Do we need to take Guru Updesha to chant Panchakshari, Dwadashakshari to get complete phalam of chanting?


To not chant because one has not the guru to teach properly is only an excuse by the mind to not do. If one starts and has a sincere heart, the guru will not be wanting, the guru will appear. For every step you make towards God, God makes 10 steps toward you. A mother does not love her child less because it can only say Ma and does not know how to say Mother. She herself will take the child and teach it how to say Mother properly if no one else does. What counts is sincerity of heart. Krishna says in the Gita (9.26) "Whosoever offers Me, with devotion, a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water-that I accept, the pious offering of the pure in heart."


You don't need upadesa to chant panchakshari (namah sivaya) but you do need upadesa to chant pranava panchakshari ( panchakshari appended to omkaara). No upadesa is needed for naama parayana/sankeertana. Anything with a beejakshara (such as Om etc.) requires upadesa by a guru.

  • You should cite sources. Feb 11 '15 at 15:19
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Source is mantra sastra which I am not about to recite here. This is getting a little exhausting. We are not speaking through our hats. These are authentic , sastra-related statements.
    – user1195
    Feb 11 '15 at 15:23
  • I'm sorry if I'm annoying you. It's just that answers on this site are supposed to be backed up with sources. The problem is that anyone can claim that their assertions are backed up by Shastra, even if they're not. You may not be talking through your hat, but other people may be talking through their hats. So there has to be some way for the reader to verify that your answer is correct. Feb 11 '15 at 15:29
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Rules for this particular SE need to be revised as Hinduism forbids the open revelation of certain esoteric matters such as mantras etc. And it is not that hard to discern false claims if they are being made. I have made my arguments on this matter. Do as you must.
    – user1195
    Feb 11 '15 at 15:41
  • Revision of site rules should be discussed in Meta. In any case, if your source is a Shastra that can't be revealed in public, then you should at least cite secondary sources, i.e. writings by others who have read the same Shastra and can confirm that the claims you're making are in there. Feb 12 '15 at 6:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .