Talk:Hare Krishna (mantra)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comments

Hare Krishna! It's great there's a Hare Krishna page as well as an ISKCON page. ISKCON is great, but, you know, not all Hare Krishnas / Bengali Vaisnavas / Bhakti yogis are members of ISKCON. Statistically speaking, most Vaisnavas aren't in ISKCON, and there are zillions who haven't even heard of it. And they also might not be getting online so much either. A couple of years ago in NSW Australia, there were cries that the words "Hare Krishna" were the intellectual property of ISKCON. I don't think so. If you argue that most people think WIKI "Hare Krishna" should be linked directly to WIKI "ISKCON", I'd like to humbly point out that AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada didn't go much on democracy. 192.43.227.18 13:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Vaisnavi.

Welcome to Wiki

I'm one of the editors here. I 'm glad you like the page. Why don't you become an editor? By the way, this is an encyclopedia at heart, most opinions are deleted, only facts.--Jondel 00:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Doubtful statements, please provide references

I found the following statements doubtful. I believe that they are typical ISKCON, neither accepted by scholars of Hinduism, nor accepted by mainstream Hinduism. Please provide references or attribute them as opinions

• "Hare" is the vocative form of "Hara", which refers to a personified female energy of God, Radha.
• The mantra comes from the Upanishad.

Andries 08:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to above 'Doubtful statements'

Thankyou for your questions, the references for both statements have now been added. Given the diversity of 'Hindu' philosophy I would be weary of categorizing any particular beliefs as 'mainstream'. That 'Hare' refers to Krishna's energy 'Hara' (amongst many other meanings) is commonly accepted by most Vaishnava's worldwide, not simply within Iskcon. 02/11/2005

reverts

86.136.90.109 (talk · contribs), rather than just reverting, you could voice your concerns here. So there could be, like, a discussion. Otherwise, I don't know what you are objecting to. This article is patently about the mantra, not about ISCKON in general (although it is of course right to mention it prominently). Thus, the discussion of kalisaṇṭāraṇopaniṣad is certainly in order, as is a neutral description of the text before any specific ISKCON interpretations are brought forward. dab (ᛏ) 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Simply

1) Holy Trinity, what has that got to do with the Maha-Mantra? It's a personal opinion, not widely held. 2) I would rather a pure devotee's description of the Maha-Mantra was left here, as in the previous one which is exactly the words of Srila Prabhupada. 3) Using the Sanksrit font makes the page look messy. 4) Why the link to the Black Veda? We already have the full Kali-Santaran in there. 5) Basically I feel the page looked fine before, apart from the section on Scriptural References it was very clear and easy to read, without any strong bias. Why do you keep changing it otherwise?

we don't have to keep the Christian bits, fine. The parallel is striking, though. No, a "pure devotee's description" is not what we want, see WP:NPOV. What "Sanskrit font"? The Upanishad is associated with the Black Yajurveda, so why not link to it? dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hara

hara means "bearing, wearing, taking, conveying, bringing" [1]. Surely, Prabhupada was meaning to say "hari"? There is no connection between hara and hare, either (judging from some of the translations he gives, I'd say he was making stuff up as he went along. but we can of course quote him, as long as we give the actual translations alongside). dab (ᛏ) 21:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay so the man who is MOST famous since Lord Caitanya in spreading and explaining the Hare Krishna mantra mantra around the world, and who spent his life studying all the Vedic scriptures was 'making stuff up'? Does that sound like an intelligent comment to you? Your opinions are not appreciated, and I will keep reverting them to keep the quality of this page intact. 21/12/2005

did I say anything along the lines of "he made stuff up" in the article? Prabhupada may have been a charismatic person, but how does that imply he knew much about Sanskrit? I don't want to insult anybody, I am just saying that the accepted scholarly dictionaries are in stark contrast to Prabhupada's translations. You are free to believe anything you like, even that hara means "energy" in Sanskrit, and we'll even quote Prabhpada saying it means "energy", but our NPOV policy demands that we put this against the reading of actual dictionaries. Regarding your revert, it is not acceptable that you revert my edits wholesale if you disagree with one particular edit (or even with something I said on the talkpage that is not in the edits at all). Also, if you want to have a reasonable discussion, I would suggest you get an account. dab (ᛏ) 10:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You didn't say it in the article - but you said it here in the comments page. Please note that there have been a large number of edits to this page over the past few months by a large number of people, many of which I have not removed. I simply feel your stance is very negative and the edits do not improve the page. Sanskrit dictionaries used in the West are notoriously flawed, it is a very complex language which takes years to master - You can't just read a dictionary. 21/12/2005

so, for example, providing the correct IAST transliteration is "negative"? The link to Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad is negative? Give me a break. I removed the reference to Christianity as you objected. I am sure they told you "Sanskrit dictionaries in the West are flawed", but that's just unfounded propaganda. I am not "just reading a dictionary" (although that would be enough in the present case), I do have background knowledge of Vedic Sanskrit. For example, Prabhpada is of course free to claim that hara means anything he pleases. But how does that relate to hari? Is the idea that hara relates to hari as bhakta to bhakti? That would be a false analogy, since in the latter case we are looking at suffixes -ta vs. -ti. I am not saying it is impossible that hara is derived from hari in some Upanishad somewhere. If you want to pursue the point, you should point out in which text the word is claimed as appearing with a sense of "energy", or as a derivation of hari. If you don't want to pursue the question, I am happy with just quoting Prabhupada. If I was really negative, I would insisting in pointing out that it is wrong, but of course it isn't "wrong" if you believe Prabhupada is God; in this case, anything he says is beyond doubt, of course; just, you cannot work from the assumption that Prabhpada is God, on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 14:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Regarding "improvement", compare this to this. I got rid of the cleanup tag and the garbled quote, wrote an intro, compiled a coherent ToC, and added historical context. Now if this isn't an improvement over the garbled article we had before, I'm sorry, but I cannot follow you. dab (ᛏ) 15:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

I'm very sorry you feel this way, but I do not believe your views represent either a neutral scholarly view, or a well-informed response by somebody who knows a lot about the Hare Krishna movement, the Vedas, or Sanskrit in general. I am happy to tolerate your personal comments about myself, but cannot let you make a mess of this article.

1) I never said Srila Prabhupada was 'God', I do however take him as an expert in this subject. That 'Hare' refers to 'Krishna's energy' is a widely accepted meaning of the word in reference to THIS PARTICULAR mantra. There are also many other deeper meanings, but there is no real need to go into that here. Depending on circumstances the same word has many different meanings.

2) The standard of the Kali-S. Upanishad page you mention is highly questionable. We already have the full version clearly presented via the website link.

I do not ask you to follow me, but I do kindly request that you refrain from damaging this particular wiki entry without due course. 22/12/2005

your first point is granted, and I never suggested we remove the reference to Prabhupada's opinion. Your second point I don't understand. If you have issues with the article on the Upanishad, voice your concerns over there. I do not see how adding information (not to mention cleaning up the formatting) is "damaging" to this article. I am not the one removing information, you are. Yes, Prabhupada's view is notable. This doesn't mean that no other material may be quoted. Can you point out where I was making "personal" comments (as opposed to comments about your edits), please? dab (ᛏ) 15:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be great to have only informed reverts here. Can Dbachmann explain his revert of my last Notes edits?

The proper form is "Harā" which is not obvious in the referred Krishna.com article written in diacritic-free mode. Harā is the name of Śrī Rādhā in her Radha-sahasra-nama-stotra, verse 59 <http://www.hknet.org.nz/1000Radha.html>.

As far as note 3 goes, there is no original text of the Kalisantara Up. in that article, only the mantra explanation. Thanks -Jan/VEDA, 2 Jan 2006

To the anon editor who blindly keeps reverting

I would suggest that this reverting back and forth stops. As far as I can see (admittedly I don't know nothing on the subject), Dab's version has its merits, and it should be possible to find a version that is suitable to all. If this blind reverting continues, it'll be considered vandalism. Whether that whole Upanishad section needs to be included, I do not know, but if so, some serious reformatting would be in order at the very least. Lupo 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I am not blindly reverting, and have made several amendments to the page in light of Dab's comments. Look at the page for yourself. I have included a link to the Upanishad page, and cleaned up the list of new Scriptural references, etc... I beleive that unfortunatley it has become an ego battle for him now. I am just trying to keep the page in a clearly understandable format. Anon user 22/12/2005

ego battle for me? Dear anon, I have 1000 articles on my watchlist, many of which (unlike this one) I have mostly written myself. This particular instance is just a minor waste of my time. Your version is inaccurate linguistically. You are saying "hare" refers to the "energy of God", while hare is simply the vocative of hara, and Prabhupada claimed hara, which is completely unrelated to hare, means "energy". Also, you are confusing "Sanskrit" and "Devanagari". From all this, it is plain that you do not know much about Sanskrit, so I suggest you either consult a Sanskrit grammar, or take my word for it. dab (ᛏ) 09:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am no longer anonymous. Any Hare Krishna worth his salt will tell you that 'Hare' in THIS INSTANCE refers to Krishna's Divine energy. It is a very basic thing. Also I am not confusing Sanskrit & Devanagri. Sanskrit is the language, Devanagri is the letter type, and also covers languages such as Gujarati etc...

• Devanagari
• Sanskrit

--GourangaUK 11:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

that's good. So why do you insist that the image shows the mantra "in the original Sanskrit", as if the IAST transcription was any less "Sanskrit"? You also seem to agree that hare is the vocative of hari. So, any Hare Krishna worth his salt will tell you that hari refers to the divine energy. No problem. Let's assume that the 'hara' is just a typo in the article, and that Prabhupada actually was talking about the word 'hari'. I have no problem at all with saying that ISKCON people assert that "hari refers to divine energy". So much for ISCKON. We will then go on to say that hari is from the Vishnu sahasranama, and that the basic meaning of the word is "golden". dab (ᛏ) 12:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hari and Hare are seen as very different words by Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Hari refers to Krishna, and means 'one who takes away', whereas Hare refers to Krishna's Divine energy and also His Female consort. It's not a typo in this case. Hari is masculine. Hare is feminine. Rather than get lost in the details I feel it better this page gave a decent general overview. GourangaUK 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

what is going on?

GourangaUK, it is difficult to assume good faith on your part at this point.

• [2]: "rv to Lupo's version - looks better" (while you are actually reverting Lupo's version back to yours)
• [3] "Refusal to give in to mindless bullying - reverted to GourangaUK/Lupo version" so you picked up the "mindless"? It is still not Lupo's version you are reverting to, and no, you are not being "bullied", you are treated with angelic patience
• [4] "Hare Krishna !!" - is this some sort of jihad now?
• [5] "What is this? 'Persecute the Hare Krishna's by messying up their page' day?" no, it is everyday 'clean out the vandals' on Wikipedia (which is incidentially not owned by ISKCON)

I must say that my real life encounters with Hare Krishna devotees were more pleasant, and they left me with more of an impression of courtesy and good grace. If you continue this nonsense, I will treat it as vandalism, and block you from editing Wikipedia (for short periods at first, but block lengths will increase if you persist). dab (ᛏ) 13:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The current version incorporates parts of Lupo's edits - specifically the Scriptural references. You persist in removing large sections. As stated by a number of people my edits are not vandalism. GourangaUK 14:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

your edits were not vandalism. They have an entirely different quality now. I am removing no information except the

The individual names are pronounced as 'Ha-ray', 'Krish-na' and 'Rar-m' respectively. The mantra is repeated, either out-loud (kirtan), softly to oneself (japa), or internally within the mind.

bit, which you would be free to add (and which I'll add now to oblige you), and the "ancient, thousand of years" bit, which is unsubstantiated. "many centuries" would be unproblematic, but "thousands of years" will have to be attributed to somebody (which will be easy enough, I am sure Prabhupada said things like that, so just say that he said it, with a reference). dab (ᛏ) 14:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

no, we even have the kirtan/japa bit. What's wrong with you? This is just willful disruption now, for no perceptible cause. dab (ᛏ) 14:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

to rule out any misunderstanding, this is the article about the Vaishna mantra. The article about the new religious movement known as "Hare Krishnas" is at International Society for Krishna Consciousness. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed my username being used on one of the edit summaries. To make my position clear on this matter, I in no way endorse either versions of the article, I simply came across the article when I was on RC patrol and I haven't really read either version. Thanks. - Akamad ^{Merry Christmas to all!} 14:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

that was evident, Akamad. GUK is just trying to imitate WP lingo. GUK, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before you continue this stubbornness. Start with WP:5P. I don't want to "bite the newbies", but you should at least acknowledge that you don't know how things work. I would not have thought it suitable to begin an edit war during my first week (or month) on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already said I'm not a wizard on Wikipedia, I have gone through all the details of your last revision and amended as many into the page as I thought had some merit. We could spend all day (literally) describing the meanings of Krishna & Rama, but I feel to keep it to simply 'The Lord' is best for ease of understanding. It is more important that these names refer to God, than to the fact that Krishna may be blackish or blue-ish in colour, such as in the name Shyamasundar where colour is the prominent point behind the name.

