantras are to be meditated upon one needs to understand what they are meditating on.

I think a Guru is only required to explain the meanings and the philosophy behind the mantra so we get a good idea of what we are chanting.

There are plenty of "Gurus", outside India, I think Guru is just a guide and must be well versed in all Shastra to be called a Guru in the first place.

I have a Unofficial Guru, and im not in India.

 

[Vinayaka]

@ Satya ... Your definition of Guru sounds more like a pandit or a scholar to me. But loosely translated, its 'teacher'. To me it just means a tad more than that.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

@ Satya ... Your definition of Guru sounds more like a pandit or a scholar to me. But loosely translated, its 'teacher'. To me it just means a tad more than that.

Your right actually, it does mean more then just a teacher or pudit.
But i still think we dont need to be initiated to chant or learn Mantras.

 

[Vinayaka]

In the traditions that think that you need a Guru, it is the power of the Guru's transmission with his voice and energy, not an explanation of the meaning of the mantra. That may also be part of it, but it is more in the mystical 'acceptance' into a group or sampradaya. As someone else said, the Guru is the battery, or the spark that propels.

 

[ratikala]

naskaram ,

if we are discussing the true atributes of a guru ? ....... one who is fit to take on the responcibility on deciples ?

a true guru is fully renounced , he may once have been a family man ( which will have given him valuable experience) but will have renounced family home and all posesions .
he will have renounced all self interest and has dedicated his life to the propagating of dharma , the continuance of his liniage and the fullfilling of his own gurus wishes !thus there is an un broken chain of deciplic succession leading back to the formation of that liniage . that guru is not giving his opinion but the word and instruction of his master and his masters master .....

when a guru takes on a deciple he accepts spiritual responcibility for that deciple as a father would for a child , thus he gives his blessing , he imparts knowledge by teaching , and the giving of mantra , therefore reciving mantra from that guru is receiving mantra from the very core of the given tradition as it comes directly from the foundation of that tradition and is thus of divine origin , one can receive no greater blessing than this .
a pujari or preist is trained to fullfill certain dutys and acts at the behest of the guru in maintaining the temple , taking care of the deitys and officiating over temple rituals and ceremonys , a pujari may well be wise and have much knowledge to pass on but he by no way has the power of a guru . guru himself is the embodyment of dharma , and preist or pujari simply a servant of that guru .

a true guru allso has the spiritual power to take on the karma of the deciple , and is said to take on responcibility for that deciple inorder to facilitate their liberation , this concept is little understood but when deeply concidered gives us an indication of the true power of the spiritual guru . (and our responcibility as deciples)
however the term guru is allso widely used for a fully trained master , for example one training in music will have his guru under whos tutilage he will study untill the guru says he is ready to perform , in such case allso that guru deciple relationship is taken with utter devotion , and the deciple hangs on the every word of the guru and takes every instruction in total seriousness .


so returning to the initial question no one dosent need to have received mantra from a guru , there are many mantras suitable for reciting before one dcides upon approaching a guru , but the mantra received from a guru through initiation has greater power of spiritual transformation .(but even still only when one is ready to receive it)

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam,

Forgive me if someone already said that, I didn't take de time to fully read all the answers _/\_

I have been taught that:

- Jaya/Namah mantras can be recited by anyone, without initiation, and will still have their power. However they are more powerful while being a part of a daily sadhana, for exemple.

-Others mantras, especially bhija mantras, cannot be recited by anyone. The reason is that those mantras are very powerful, and one have to be initiated into the meaning, the right way to say it and the right state of mind. Without initiation those mantras can be harmful or ineffective, at best.

In my sadhana I always do japa of Om Namah Shivaya, it have always been effective when associated with meditation and sadhana.

But I wouldn't recite Kali Maa's beej mantra without initiation for exemple !


Aum Namah Shivaya

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram jayabholenath ,

Vanakkam,

Forgive me if someone already said that, I didn't take de time to fully read all the answers _/\_

I have been taught that:

- Jaya/Namah mantras can be recited by anyone, without initiation, and will still have their power. However they are more powerful while being a part of a daily sadhana, for exemple.

I think others are better to speak on shaivite traditions but from the vaisnava side the prescribed mantras for chanting by every one are free from the seed sylable om , yet the gayatri is reserved for twice born (initiates) ,verymuch as a fixed part of ones sadhana .

-Others mantras, especially bhija mantras, cannot be recited by anyone. The reason is that those mantras are very powerful, and one have to be initiated into the meaning, the right way to say it and the right state of mind. Without initiation those mantras can be harmful or ineffective, at best.

gayatri for example should be with the correct mind , time and place as instructed by ones guru .

