[Advaita-l] Namaskar, please .I really need help for some confused

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Ajit Krishnan <ajit.krishnan at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> namaste,
>
> > I don't know why you think that the meaning is forced and unnatural.
>
>
> Note: the electronic text is riddled with mistakes, but they don't
> hamper readibility too much.
>
> Let's take "hare kRShNa"
>
> Meaning 1: he hare, he kRShNa.
> Meaning 2: ha = shiva, r = devi, e = sUnya, r = vigraha || k =
> kAmArUpiNii, R = kAminI vaiShNavii, Sh = 16 candramA kalA, N =
> nirvRtti ||
>
> Of the two, I find meaning 1 to be straightforward and more natural.
> That is my perogative. If you find meaning 2 (from the rAdhA tantra)
> to be straighforward and more natural, so be it. I have no quarrel.
> Either way, trying to claim any particular meaning for a mantra to be
> the "real meaning" is, IMO, a useless pursuit.

If you don't like the meaning (ha = Siva etc.) of the mantra ( hare Krishna
...) that the source ( Radha Tantra ) tells you, you should for another
source ( kalisantarana  upanishad ) that gives a mantra ( hare rama ... )
with the meaning ( he krishna etc. ) close to what you like. You can't
negotiate with the author of Radha Tantra to change the meaning :)