GourangaUK 15:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

you keep messing up the formatting of the article, and you keep removing the link to the Kali Upanishad. If you want to argue about the translations of the names, that would be a content dispute, and you can change them. Reverting to the disorganized version is vandalism. I should block you now, to show I am serious. Make a decision now: take the present version, and change the translations you are objecting to, and I'll accept you as a bona fide editor with whom I am in dispute. Revert again, and I will treat you as a vandal. dab (ᛏ) 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dab, I appreciate you may not be doing this simply for the fun of it, but at the same time I really can't see ANY problems with the page in it's current format. I have made some amendments over the past few days in light of your comments, but cannot accept the wholesale changes you describe. Please give examples as to what you have a problem with exactly in the current revision. It is hardly 'Iskcon' biased. You could say it was 'Gaudiya Vaishnava' biased if you like, but then it is a page about Hare Krishna's after all. I do not mean to cause you any problems, I am just trying to do what's best for the page. GourangaUK 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted to Dbachmann's version was become of the untruth stated as fact in GourangaUK's version i.e. that the Hare Krisha mantra comes from the Vedas. I know that ISKCONites believe that and it should be stated that they believe this but it untrue: Krishna is not even mentioned in the Vedas. Andries 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Please also note that references to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance website are somewhat doubtful. SeeWikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and if there is another reference for ISKCON's teaching on the mantra then we should add it. Andries 21:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I know, I tried to go easy on the article, seeing the trouble I am getting for mere cleanup. I am ready to state anything GourangaUK demands, as long as it is marked as coming from ISKCON, and appears in the ISKCON section.

• This is not an article about ISKCON, it is an article about a Vaishna mantra that has gained notability outside India through Prabhupada/ISKCON. ISKCON matters may take up any amount of space in this article, but they must be phrased in an npov manner. Not even Hindus (let alone Indologists) consider Puranas and (most) Upanishads "Vedic", so the statement about Vedic scripture is clearly wrong. The Kali Upanishad (which we will link to on Wikipedia, not on some external site) is numbered 103 in the Muktika canon. It is a late Upanishad, probably dating to between AD 1000 and 1500. The Vedic period ended around 500 BC, more than a millennium earlier.
• If anyone is unhappy about this article being about the mantra, not the society, I would consider making Hare Krishna a redirect to ISKCON, and moving this article to Hare Krishna mantra or Maha Mantra.
• Tell me which changes you cannot accept instead of wholesale reverting. So far you had to concede every point you actually discussed. There may be points that seem irrelevant to me where I am ready to indulge you. I don't see why you object to IAST, for example. Fine, we can just give the three names in IAST, and the whole mantra in your anglicization. Not boldfaced allcaps, though, that is too jarring, style-wise. I argue that the fact that all names refer to colours is very important: to a speaker of Sanskrit, the mantra evokes a sequence of golden glows and darkness, i.e. it has a visual subtext. But we can add any ISKCON-backed translation you can quote, too, that's no problem at all.

dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues with the current page

First Paragraph

1) 'popularized by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness' is not entirely true, as it is now popularised by a number of Gaudiya-Vaishnava organisations.

I still feel the alternative initial paragraph describes the Hare Krishna phenomena much better. I would be happy to re-word the sentence containing the word 'ancient'.

2) The Mantra

a) 'names of God(Vishnu) Hari'

b) 'As names, Hari translates to 'golden one', while both Krishna and Rama translate to dark coloured or black,'

I would ask you please to quote from which reference source you are bringing these two translations, as you also asked me to do on the translations from Srila Prabhupada. It is as much an opinion as any other one. Not that I dispute the second one at least as having some validity, but I must disagree about Hare meaning 'Hari' / Vishnu.

Amongst Gaudiya-Vaishnava groups (not JUST Iskcon, please note) the primary meaning of the word Krishna is 'He who is All-attractive'. Rama primarily refers to 'He who is the Source of all Pleasure' or similar, and Hare primarily refers to Krishna's Divine Energy, or His Special feminine aspect, 'Srimati Radharani'. These are by no means the only meanings, sometimes the name 'Rama' is said to refer to Lord Ramachandra, and also sometimes to refer to Lord Balarama, although not all Gaudiya-Vaishnava's would agree fully on this point.

see following links for variations on this theme

http://www.gaudiya.com/index.php?topic=practice

http://www.answers.com/topic/krishna

http://members.surfeu.fi/gaudiya/id1.htm

Even so, to translate the names simply into colours I feel is to degenerate Their divine meaning. It is not that millions of people around the world are praying each day 'Gold, Black, Black, Gold', as I'm sure you will appreciate. I would prefer it if both sets of meanings were included and referenced in full. Currently one is presented as fact, another as opinion.

3) I believe the below note should be re-inserted as you have already mentioned.

"The individual names are pronounced as 'Ha-ray', 'Krish-na' and 'Rar-m' respectively. The mantra is repeated, either out-loud (kirtan), softly to oneself (japa), or internally within the mind."

4) History

I would rather the whole Kali Sanataran upanishad was quoted here, or at least linked to, as the Wikipedia page does not contain as much information in as clear a way.

link: http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/upanishads/kali_santarana_upanishad.htm

This section looks very messey on my screen

5) IAST - I personally do not see the point in this, but if you insist I am not going to create any further issue on it.

6) Hare Krishna Movement

I do not think it is a good idea to include a direct link to ISKCON at the top of this section. From the perspective of non-Iskcon Gaudiya Vaishnava's it will look particularly biased. Iskcon has already been mentioned a number of times.