In my sadhana I always do japa of Om Namah Shivaya, it have always been effective when associated with meditation and sadhana.

But I wouldn't recite Kali Maa's beej mantra without initiation for exemple !


Aum Namah Shivaya

interestingly enough someone raised earlier that tibetan laity frequently chant the mantra om mani peme hum (chenreizigs mantra) , but with such sincerity allthough many have received blessings to chant mantra ,

 

[Jainarayan]

There is so much conflicting information about who can recite what mantra that it's no wonder people are confused. All my readings indicate, for example, that the Gayatri Mantra can be recited by anyone, and should be, at least three times each day. It is supposed to be recited at the solar junctions (for lack of a better term): sunrise, noon, and sunset.

I've read that OM should not be recited by just anyone, because it focuses on the unmanifest Brahman, it can upset and uproot one's goals and focus. Other things I've read say that OM, like the Gayatri Mantra can be recited by anyone. Lord Krishna says that focusing on the unmanifest is difficult for the spiritual advancement of the embodied; difficult but not impossible nor forbidden. Can I provide sources? No, because these are things I've picked up in my readings over the years. It has all stuck in my mind because of the conflicting information.

I mentioned before that the Shaiva priest told me to recite Lord Shiva's moola mantra 1008 times, in front of Lord Shiva's sanctum for the benefit of my injured shoulder. Panditji knows I am Vaishnava. Seemingly he sees no conflict. I've read that even a Vaishnava should recite Lord Shiva's mantra for the benefit of controlling the mind and for becoming a better devotee of Lord Vishnu. I wear a rudraksha mala as well as a tulsi kanthi. Lord Shiva tells Maa Parvati that everyone can and should wear rudraksha. I've read some items that say only a strict Vaishnava can wear a tulsi kanthi; others say anyone can and should wear it as a reminder to stay on the path of devotion to Sri Radha-Krishna.

Someone told me that all food must be offered to God; one is not supposed to even taste the food while preparing it. While it's true that God does not need to eat, because we are treating God as an honored guest, would anyone feed distasteful food to a human guest, much less to God? Someone else said their guru said that if they are offering food to him, they better well taste it to make sure it is palatable.

I was told by a woman in temple that one is to never turn one's back to Garuda. She said he will never forgive it; even Lord Vishnu will forgive turning your back to Him, but Garuda will not. Yet the way the sanctums are placed, there are times, especially when receiving prasad at the sanctum of Sri Balaji, that you cannot help but have your back to Garuda's sanctum. Poor temple design? Maybe, but is it for us to judge?

The internet is a great resource, but everyone is an authority, especially when it comes to something as deeply personal as religious and spiritual beliefs. There's a television commercial wherein a woman says she got some information from the internet. She says you can't put anything on the internet that's not true. Sadly, many people believe that.

So you see, this is a large burr under my saddle. Especially all the "you can't so this", "you can't do that", "you have to do this", "you have to do that". Whom to believe? Your heart, and what you think God is telling you. If you derive peace and grace from something, and you have a good feeling God is pleased, do it without flouting some basic rules. If you have a bad feeling about something, don't do it. Take all this with a grain of salt, because it is just my view and understanding, not to mention a rant as to why people, especially newcomers who want to take everything in and "do the right thing", are confused.

 

[Onkara]

You have raised some important points, Jainarayan
In contrast to your experience I have never come across any reason to not chant 'om'. My impression is that this all comes down to Sampradya and Guru successions more than a universal law.

It is confusing for people new to Hinduism and I think it is time it is addressed and cleared up by Hindus, I am not sure why there isn't that zeal and drive?

 

[Maya3]

Jaynarayan,

I agree with you. And in the end it comes down to the Gita verse, "Whomever with devotion offers Me a leaf, a flower or a little water, I will accept."

I think that rituals and chanting are for US. We use them to get closer to God.
Mantras are very powerful but it is the intention and the belief that makes them more so it is not dangerous to chant something without initiation.
All that might happen is that they may be less effective because you are not pronouncing them right.

God will not get upset because we turned our back to a deity without knowing that it might be considered rude.
If it feels wrong, then you get distracted and cannot concentrate well, but if it doesn't and you concentrate on God anyway then all is well.

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

In my opinion, the 'confusion' is there because Hinduism is vast. People, coming from Abrahamic religions, tend to think there has to be one way, that Hinduism parallels Christianity ... one scripture, etc. It is simply not true. Each sect, and each sampradaya has its own set of rules which in some cases are rules, but in others are guidelines. How each got there is historical conjecture. We will never unify this.

Jai, you could put 2 Jews (of different sects) , 2 Muslims, and 3 of 4 Christians (Catholic, Pentecostal, JW, and Mormon, or more) into a room, then go ask a few questions. Would you expect the same answer from everyone?

