Recently I have read here on FFL an argument professed by former TM’ers who
stopped practicing because they claimed they were deceived about the "meaning"
of mantras.
Their fundamental claim is that a mantra is the name of a Hindu god. The claim
is that a mantra, by definition, encapsulates a method for worshiping a Hindu
god but that this fact is withheld from practitioners. Within the domain of
this argument, these claimants will often quote some text from a Hindu Tantra.
These quotes are passages usually assigning a particular deity to a particular
mantra and sometimes even assigning a set of deities to each of the Sanskrit
letters composing the written forms of the mantra’s sound. This textual
assignment is often done quite haphazardly but occasionally is done in the
Vedic format of rishi-deva-chhanda.
Along with the quoted Tantric text is sometimes a quoted statement by MMY,
declaring that a mantra is a "sound whose effect is known". This argument
quotes the TMO claim that a mantra is used in TM for the beneficial effects it
produces in causing the spontaneous refinement of perception. This explanation
is then paraded as an example of shameful exploitation of Western ignorance of
the "Hindu" foundation of TM and of any other Indian meditation that does not
confess itself as a form of "Hindu devotionalism". This devotionalist criticism
is further paraded around by pointing to various Indian swamis and cross-eyed
yogis who make these claims and arguments themselves.
Here are some considerations about these claims:
SBS taught in India. MMY began teaching in India before coming to the West.
They both taught within the context of the Indian Hindu cultural model.
Although they taught in India, where there are many Muslims, they did not
present their teaching within a Muslim cultural model. Although Buddhism is
from India and many Indians consider Buddha as one of their own, neither SBS
nor MMY taught within a Buddhist cultural model. Rather, they taught within the
cultural context of their listeners.
After coming to the West, MMY continued speaking and teaching within the
Indian cultural model - for a while. It was the teaching model established by
Vivekananda and Paramahansa Yogananda – partly religious, partly philosophical
and partly yogic. However, the cultural context of this form of teachings was
the 19th and 20th century paradigm of Western Modernity.
When MMY realized the limitations brought by this model and the limitations of
religious language here in the West he took a left turn. That divergence left
some of his teachers behind - Charlie Lutts being an example.
This is one reason that pointing to early religious language by MMY or SBS is
an inaccurate over-simplification.
As far as the “it is all a deceit” claimants, the two groups that are the most
antagonist and strident are the materialists and the religionists. Materialists
claim mantras are the mumbo formulas of hindoo gods and that the concept of
gods/god is a false idea propounded by power brokers to enslave the masses.
This is a truncated Marxist view popular among the half-educated.
Contrary to this, the fundamentalist religions claim that mantras are secret
demonic traps devised to enslave us to hindoo devils. This is the view of
true-believing adherents of the Abrahamic religions – Jews, Christians and
Muslims. This is not some fundamentalist diatribe from TV evangelicals. This
was the original view of Christians from the second century C.E. forward and
was used as an ideological propellant for killing polytheists after
Constantine’s ascent to Roman power.
What is obvious is that both groups are unable to rationally consider the
facts because they are ideologues entrenched in a priori conclusions. One
example of this is a clear demarcation about the difference between yoga and
religion. Materialists dismiss such an idea because yoga historically emerged
within in a Hindu cultural context. Semitic monotheists condemn this idea for
the same reason.
If we consider the role of yoga, it is apparent that most meditating
Westerners are functionally ignorant about the nature, range, depth and
complexity of yoga lineages - whether Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist or Jain. Most of
them do not know the difference between Vedic, Puranic and Tantric lineages of
practice. They also do not understand how these three streams developed and
then intertwined into Hindu temple rites. They don't know vidhi from vedi.*
(*vidhi is a specific method of puja. Vedi is the altar used in yajña. )
Even more surprising, most swamis and imported "yogis" are not Pandits,
Indologists, or Sanskritists. Very few are formally educated in the yoga
traditions of the Indian subcontinent. Most are only trained in asana, pranayam
and japa. A little bhakti here, a few Upanishad citations there and "om tat
sat" - I’m a guru.
Faced with this, most of us Westerners who meditate are at a disadvantage when
presented with claims that we are not educated to conceptualize within an
informed view.
To counter-point this misunderstanding, I am providing a short but
authoritative quotation from an impeccable Yogic source about the difference
between mantra practice in both yogic and devotional sadhana practice.
Baba Hari Dass (the upa-guru of Ram Dass)
On the difference between Mantra practice and Japa practice.
1. Mantra is the repetition of sounds or words which have power due to
the vibration of the sound itself.
2. Japa is the rhythmic repetition of a name of God.
It (Japa) consists of automatic Pranayama, concentration and meditation. The
main idea in doing Japa is to make the mind thoughtless. Then automatically
body consciousness disappears. If your body consciousness disappears, it means
your sadhana is going well. The body is the medium of sadhana and the body is
the hindrance in sadhana. Japa is a formal method of worshipping God. It should
be done privately and preferably with a mala, or rosary.
Silence Speaks: from the chalkboard of Baba Hari Dass, 1977 (my bolding).
*vidhi is a specific method of puja. Vedi is the altar used in yajna.
Baba Hari Dass is an impeccable yogin possessed of vairagya and dispossessed
of any agenda. He is the “yogin’s yogin”. My point is to call attention to an
alternate authoritative source - someone able to explain the distinction
between mantra-dhyana and mantra-japa. The key is to recognize that a mantra
can be used in meditation simply for its sound value, without any reference to
meaning. While this may seem over-obvious to TM and Sahaj Samadhi meditators,
this is what demarcates it from ordinary language.
Used in this way, mantric sound is part of the human sensorium but is
self-generated in the same way that speech is. This kind of bare sensoria is
non-conceptual and does not require analysis to be perceived. Bija mantras are
yogic tools for just this type of non-conceptual (nirvikalpa) direct cognition.
The reality is that MMY told us the truth about mantras and their proper yogic
use in TM. The cultural artifact that these critics use as proof is that
Indians use mantras for Japa to a hindu deity. This is just a datum of the
Indian mind set. No self-respecting “Hindu” conducts their life without a least
20-30 mantras on-hand at all times (except for Indian communists). TM/Sahaj
Samadhi meditators do not engage in such a practice, unless they choose to
engage in bhakti to a particular deva. Such a practice then becomes a mode of
worship rather than meditation.
When someone claims that TM meditation is by definition Hindu worship then
they are either misinformed, ignorant of basic definitions or just
simple-minded ideologues.