7) General points Mentioned on discussion page, but not in text

a) Please stop refering to all Gaudiya-Vaishnava's as ISKCON. I very much like ISKCON, but it's not very accurate. b)In response to the following:

'The reason why I reverted to Dbachmann's version was become of the untruth stated as fact in GourangaUK's version i.e. that the Hare Krisha mantra comes from the Vedas. I know that ISKCONites believe that and it should be stated that they believe this but it untrue: Krishna is not even mentioned in the Vedas. Andries 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)'

Firstly where exactly did anyone say the Maha-Mantra came from the 3 Vedas to which I assume you are referring to as 'Vedas'? The article states it came from the Kali-Santarana Upanishad, which is referenced in FULL.

My motivation is simply to improve this page, I hope these words do not go in vain and we can work towards a better solution.

Hare Krishna, GourangaUK 18:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Gouranga, you asked me

"Firstly where exactly did anyone say the Maha-Mantra came from the 3 Vedas to which I assume you are referring to as 'Vedas'? The article states it came from the Kali-Santarana Upanishad, which is referenced in FULL. "

To answer this question I refer to the following sentences from Gouranga's version that at least suggest that this mantra come from the Vedas

Gouranga"Now, technically, there are Vedic injunctions that the Vedic mantras (such as this mantra of the Kali Santarana Upanishad) are not to be publically chanted, and they are never to be chanted by so-called 'lower castes', etc. In order to solve the problem, while keeping within the context of the Vedas and thus not offending the 'orthodox' Brahmins,[...]"

Andries 20:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, I again stated that the mantra comes from the Upanishads. The teachings of the Upanishads often come under the umbrella term of 'Vedic' culture. If you disagree with this then fine, say it's a 'Puranic injunction' (who ever says that?) but please don't use it as an excuse to brand me with your so-called 'Iskconite' label. GourangaUK 12:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• 1) -- certainly, by all means mention "Gaudiya-Vaishnava" in the intro.
• 2) -- etymology of the three names; we have articles on all three, hari, krishna, rama, with reasonable discussions of the names; I refer you there.
• 3) -- the kirtan/japa bit is under "chanting the mantra". Your pronunciation hints are inadequate (they are rough approximations when pronounced in British English); we have an entire article on Sanskrit, and the three words are just regular Sanskrit words; phonological details belong on the Sanskrit article.
• 4) Please feel free to expand and improve the Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad article
• 5) IAST allows you to identify the Sanskrit phonemes. It is equivalent to Devanagari; it is more exact than rough pronunciation hints or ancglicizations.
• 6) do you want to cut the entire "Hare Krishna movement" section? That would be fine with me, since the article is supposed to be about the mantra. the passage "'Hare Krishna' brings to mind, to many, the famous Hare Krishna devotees, who first hit the streets of Western cities in the 1960s" is essay-ish, and I'll be glad to rid of it; I could live with it, though, and let it stand because there were more blatant issues with the article.
• 7) the mantra may not be considered "Vedic". It may be "Puranic", or "Vedantic", but why not just call it Vaishnava? I am far from confusing ISKCON with Gaudiya-Vaishnavism in general, I don't know how you get the idea I am equating them.

dab (ᛏ) 15:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

we are getting somewhere now. I fixed the pronunciation hints, if we must have pronunciation hints here. We can have a section on Gaudiya Vaishnavism if you like, but the movement popularly known as "Hare Krishna movement", and the "famous Hare Krishna devotees, who first hit the streets of Western cities in the 1960s" are ISKCON, not Gaudiyas in general. The 'translations' of "all-attractive", "the source of all pleasure" are also idiosyncratic to ISKCON afaik (but prove me wrong). The correct pronunciation is not "Ha-ray, Krish-na and Rar-m", that is a British speaker trying to imitate a Hindi speaker; it is, if you have to know, ['hɐre:], ['kɹ̩ʂɳɐ], ['ra:mɐ]. But we do have Sanskrit to discuss these matters. The anglicized "Hare, Krishna, Rama" give a fair first impression I would say. dab (ᛏ) 13:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay I take your point on Iskcon, I have no problem with it personally, but predict others might possibly have issues in future. I have inserted the meanings of Krishna and Rama as said by Srila Prabhupada himself. Does this mean we are almost done? GourangaUK 13:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are happy, I am happy too (Gouranga :) -- except for your dump of the Upanishad text: it belongs on Kali Santarana Upanishad, or even on wikisource. The "scriptural references" section ihmo should follow the "history" section, to maintain a historical order (Upanishad - Vaishnava literature - ISKCON - [Hippies]). These are minor points, and I am sure we can find an agreement. If there is something in the Upanishad you want to emphasize, mention it, don't just dump the entire text here (people will just skip it anyway). dab (ᛏ) 13:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

the translation dates to 1938, and is thus copyrighted. I suggest you just summarize the point you want to make about its content. dab (ᛏ) 13:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-work of that section, I understand what you meant now. Glad we got there with this page in the end, even if it was a bit of a struggle. Hare Krishna, ys GUK 86.139.159.160 15:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad too -- thanks for discussing! dab (ᛏ) 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jan/VEDA

It would be great to have only informed reverts here. Can Dbachmann explain his revert of my last Notes edits?

The proper form is "Harā" which is not obvious in the referred Krishna.com article written in diacritic-free mode. Harā is the name of Śrī Rādhā in her Radha-sahasra-nama-stotra, verse 59 <http://www.hknet.org.nz/1000Radha.html>.

As far as note 3 goes, there is no original text of the Kalisantara Up. in that article, only the mantra explanation. Thanks -Jan/VEDA, 2 Jan 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.208.102.8 (talk • contribs) .

well, since you take it upon yourself to make uncommented anonymous changes to an extensively discussed article, I would rather say the burden of explanation lies with you. "Harā" may well be a name of Rādhā, but is this what Prabhupada is referring to here? We cannot claim that he is talking about "Harā" when our article has "Hara". It really depends of what is in the printed edition of the article. The expected reading would be "Hari" (hence the [sic]). I reverted you for your change of the citation of the Upanishad in the article body. I don't care if we have "Harā" or "Hara" in the footnote, since both make precious little sense wrt the mantra. I have no idea what footnote 3 is going on about, it can be removed for all I care, I just didn't remove any krishna.com links myself not to stir up even more outrage. I understood that the article contains "original text" by Prabhupada. It certainly doesn't contain any original text of an Upanishad. dab (ᛏ) 16:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I note the sequence of endnotes was messed up, I fixed that. Leaves us with the "Harā" question. Our krishna.com article has

The word Hara is a form of addressing the energy of the Lord, and the words Krishna and Rama are forms of addressing the Lord Himself. Hara is the supreme pleasure energy of the Lord, and when addressed as Hare in the vocative, She helps us to reach the Supreme Lord.

I note his use of the feminine pronoun, so probably Harā is indeed intended, but it looks for all the world as if Prabhupada was claiming that Hare is the vocative of Harā. He was either making up his own grammar, or he is being misquoted in the article. You may replace Hara with Harā in the footnote, that won't make any difference. The only way out would be to surmise that Prabhupada is claiming that Harā is addressed in the dual dab (ᛏ) 16:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm always signing my entries but cannot register since this IP address is not mine.

Prabhupada explained mahamantra many times and always the same way - Hare as vocative of Harā. I don't know which Sanskrit grammar are you using but it's quite a common knowledge that Rādhe is a vocative of Rādhā. Thus Harā > Hare, Lalitā > Lalite, etc. -Jan/VEDA, 2 Jan 2006

my apologies, you are right; This is quite interesting, and we should note it. hare is the vocative of hari, and also of harā. It appears that the Gaudhiya-Vaishnavas have interpreted the mantra to refer to a female entity! It would be interesting to trace this idea to its earliest attestation. dab (ᛏ) 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I checked the mahamantra commentaries by our Gaudiya acaryas on our site <http://veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sastras-studies2.htm#4> and they sometimes also use the Hari form. But I'm not aware of any other explanations outside Gaudiya tradition. -Jan/VEDA, 2 Jan 2006

Religious Persecution of the sect in Russia

The movement has been subjected to religious persecution in Russia. Their requests for allocation of land for temple construction have been denied by the Russian government. To add insult to injury, vile abuses were heaped upon the person of Lord Krishna by bigoted clergman of Russian Orthodox church. Should we also include a topic on this page which talks about the operational issues faced by the sect. This would be especially relevant considering the fact that this sect has more non-Indian devotees and major operation outside India.

The same is also now happening in Kazakstan, with farm-land being taken over. see http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=769

ISKCON takeover?

I started this Wiki page because many of us understand that "Hare Krishna" does not belong to the powerful ISKCON sect. In the months since I started the page, the members of ISKCON cult have practically taken over the page and filled the discussion board with their disagreements. I understand their fervent desire to preach, but would they mind kindly sticking to their own ISKCON page please? Vdd

Considering ISKCON is a Hare Krishna sect, they have free right to edit a page that directly relates to them. Is there anything in particular that you disagree with? You can't really expect a page to not change when you leave it for 4 months... Dwayne Kirkwood 03:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It was actually a totally non-Hare Krishna, non-Iskcon administrator who insisted from a scholarly perspective that Iskcon have numerous mentions on this page, because of it's prominence in promoting the phrase and the philosophy. I believe the 'Iskcon takeover' comments above are totally unfounded. 'Hare Krishna' is supposed to be a non-sectarian movement remember? --GourangaUK 09:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

not quite. I insisted that the article comes up front with which parts of the article are ISKCON-specific and which aren't. This is the article about the mantra. Since the ISKCON is widely known as "the Hare Krishnas", the article needs a disambiguation reference. If we put any ISKCON-specific material on this article (on which I certainly do not insist, but it seems straightforward to have a "ISKCON" section here, since the movement is connected with the worldwidenotability of the mantra), it needs to be clearly identified as such. dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was in a bad mood. I'll have to chant Hare Krishna! Love, Vdd.

In Music rename

Hey, I was thinking we should rename "In Music" so that we can include film, like the recently removed "Female Trouble", and other movies like "Bee Season" and "Dawn of the Dead" - but it's pretty late at night so I can't really come up with a better title to include all forms of media... let me know what you think :) Dwayne Kirkwood 09:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dwayne, I think the list could become very long if it included film references aswell, which might be largely irrelevant to many people? With music there is a direct link with the mantra, whereas a large number of films and TV shows make references to the Hare Krishnas, each with their own slant on things. Maybe it could even be a whole page in itself seperate to this one, with a link from here or something? Hare Krishna in mass media? --GourangaUK 11:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, do you want to start it? I don't have much experience starting articles from scratch. It would be cool if we could have screenshots and information on accuracy, what ISKCON was involved with, etc. eg. Bee Season - ISKCON was involved, but what was shown isn't 100% accurate as your parents have to sign a form to allow you to stay in a temple these days Dwayne Kirkwood 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

note, the usual section title would be "in popular culture". If the list gets too long, it can be exported, compare References to Odin in popular culture --dab (ᛏ) 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hare Krishna in popular culture - I've made an inital page with the few references I could think of, and copied the In Music section over. Please add to this if you know more, i'm sure we could mention Boy George's song, Tenacious D's song, etc. Once the page has more content, I suggest we remove In Music from this article and add a link. Dwayne Kirkwood 23:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversal of Mahamantra

"The reason given for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's inversion of the mantra is that he wanted to spread it to all the fallen souls of the current Kali Yuga, regardless of qualification. Since there were injunctions that the Vedic mantras (including those in Upanishads) are not to be chanted publicly or by members of the lower castes, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu reversed the two halves so as not to offend the orthodox Brahmins, claiming it to be equally potent either way, and in the altered form it could be freely distributed and chanted in public."

I have already raised this issue in ISKCON page. But this can be fully addressed here as this this topic directly refers to the Mahamantra. The views expressed above does not seem to have any real evidence. Moreover Kali Santarana Upanishad itself assures that:

"Narada asked: ‘O Lord, what are the rules to be observed with reference to it ?" To which Brahma replied that there were no rules for it. Whoever in a pure or an impure state, utters these always, attains the same world of, or proximity with, or the same form of, or absorption into Brahma." (see http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/kalisantarana.html).

Therefore as per Kali Santarana Upanishad there is no need to alter the Mahamantra in any way. Lord Chaitanya, is known to be uncompromising in any thing connected to scriptures and spiritual practices, therefore as such it is difficult to belive that he has reversed the Mahamantra. Unless of course some good evidence it produced. I understand that this view is more popular among various Gaudiya movements (other than ISKCON). In case no evidence is produced within a reasonable time, the above views may be kindly deleted. -Tharikrish 12:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tharikrish - I've reworded the article to show this is a known 'Gaudiya-Vasihnava' viewpoint. This article is not about Iskcon specifically and so I don't see a problem with it being included. GourangaUK 11:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi GourangaUK - Thanks for your interest in this issue which occasionally surfaces in the various Vaishnava lists. I don't agree that this is even a 'Gaudiya - Vaishnava' view. Most Gaudiya Mathas/Missions actually will not agree with this view. But the point is: Is there any evidence acceptable to all Gaudiyas? Any evidence acceptable to some of the Gaudiyas? Any evidence accepable to those outside the Gaudiya tradition? Any evidence from the modern historiographic POV? My understanding is that you will not get any evidence from any of the above quarters. Since this belief is not based on facts and evidences, it may be best considered as an hearsay and omitted altogether from this page as well any other pages related Gaudiya-Vaishnavism. Or else it can be mentioned as a fallacy or hearsay.

However it is a fact that the Mahamantra is chanted traditionally as 'Hare Rama Hare Rama' in some parts of India and as 'Hare Krishna Hare Krishna' in some other parts of India. Why this reversal? Which one of the two is in the correct format? Who has done it? Is it Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who has actually reversed it? Or did someone else reverse the original 'Hare Krishna Hare Krishna' to 'Hare Rama Hare Rama'? What is the format in which Mahamantra occurs in recension of Kali Santarana Upanishad that is generally accepted in Gaudadesha (Bengal)? How many recensions of Kali Santarana Upanishad are there in all? How is the Mahamantra represented in those recensions?

Answers to the above questions based on factual evidences can be included in the a separate section dealing with controversies / contentions about the Mahamantra. Since you are kindly doing the required research, I humbly suggest you to look into these aspects also. I will also search for the elusive evidences for the reversal of Mahamantra by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Regards. -Tharikrish 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tharikrish, the following link has the best set of information regarding this I could find:

• Hare Krishna mantra

I still feel it's worth mentioning the issue, but have reversed the mantra to show Hare Krishna first in the article, as that is clearly the standard format amongst the sampradayas. Hare Krishna :-) Ys, GourangaUK 08:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how does it matter that some translators of Kalisantarana reverse the mantra? what counts is the original text, where the mantra is clearly in the "Rama first" order. To muse about variants in translations is beside the point. The real question is whether Caitanya or the Upanisad are earlier, but I do think that the Upanisad is usually dated to before 1500 (the terminus ante quem being the 17th c., compare Muktikā). dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Bachmann - Of course the Mantra pre-dates Caitanya Mahaprabhu's appearance 500 years ago. Some translations show Hare Rama first, some show Hare Krishna. There is no authoritative 'translation'. However the majority of Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who base their lives around the mantra show Hare Krishna first. GourangaUK 19:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann: Translators have not reversed the mantra. Actually no one has reversed anything. There is only a change in word order in different recensions of Kali Santarana Upanishad. Many other Upanishads and samhitas of Vedas do have this minor changes in word order. Wikipedia article on Vedic Shakas will make it more clear. Caithanya Mahaprabhu has followed the recension of Kali Santarana Upanishad in which 'Hare Krishna' format is seen. This recension is also as orginal as the one(s) in which 'Hare Rama' format is seen (eg. One recension of Kali Santarana Upanishad) Tharikrish 17:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi GourangaUK - If you still feel that Caitanya Mahaprabhu reversed the mahamantra to pacify the orthodox brahmanas, there should be some evidence for this from an authentic source. Many references of this issue on the web, including the one you have referred above do not give the source of information. The original source of this disinformation on the web seems to be the Gaudiya-faq. Moreover over time many other absurd hypothesis also have appeared, including a non Kali Santarana Upanishad source for the mahamantra! These are all hearsays of the first order. See what Srila Prabhupada has to say about respecting the views of orthodox brahamanas:

"Generally brahmanas are puffed up with false prestige because they belong to the aristocracy and perform many Vedic sacrifices. In South India especially, this fastidious position is most prominent. At any rate, this was the case five hundred years ago. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu actually started a revolution against this brahminical system by inaugurating the chanting of the Hare Krsna mantra." CC Madya-lila 16.69.

Also it is wrong to ascribe the difference in word order to 'translations'. The differences are there in the original versions of the text (recensions). The recensions are due to forking and deterioration of shakas which have preserved the vedas. Small changes in word order is not usually taken very seriously. At this point it will be difficult to determine which is the true or original version. There is a reference somewhere to Srila Prabhupada saying "Both are same". I am not getting the reference right now. Please see if you can find it somewhere, and let me know.

Since the mahamantra reversal hearsay can be defeated by Kali Santaranna Upanishad, commentaries of Gaudiya acharyas including Srila Prabhupada and the actual fact that both the formats of the mahamantra predates Chaithanya Mahaprabhu, all references to it should be removed from the article. Tharikrish 08:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Thakurish - like you say there is no apparent evidence for the reversal story, other than by general word of mouth, so I have now removed it from the page. I appreciate your extra detail regarding the recensions... It seems more fit to show the mantra in the common form on this page (Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna....), do you agree? GourangaUK 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi GourangaUK - Thanks for the recent edits and aligning the article with the actual facts as we know it. It is perfectly correct to present the Mahamantra as 'Hare Krishna ....' since this article is associated with Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. The article also now makes it clear that the 'Hare Rama...' form is also original and correct. However for those who are used to 'Hare Rama ...' word order, doubts do arise when 'Hare Krishna ...' format is heard or seen. This usually surfaces as queries in many of the discussion lists which later on becomes the breeding ground of many weird ideas. Therefore adding more details on the recensions of Kali Santarana Upanishad can also be contemplated.--Tharikrish 06:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

theif?

i've heard that hare means "theif"...but a "theif that stole your heart". has anyone else heard this?