Hardly.

So Hinduism is really 4 or 5 or more religions rolled into one. Why would we expect any unity? The only reason people expect unity is they carry this idea that its just another religion, or another small sect.

Then of course we have modern smartas, who will say all is okay. Those of us who are in narrower sampradayas need to take a look out at the other Hindus, and accept what they say as valid for them.

I learned a hard lesson once when I met an ISKCON devotee on the street, and asked to chant the Gayatri together as a lesson in Hindu solidarity. He was very reluctant. At the time I didn't know why, but later that summer I explored it a bit more, and he felt uncomfortable because in his sect it wasn't okay. So I should have respected that. So now I leave stuff like that alone in any interfaith (I mean intersampradaya, or intersect) discussions.

What we have here in the Hindu DIR is really an interfaith discussion.

 

[Onkara]

You are completely right, Vinayaka.
Hinduism is an interfaith of different path or dharmas. That is what new commers need to understand to be able to make a choice and enjoy it fully.

 

[Jainarayan]

It is confusing for people new to Hinduism and I think it is time it is addressed and cleared up by Hindus, I am not sure why there isn't that zeal and drive?

I think the average Hindu, at least the ones I have met, are very laid back and have a live and let live attitude. The whole world should have that outlook, but...

I think that rituals and chanting are for US. We use them to get closer to God.
Mantras are very powerful but it is the intention and the belief that makes them more so it is not dangerous to chant something without initiation.
All that might happen is that they may be less effective because you are not pronouncing them right.

God will not get upset because we turned our back to a deity without knowing that it might be considered rude.
If it feels wrong, then you get distracted and cannot concentrate well, but if it doesn't and you concentrate on God anyway then all is well.

Maya

I always think of something my Eastern Orthodox parish priest used to say around the time of the Great Lent fasting: "God does not need the fast, man does". Not to digress but this is one reason why when one comes from another religious tradition, there is the ability to see different sides. I believe it's an asset.

The mind is a very powerful thing. Indeed concentration and intent are everything. My belief is that it has as much to do with the results one gets from meditation or chanting as how one pronounces a mantra. After all, are there not those with speech impediments that keep them from 'proper' pronunciation?

Besides, from a linguistics p.o.v. no two people can pronounce the same phoneme (the smallest sound that can make up a word) exactly alike. So the issue of proper pronunciation is, to me from a linguistics p.o.v. a non-issue. God is beyond our feeble human communications. I know there are many who disagree with my p.o.v.

 

[Jainarayan]

In my opinion, the 'confusion' is there because Hinduism is vast. People, coming from Abrahamic religions, tend to think there has to be one way, that Hinduism parallels Christianity ... one scripture, etc. It is simply not true. Each sect, and each sampradaya has its own set of rules which in some cases are rules, but in others are guidelines. How each got there is historical conjecture. We will never unify this.

Jai, you could put 2 Jews (of different sects) , 2 Muslims, and 3 of 4 Christians (Catholic, Pentecostal, JW, and Mormon, or more) into a room, then go ask a few questions. Would you expect the same answer from everyone?

This is exactly right. Even sects and denominations of Bahai Faith, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monolithic unto themselves. Unfortunately what newcomers to Hinduism (and perhaps Buddhism; I do not know for sure) encounter is the "this is the way it is" in writings despite that there is no central authority except for the Vedas. The Vedas, as far as I know, are less appealed to than tradition of a sampradaya. Hinduism is fluid and has blurred lines which unfortunately give rise to the confusion. Even within the denominations of Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Smartism, and Shaktism there are sub-sects and sub-sub-sects which themselves are not clearly defined.

Those of us who are in narrower sampradayas need to take a look out at the other Hindus, and accept what they say as valid for them.

Now I'm putting on my Don Quixote costume to say that maybe writers should start with the disclaimer "According to X-ism... ". Of course that will never happen. The closest I think we'll ever come to it is your statement above, and to keep it in mind.

So I should have respected that. So now I leave stuff like that alone in any interfaith (I mean intersampradaya, or intersect) discussions.

What we have here in the Hindu DIR is really an interfaith discussion.

I don't think you could have known he would be uncomfortable with the Gayatri Mantra, because of the fluidity and blurriness of Hinduism. Ironically, to me, that fluidity still makes it interfaith, maybe even syncretic. Consider adherents of Swaminarayan Faith and Harihara/Shankarnarayana as God. If that's not a blurring, melding or even syncretizing of two sampradayas I don't know what is.

