What is the correct pronunciation of Rama in the mahamantra?
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Question from Seema Sarogi Mataji. I recently visited Kolkata and saw the devotees pronounce the Mahamantra Ramo while everywhere we write Rama. I being from Hindi speaking background always pronounce Ram.
Can you please elucidate on the pronunciation of the Mahamantra? The answer in the Chaitanya Charita Amrit, a verse is quoted by Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in his discussion with Vishwapuri where he says, Murkho vadati vishnaya, dheerho vadati vishnave, ubhayostu samampunyam, bhavagrahi janardana. So he's explaining Murkho vadati vishnaya. Normally words have their inflections in Sanskrit languages.
For example, in English also if I is to be made in the possessive it will become my and say you will become your but if I change I into Iyer instead of my or something like that it's a wrong grammatical inflection. So here the example is given that when the word Vishnu is to be inflected inflected means the form of the word is changed to adapt to the structure that is required within the context of a grammatical sentence. So the correct inflection for Vishnu will be Vishnaya.
Murkho vadati vishnaya, dheerho vadati vishnave. Like Vishnu becomes Vaishnav, so Vishnave. So the correct pronunciation would be Vishnave.
However, he's saying that Murkho vadati vishnaya, but people who are not so good at grammar they may feel that just as Krishna becomes Krishnaya similarly Vishnu will become Vishnaya. So here he is saying that Murkho vadati vishnaya, dheerho vadati vishnave, ubhayostu samampunyam. Actually in whichever way one pronounces the names, the punya that one gets, the spiritual credit that one gets, the punya can be material or it can be spiritual also.
So here this is bhakti related punya which one gets is samampunyam. It is equal, why? Bhavagrahi Janardhanam, because Lord Janardhan is bhavagrahi, he actually looks at the emotion of devotion that is there in the heart primarily. So therefore, the first principle to understand is that we don't have to get too caught up in the technicalities of the pronunciations.
There are now devotees all over the world and there are some countries, for example some areas of China and Russia especially, there in their vocabulary the word Ra is not there at all. So for them Ra becomes laam. Hare laam hare hare, ale laam hare laam, laam laam hare hare, hare krishna hare krishna, hare krishna, hare krishna, like that it becomes, krishna krishna So now it's hare, not hare, but bhavagrahi janardhanam.
Lord Krishna is ultimately seeing the heart. So just like in Bengali there is no word jo, so Yamuna becomes Yamuna over there. But that doesn't matter, certain languages and certain places may have certain characteristics.
The important thing is that actually the it is the relationship of the heart with Krishna that is expressed through the chanting of the Mahamantra or the other prayers that are offered. So at a broad level there is how one pronounces is not important. Now there are various inflections that happen for a word.
You there are, if you know Sanskrit and the grammar basically, there are various changes that can happen in the word and depending on the context again of the sentence. So is there any one grammatically correct form? Generally in the Devanagari, we write Ra Ma, so that's all that is. But the convention of rendering the Devanagari into English has evolved in such a way that what would what would literally seem to be Ra Ma becomes Ra Ma in English.
So now if we read Ra Ma from the Indian point of view, it would become Rama. Rama went there. But it's not Rama, it's Ram.
So that is the convention that has been adopted presently and it has been going on for several centuries. So Krishna becomes Krishna. So that A is not to be not to be pronounced loudly, not to be emphasized over there.
So Hare Ram, Hare Ram. It is per either the grammatical conventions of different languages or the cultural convention in the critical places. So there is, we don't have to bother too much about who is right and who is wrong.
The scriptures give us a standard version and the scriptures also tell us that the essence is the devotional aspect. Now in the name of devotion, it is not that we out of our carelessness mispronounce and say that because I have devotion it doesn't matter. Now so we try to pronounce it properly.
Whenever we are chanting the Mahamantra, we should chant Hare Ram, Hare Ram, Ram Ram, Hare Hare. So the pronunciation is wrong. Krishna, Rama.
So that has to be clear. Now sometimes especially during kirtans, in particular terms, Rama may become Rama or Ramo. That is fine because there are certain what is called as artistic licenses or musical licenses that are allowed and that is how certain devotees are chanting.
That is no, there is no need to become unduly worked up about it. The important principle to understand is that there is a standard scriptural way of pronouncing and there is also a scriptural caveat, a scriptural warning or caution is that it is not that the correct pronunciation gives us greater devotion than the incorrect pronunciation. So it's not so much of a correct or incorrect.
It's more of a way of expressing devotion to the Lord that matters. So are the form like Ramo or Ram as it's sometimes said in Bengali or Rama as it is said in English, R-A-M-A. Are they wrong? No, they're just linguistic conventions that have evolved in particular ways and if certain devotees are habituated to adopting those linguistic conventions, there is no need to take up any cudgels for that.
It is not an issue to go on campaign about. It is just to recognize that there are, there is some scope for linguistic variations within the process of devotion service and we focus on the way that the scriptures give us and the way we are comfortable with. Thank you.