Justforasecond 00:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

yes. "hare" means "one who takes away". krishna takes away material desires. it also means lion. vdd.

only if referring to the feminine, harā [6], apparently a widespread interpretation. The original mantra likely refers to hari "yellow". You have to realize that these are two unrelated words: harā refers to a female entity, "she who captivates etc."; hari refers to a male entity, "he who is yellow/golden/green", also a name of Vishnu and a term for "lion". You cannot have both, it is by coincidence that the vocatives of these words are identical. dab (ᛏ) 07:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

cool, thanks! Justforasecond 14:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Srila Prabhupada 'Hari' refers to Krishna or Vishnu as 'one who takes away' ('thief'). 'Hare' refers to Krishna's internal energy, personified in Srimati Radharani.GourangaUK 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Claim on Maha MAntra

This page should be moved, or renamed to "Hare Krishna Maha Mantra",as one particular organisation cannot lay claim on what is considered a 'Maha Mantra'. There exists many Maha Mantras in many Hindu/Vedic religions and sects, such as the

• Pancha-Tattva Maha Mantra
• Meri Maiya Maha Mantra
• Maha-mrityunjaya mantra
• Nrsimha Maha-mantra

The list goes on. Sfacets 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sfacets:

• 1) This page is called 'Hare Krishna' not Maha-Mantra.
• 2) As previously mentioned if you feel so strongly about this then create a Maha-Mantra disambiguation page with references. One of which directing to this page.

Hare Krishna, ys GourangaUK 08:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've actually just found the disambiguation page which you have already recently edited, but not mentioned? References to the Maha Mantra now re-direct to that page so I don't see any further issues remaining? GourangaUK 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.purebhakti.com/features/asl/solutiontoconflictinginterests.html Who is Hare? "That's Radhrani," he said. "Krsna's supreme spiritual energy. The Hare Krsna movement was named after Them both. When we say 'Hare' we mean Radharani. http://www.purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture19961102.shtml Krsna's name is Krsna Himself, and Hare Krsna means Sri Sri Radha-Krsna. ....Srila Lokanatha Gosvami replied, "Perhaps you don't know that nama and nami are the same. When you are chanting harinama you should think, ‘I am serving Sri Radha and Sri Krsna.’ Hara is Srimati Radhika, who controls the mind and heart of Krsna. From Hara comes Hare, meaning ‘O Hara’, or ‘O Srimati Radhika’. Rama is Radha-Ramana, Sri Krsna. So Hare Krsna is Radha-Krsna, and while chanting we should serve Them, remembering Their pastimes. Syama 19:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hare Krishna vs Hare Krsnas

So what is the relationship between this and Hare Krsnas? Is it just a variation on spelling? If so, perhaps we should setup a redirect page.

'Krsna' is simply another way of spelling 'Krishna'. It originates from books which use punctuation marks underneath the r,s and n to show it is pronounced 'ish' without the need of the 'i' or 'h'. No need for a redirect. Regards, GourangaUK 09:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Replaced link to pirate site

The external link for "Srimad-Bhagavatam" led to a site, bhagavata.org, that extensively, knowingly, and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork.

The large paintings displayed throughout the site to illustrate the book are all copyrighted works, for which the rights are owned by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

I have kept the link but changed the URL to that of a site that provides the full text of the Bhagavatam, without bootlegging.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed another link to a pirate site

I have removed the external link for "Bhaktivedanta Memorial Library." The link led to a site, www.bvml.org, that knowingly and persistently bootlegs book-length copyrighted works.

At www.bvml.org/books/, virtually all the links lead to bootlegged versions of copyrighted full-length books.

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing.

The most important thing should come first. What is the most important thing about Hare Krishna mantra? That it is for bringing about love of God. Surely, then, it's preferable that such an explanation remains in the first par. Further, the mantra was made popular in the world by Caitanya. That it was made popular in the great West by one particular group is of arguably lesser importance. -Mrs. Moore.

Dear Mrs Moore, that the Hare Krishna mantra brings about love of God is an opinion that not all may follow. As the aim of Wikipedia is primarily encyclopedic it would thus be out of place to have that as an introductory sentance. That the Hare Krishna mantra became considerably well known around the world in recent decades due to a particular Vaishnava movement (ISKCON) is however a provable fact of 'encyclopedic' significance. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's importance and significance in connection to the popularisation of the Hare Krishna mantra is also mentioned in the article in some detail with corresponding links etc... including the main figurative picture. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gouranga UK, No, not all would follow that chanting Hare Krishna brings about love of God, but still, that is the intended purpose of the mantra, and any encyclopedia reader need know the purpose of a thing - just as they would need to know that a car is for transport. Then, what is the next most important thing? A Euro-centric view of who made it known in the West? Or, who made it known world-wide? -Mrs. Moore.

Dear Mrs Moore, I have taken your points into consideration and amended the introduction to include a mention of the purported purpose of the Hare Krishna mantra in a way which I believe is not promoting a certain POV. It also gives reference to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu from the notation. There are people who chant Hare Krishna without any desire to achieve love of God, or for an entirely different reason altogether, it depends on which authority you personally follow. Sincere thanks for your input. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, dear GourangaUK, but still, first things first, is it not? -Mrs. Moore.

I have reverted your further amendments. Many people will visit this page looking for "The Hare Krsna's" it makes sense to mention that at the start. The page should not have a totally Gaudiya Vaishnava POV as an introduction wether you or I agree with that line of thinking or not. Regards, GourangaUK 14:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. ISKCON are Hare Krishnas, but Hare Krishnas are not ISKCON. People can easily locate the ISKCON page if they require to do so. 2. There is more than one "Gaudiya Vaishnava line of thinking". 3. Do you consider your POV to be neutral? -Mrs. Moore.

later - I have carefully re-read through your posts and would like to assert once more that placing ISKCON in the first par will not neccessary explain to readers of this encyclopedia what HARE KRISHNA actually is. Explaining what a small zealous group think it is will simply not do. Would you mind if I asked if you are a member of ISKCON yourself, GourangaUK? -Mrs. Moore.

As already stated before, higher up on this page, the inclusion of the reference to ISKCON in the first paragraph was by a Wikipedia admin. It makes sense to have it there. And no I'm not answering personal questions on Wikipedia as they are irrelevant. I've taken some improvements in English from your introduction and added them into the current version, which is just more concise. GourangaUK 12:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Very Good. So let us continue.... -Mrs. Moore.

Couple of small changes.

I've removed the superfluous "from a scholarly point of view". Everything in the article is from somewhat of a "scholarly point of view", as this is, after all, an encyclopedia. I've altered the "surviving offshots" sentence as it was a rather impolite and very inaccurate way to categorize Gaudiyas. And I've added "colourful", as that is what the saris were. Not saffron. -Mrs. Moore.

The above changes have some merit in them, but I have reverted because you also made a several other significant amendments not discussed here. The statement 'from a scholarly perspective' could be argued to be useful because it distinguishes the title of Gaudiya Vaishnavism from the popular usage of Hare Krishna's. GourangaUK 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for seeing some merit in my editing. A quick note on latest: #First Par: 1. I've had to elucidate what the "practitioners" are of. It wasn't clear. 2. Sang should be sung. Also the mantra can be meditated on silently. 3. Generally, it's considered a Hindu mantra. 4. I've changed it to "higher states" plural, because there's not just one. #In the movement section: 5. The Gaudiya Math is not just "surviving". 6. The other groups are active not only "preaching" -they do other things too. #Also, GourangaUK, could you explain what you mean about scholarly prespective. It's not at all clear. -Mrs. Moore.

Hello Mrs Moore,

• I believe the word practitioners is more appropriate because that refers to anyone who chants (or sings, or remembers etc...) the mantra, rather than a follower of any specific type of process.
• Not sure on the sang/sung thing, but sung sounds better to me (could be wrong?). Is there somewhere we can check for sure? Or anyone else who can verify?
• I've now included a reference to the fact that the mantra can be meditated upon. Good point.
• Hindu is a big vague in this instance, whereas Vaishnava specifically denotes the mantra in reference to Krishna as being a form of worship to Vishnu, thus Vaishnava.
• Higher state without the 's' seems a simpler description in this case. It could also be argued that it is one specific higher state that the mantra is believed to bring about, not several (even if the beliefs themselves are varied).
• I've addressed the wording regarding Gaudiya Maths.
• In the context of the paragraph, (preaching being the context) I don't feel it's innapropriate to use the phrase without describing all of the other activities the Gaudiya Math are involved in.

Regards, ys, GourangaUK 09:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Geetings.

• So why not have Hindu and Vaishnava? It' a Hindu mantra, right?
• You can't just be a practitioner. You have to be a practitioner of something.
• Can you sing silently? No. So edit surpurflous words out. Lets start to tidy this place up a bit.
• You said we say can't say "The Gaudiya Math are active" without saying all the things they do. So why do you just want to say they "preach"? It's like saying that's all they do. Just leave it like I had it - open, and general.
• I've removing "Western" again. "Preaching" Hare Krishna is not about the West and the rest.
• I'm still concerned about "from a scholarly/academic perspective". Believe me, it does not look good.

Does GaurangaUK edit this site in some official capacity for Wikepedia, or is he/she is a regular contributor like myself? I feel as if I'm having to humbly proffer everything I do for his/her overseeing approval, and it's all a bit strained and somewhat tiring. I don't have time to discuss my every little edit here. Please, at least leave my minor improvements in wording alone. BTW. Happy Birthday Hare Krishna. This page is one year old since it started. -Mrs. Moore.

---

Dear Mrs Moore, no I do not edit in any kind of official capacity - but at the same time I feel it important that the page is kept to a high a standard as possible. I have discussed the changes with you and together we have made several amendments - this is how things generally work on Wikipedia, although I understand that sometimes it can be somewhat of a delicate exercise, especially on pages concerning a religious content. It is not my desire to cause any frustration on your part.

In answer to your points -

• So why not have Hindu and Vaishnava? It' a Hindu mantra, right?

• Hindu is a big vague in this instance, whereas Vaishnava specifically denotes the mantra in reference to Krishna as being a form of worship to Vishnu, thus Vaishnava.

• You can't just be a practitioner. You have to be a practitioner of something.

• Yes, in this case a practitioner of chanting, singing or meditating upon the Hare Krishna mantra.

• Can you sing silently? No. So edit surpurflous words out. Lets start to tidy this place up a bit.

• It doesn't say in the article that the mantra is sang silently. You had actually edited a quotation from Bhaktivedanta Swami in your last edits. Obviously if someone is being quoted we cannot edit their own words.

• You said we say can't say "The Gaudiya Math are active" without saying all the things they do. So why do you just want to say they "preach"? It's like saying that's all they do. Just leave it like I had it - open, and general.

• I'm not sure where I said that. As above In the context of the paragraph, (preaching being the context) I don't feel it's innapropriate to use the phrase without (having to) describe all of the other activities the Gaudiya Math are involved. I don't believe it makes it sound like that's all the Gaudiya Math does, and certainly anyone who goes to the main article will see that isn't the case.

• I've removing "Western" again. "Preaching" Hare Krishna is not about the West and the rest.

• I agree in one sense, but in an English language Wikipedia, the fact of how the Hare Krishna mantra became popular in the west is surely an important one?

• I'm still concerned about "from a scholarly/academic perspective". Believe me, it does not look good.

• In fairness I disagree, and a fair number of editors have contributed to this article over the past year without particular complaint on the sentence. Maybe there is another way to say the same thing?

Please continue the discussion, I'll try my best not to be pedantic. Best Wishes, ys, GourangaUK 08:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear GaurangaUK. You just keep the page the way you like it, ok? This is tiring for me. I'll go where my meagre input is valued. It's a waste of time for me here. Hope the page looks a bit more grown-up next time I visit :) Goodbye Hare Krishna! [btw - did you think i meant you were pedantic?] -love, Mrs. Moore xxx.

---

Dear Mrs Moore, sorry I was thinking you meant I was being pedantic, which is probably true anyway. However, there have been a number of changes to the page over the past few days, it rarely stays exactly the same for very long. Do you really believe it needs to be more grown up in content? Please accept my sincere best wishes for what they are worth. Haribol, GourangaUK 08:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ;-)

---

from a "scholarly point of view" it needs to be more "grown up" in presentation.