 

[Vinayaka]

To illustrate this ongoing misunderstanding, I like the Indian drum analogy, or the 'do you speak Hindu?' for this culturally. Some person from the west comes along and says , " I want to learn to play the Indian drum." The native Indian sort of rolls his eyes ... "Uh, which one, Sir?"

Language wise, India is very comparable to Europe. I once say a side by side chart. Maybe it was on here, I can't remember.

 

[Jainarayan]

Language wise, India is very comparable to Europe. I once say a side by side chart. Maybe it was on here, I can't remember.

You had to get me started.

In a nutshell they are indeed comparable. Both regions have language families that are related and unrelated: Indo-European (Greek, Russian, Polish Latin and its descendants), Germanic, Celtic, etc., and Finno-Ugric (Finnish, Hungarian, Lapp, Samoyed) in Eurasia; Indo-European (Sanskrit, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali, etc.) and Dravidian (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam) in India. Indo-European and Finno Ugric are unrelated; Indo-European and Dravidian are unrelated. German is more closely related to Sanskrit than Sanskrit is to Tamil, if at all. The common ancestor would have been spoken several tens of thousands of years ago. Reconstruction on that timescale is virtually impossible.

Languages of Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Languages of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vinayaka]

Jai, I didn't really intend to re-open that debate. Its more just a comparison of the numbers of languages with over 20 million speakers, etc. In other words a side by side distribution chart. If the history of Hindu India was taught like the history of Europe, there wouldn't be such a ridiculous misunderstanding.

People (Americans) say, I'm going to India when they go to India, but when they go to Europe they say, I'm going to Italy, or I'm going to Sweden. If the same were true of India they'd say, I"m going to Goa, or I'm going to TN, or UP.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jai, I didn't really intend to re-open that debate. Its more just a comparison of the numbers of languages with over 20 million speakers, etc. In other words a side by side distribution chart. If the history of Hindu India was taught like the history of Europe, there wouldn't be such a ridiculous misunderstanding.

I know... it's like the word "Niagara" from that old skit... "Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch... " My ears perk up and I start rambling about linguistics, which I find fascinating.

People (Americans) say, I'm going to India when they go to India, but when they go to Europe they say, I'm going to Italy, or I'm going to Sweden. If the same were true of India they'd say, I"m going to Goa, or I'm going to TN, or UP.

It's really quite simple... the history, culture and geography of India is not understood by the west. The west sees it as a single monolithic entity. It's good and bad in that it may be seen as unified, but otoh it does injustice to the variety and richness of India. But 'tis true, this digresses from the intent of the o.p. This might be a good subject for another thread, i.e., examples and discussions of that variety and richness of India. So to that end, I'll shut up now.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I don't think you could have known he would be uncomfortable with the Gayatri Mantra, because of the fluidity and blurriness of Hinduism. Ironically, to me, that fluidity still makes it interfaith, maybe even syncretic. Consider adherents of Swaminarayan Faith and Harihara/Shankarnarayana as God. If that's not a blurring, melding or even syncretizing of two sampradayas I don't know what is.

Vaishnavas, as far as I know, do not really chant the Gayatri mantra, unless they've taken diksha proper into it. One must be qualified as a Vaishnava before chanting Gayatri with the proper attitude and knowledge.

The difference is that while the realisation is that Shiva and Vishnu are one and the same to Swaminarayanis, Lord Vishnu/Krishna still ends up being the main object of worship as the Supreme Form of God, which is why they are landed as Vaishnava. It definitely is somewhat to me, amalgamated between Shankaracharya's Smartism with a Vaishnava exterior, but that's just me.

Hinduism on it's own as monolithic, which is why I tend to see the four Dharmas as respective religions, of which we all share the same culture. Vinayaka may share different belief systems, but we still utilise similar language and ritual to explain them.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vinayaka ji ,

I learned a hard lesson once when I met an ISKCON devotee on the street, and asked to chant the Gayatri together as a lesson in Hindu solidarity. He was very reluctant. At the time I didn't know why, but later that summer I explored it a bit more, and he felt uncomfortable because in his sect it wasn't okay. So I should have respected that. So now I leave stuff like that alone in any interfaith (I mean intersampradaya, or intersect) discussions.

I hope you chanted some thing else instead ,
good idea though to chant togeather is a wonderfull solution , I am all for unity in love of god there is a wonderfull bhajan in which one can chant any of the names of krsna so Ido not see why it canot be extended to include all the 'nama' the the lord ?who knows maybe it has been done allready

but as regards to gayatri , for vaisnavas as gaura priya says it is a very private affair for initiates only and even then chanted in private , but you wernt to know that .

allthough a close freind said that as children they chanted it at school at the begining of each day , ... there that is the different traditions for you ?

What we have here in the Hindu DIR is really an interfaith discussion.

jai jai :bow: