Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

In what way was Swami Chimayananda different from the ideolgy of Srila Prabhupada, if at all?

[Guest guest]

explain his philosophy and we will see

[Guest guest]

Ha Ha Ha - would that question arise in that case - i better wait for someone to come up with a convincing answer - cause I need to know that before the initiation with a disciplic guru - be it the Iskon - Gaudiya Math or the Chinmaya Mission

[Guest guest]

this is the right system, the real dialogue is between you and me, not between gaudya or chinmayananda

 

the purpose is to show philosophic differences on sensible and important subjects cared by the one who makes a question, not to destroy fanatically other sects or groups

 

 

I need to know that before the initiation with a disciplic guru - be it the Iskon - Gaudiya Math or the Chinmaya Mission

--you need to learn the basics of the soul's nature, the god's conception and the guru tattva. These two groups (gaudya and chinmaya) have opposite ideas on these subjects

 

better if you ask question on basic matters, then you will easily spot the differences

 

[Guest guest]

In what way can we distinct our mother from the father?

Jnana and bhakthi paths are complimentary to each other.

One without other will certainly fails to lead us to Lord's

divine abode.

 

[sumedh 0]

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

 

 

In what way can we distinct our mother from the father?

Jnana and bhakthi paths are complimentary to each other.

One without other will certainly fails to lead us to Lord's

divine abode.

 

 

 

Nowadays, different philosophers tend to have different definitions of jnana so could you please specify what you mean by it. Recently the trend has been to equate jnana with advaitism which is completely at odds with bhakti, so in that sense they are not complementary. To be a true devotee perfect knowledge is of course necessary.

Consider, for example, the commentary on Vedanta Sutra (sutra means big philosophy in small number of words, so cannot be understood without authorized commentary) by Sri Vyasadeva Himself which is Srimad Bhagavatam, and that by those of advaita schools including Sri Shankaracharya. They are worlds apart. So probably you know why i ask this question.

 

Actually, i read some of their writings which are essentially advaita interpretations or Bhagavad Gita and other scriptures. His guru Swami Sivananda is credited with synthesizing the four yoga paths (karma, jnana, bhakti, raja), all of which in his words lead to the same goal i.e. union with Brahman or God (though he seems to have more preference for raja yoga i.e. ashtanga yoga). Clearly, this is completely at odds with what Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and all other acharyas preach.

[Guest guest]

I went to their temple in Anaheim, CA.

 

The don't accept Lord Krishna as the supreme. They accept Lord Shiva as the supreme.

 

They read the Bhagavad-gita but ignore the main points when Lord Krishna says he is the supreme.

 

If you want my opinion, they are ignorant to the truth.

 

Kamlesh Patel

Gitamrta.org

[Guest guest]

Both these gaints were in a different plane of understanding and hence difficult to find what was the difference. One difference would be Chinmaya was very very clear that the world is big enough to have different views like 5 fingers onour hands are different. Where as Prabhupada was talking of a One God Krishan who is the ultimate. I am not anywhere near to say who is right. but this was a core difference. Chinmaya used to chant Krishna Krishna while in Bangalore and chant On Nama Shivaya in Mumbai ashram....

[Guest guest]

"Both these gaints were in a different plane of understanding.."

 

prabhupada is a saint....

[Guest guest]

my understanding of swami chinmayananda's philosophy is that God is One and all forms and names are His, that is, Krishna and Shiva are the same and therefore it doesn't matter which you focus on or which name you use because God is God, they say it depends on you, which ever form and name you are most attracted to, having said that, bhagavad gita is considered the most important text as well as the upanishads and srimad bhagavatam, the temples i know have both Krishna and Shiva...

[Guest guest]

confirmed that chinmayananda is a huge rascal

[Guest guest]

anyone who loves god deeply is not a rascal, be more tolerant and respect others, you may not agree and most of here follow srila prabhupada, but don't go around calling people rascals, you are no better than anyone else

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

Srila Prabhupada said anyone who says I am god, or he is god, and so is he, and he and so on is a rascal.

 

chinmayananda is a big rascal who preaches from the Bhagavad-gita but worships Shiva as the supreme, not Krishna.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Jnana and bhakthi paths are complimentary to each other.

One without other will certainly fails to lead us to Lord's

divine abode."

 

Bhakti is the summit of all Yoga, all other forms of Yoga are incomplete. When Bhakti is practiced, all other forms of Yoga are automatically fulfilled, therefore, nothing can complement the path of Bhakti.

[Guest guest]

I would have been very happy if you provided insights on why you think Krishna is the ultimate and you may be right who knows. But it looks like you do not have convincing answers hence you are resorting to name slandering.

 

Prabhupada has excelled in printing the true form of Bhakti (Ekagra bhakti) Wheres Chinmaya has been excellent in printing the true form of Jnana (Nethi Nethi....) they are like 2 forms or routes. YOu need to have both to be anywhere near the reality. Too much Jnana will make you a headweight person, you need deep bhakti to recognise that it is because of the wish of Supreame you got this jnana.....See both are important..... Vishnu and Shiva are 2 eyes tell me which one is important to you.... are'nt both....

[sumedh 0]

Hare Krishna

 

 

I would have been very happy if you provided insights on why you think Krishna is the ultimate and you may be right who knows.

 

 

 

I think Kamleshji already said it: the whole Bhagavad Gita from which they claim to preach is the proof. Actually, the onus is on yourself to prove that everyone is God when you support such interpretations of Vedic texts; naturally i can see that i am supreme in no respect and if you claim to be so then you need to show much much more than some ambiguous statements whose meaning cannot be known by academic translations.

 

 

Prabhupada has excelled in printing the true form of Bhakti (Ekagra bhakti) Wheres Chinmaya has been excellent in printing the true form of Jnana (Nethi Nethi....) they are like 2 forms or routes.

 

 

 

For the Absolute, there cannot be two routes which are odds at one another. There may be paths which seem superficially to be different, but when two paths are speaking of contradictory destinations only one of them (or neither) can be possibly true. You said Jnana as in Neti-Neti; in the context of Bhakti this is partial (i.e. misrepresentation of) jnana or in other words ajnana because in the realm of Absolute jnana cannot but be complete. Bhakti includes jnana, as the other guest said, but when you say neti-neti it contradicts bhakti (and indeed itself but that is a topic for a separate thread maybe). You think that bhakti is some emotional state, so you have no idea of the actual philosophy.

 

You seem to have been offended by the term "rascal", but Srila Prabhupada has used it to describe everyone in this material realm because they turned away from God. Hence, of course, claiming oneself to be God is pinnacle of that "rascaldom".

[Guest guest]

For a moment lets accept Prabhupad's philosophy is correct. How can you then call one of Krishna's creation as a Rascal. I am not at all comfortable with this concept of Krishna is the ultimate and all other Gods are his secondary Gods. What difference does this view of thinking have compared to Islam and Christianity. I can accept these religions following and propagating these thoughts as they came out of a requirement which was either political or economic. But Sanathana Dharma never came out of any of these necessities. So it should stay all inclusive rather than calling other person's view as wrong or calling this person a Rascal... I also know out of your ignorance you might be doing this thats also OK. But till we really realise the ultimate truth both of us might need to keep exhibiting our Ignorances.... (I am Gopal380)

[sumedh 0]

Dear Gopal380

Hare Krishna

 

You are not comfortable with the chastisement from the Lord or Spiritual Masters or scriptures who want us to wake up from our slumber and ignorance. Lord Krishna says:

 

Bhagavad-Gita 9.11

 

avajananti mam mudha

manushim tanum asritam

param bhavam ajananto

mama bhuta-mahesvaram

 

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

 

 

 

He calls the persons lacking in knowledge as mudhas or asses.

 

Bhagavad-Gita 7.15

 

na mam dushkritino mudhah

prapadyante naradhamah

mayayapahrita-jnana

asuram bhavam asritah

 

Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.

 

 

 

He further calls those who do not surrender to Him as asses and lowest among the mankind.

 

There are unlimited number of such quotes in all the vedic scriptures. We want things easily, and despite these stern words we just want to somehow spend and waste this precious human life. So by the misuse of the minute independence the jiva forgetting his constitutional position has become a rascal. Why? Because he thinks that he can become the enjoyer, that he is the owner of things, that he is independent etc. when he is really the eternal transcendentally enjoyed, all that he surveys belongs to God and the only correct use of our independence is to be situated in our constitutional position. Suppose you give a house and other things to your son who want his share from your property, but he starts to think that the house is his and ignores you completely. It will then be only an illegal occupation stemming from ignorance and arrogance. Our position is much worse because in this world the son will become "independent" at some point, but in the transcendental realm everyone is eternally dependent on God being His part and parcel. In his pure form every jiva is godly, but covered by ignorance and egotism every jiva who has come to this material world is only its (meaning its false self or non-self viz. body, mind, ego, intellect) rascaldom.

Even Acharya Shankar chastises those who do not surrender to Krishna in his famous bhaja-govindam.

 

You said:

 

I am not at all comfortable with this concept of Krishna is the ultimate and all other Gods are his secondary Gods.

 

 

 

The distinction is five-fold: vishnu-tattva, shakti-tattva, siva-tattva, jiva-tattva and jada-tattva. The vishnu-tattva refers to the same Personality of God as different plenary expansions, and all the other categories (barring jada-tattva, of course) are eternally His servitors, and that is their true enjoyment -- being connected with the complete Whole.

 

 

What difference does this view of thinking have compared to Islam and Christianity.

 

 

 

We analyze the mode of worship rationally and not sentimentally. We understand the proyajana-tattva (ultimate destination) of these faiths as pointing in the correct direction i.e. servitorship to God, though there are errors in abhideya (means of worship; e.g. animal killing) and sambandha-tattva (philosophy and His relation with jivas/creation). Moreover, our aim should be to become a pure devotee in this very lifetime and not some after-life fantasy of heaven. The heaven of sense enjoyment in vedic philosophy is itself a temporary place.

 

 

But Sanathana Dharma never came out of any of these necessities. So it should stay all inclusive rather than calling other person's view as wrong or calling this person a Rascal

 

 

 

This is only a politically correct statement. In India all kinds of philosophy flourished including Charvaka, but that does not mean it is part of the Sanatana-Dharma. It will be better to first know the meaning of Sanatana-Dharma; it means the eternal function of the soul. In a concise way because the jiva is an anu-chit (infinitesemal-consciousness) of that vibhu-chit (infinite-consciousness) its eternal function is to render loving devotional service to the vibhu-chit. Any philosophy which is in line with this follows sanatana-dharma else it is not. We follow the accepted acharyas and not all kinds of gurus who will formulate according to their whims or "realizations". What value have these "realizations"; we read that even Shukracharya was such a great yogi and had such powers and "realizations" unimaginable by today's gurus but he was completely wrong.

Our accepted jagad-guru acharyas are: Shakaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Nimbarkacharya and Vishnu-Swami. Save and apart from Shankaracharya all the others are vaishnava masters. None of these acharyas say that follow any concoction and you will reach the ultimate destination; all of them engaged in extensive and exhaustive philosophical debates to establish their philosophy. Do you think that they were fools and wasting their time?

 

Finally here is what Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad-Gita (accepted by all as the ultimate pramana):

 

 

Bhagavad-Gita 9.25

"Those who worship the demigods will take birth among the demigods; those who worship the ancestors go to the ancestors; those who worship ghosts and spirits will take birth among such beings; and those who worship Me will live with Me."

 

Bhagavad-Gita 17.4

"Men in the mode of goodness worship the demigods; those in the mode of passion worship the demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits."

 

 

 

He never says that worship anyone and anything, still you will reach the ultimate destination. I hope you will understand that Krishna has higher "realizations" than all those who have made sanatana-dharma appear the hodge-podge it is today. He calls the worship of others as indirectly His worship but highly improper, because such worship will give only temporary results and the worshipper will not even gain sambandha-jnana (relationship with God) thus his efforts will truly be fruitless.

 

And finally the Blessed Lord says:

 

Bhagavad-Gita 18.66

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

mokshayishyami ma sucah

 

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

 

 

 

The dear Lord ends with this order and says "do not fear". All the vaishnava acharyas only tell how to execute this order of the Lord correctly. That is what all the bhakti shastras are about.

[Guest guest]

How can you then call one of Krishna's creation as a Rascal.

--the term rascal has nothing to do with our eternal nature of spiritual souls, but with the designation that we give to ourselves in this material world. So the soul who now lives in the body called Swami Chinmayananda is a servant of Sri bhagavan, but he's playing a role of a rascal offender of sri bhagavan himself. To learn we have to discriminate wich source is good and wich source is bad

 

I am not at all comfortable with this concept of Krishna is the ultimate and all other Gods are his secondary Gods

--krsna and gods are very confortable with it. In the spiritual world and the universe there's a huge exchange of transcendental love and krsna, being the most humble, because god is the best on every field, feels himself the servant of all creation, included his companions in administrating the universe.

So there's no envy.. all is bliss

 

What difference does this view of thinking have compared to Islam and Christianity

--we cannot change sanatana dharma because someone feels that accuracy and doctrinal purity makes us too close to christianism or islamism.

If you think that some positions are philosophically not correct use logic and vedic science to demonstrate it..

 

But till we really realise the ultimate truth both of us might need to keep exhibiting our Ignorances....

--to realize the absolute truth we have to be exact, accurate and discriminative.. and to follow an authentic disciplic line. We have to be peaceful and tolerant, but if we are in the mood that everyone is right it is like following nothing

 

another thing is that i cannot be tolerant with mayavadis and self proclamed god and not tolerant with sri krsna bhagavan who is insulted by such people.. krsna is our best friend, it is not tolerable when he's heavily insulted by such offenders.. let them tolerate insults, not sri krsna

[sumedh 0]

Hare Krishna

please accept my dandavat pranam

 

 

another thing is that i cannot be tolerant with mayavadis and self proclamed god and not tolerant with sri krsna bhagavan who is insulted by such people..

 

 

 

In the original advaita theory Ishvara is actually subject to maya (though above normal conditioned souls) while the advaitins would reach beyond maya at least after death (though some advaitins now have the concept of jivan-mukta also), so they would be more than Krishna...

[Guest guest]

I am very happyy that two or 3 of you have given exhaustive quotations from the scriptures to quote that Krishna is the Ultimate. I want to bring to your notice that I can never be a person who thinks Low of Krishna...It is like if I have 2 eyes I belive one is Vishnu and one is Shiva. If you guys think I am against Krishna then you are doing a major mistake.

 

To the point of our discussion ......... I find it Illogical to think of a Form limited personality frame (Birth and Passing away of a Body like Krishna's) as a supreme being who encompasses all other Gods and Goddesses this I think is prepostorous.

 

Just because you all can quote from Bhagavad Gita does'nt enpower you to go around calling people as rascals.....

 

IN reply to your comment

 

There have been extensive studies by Vishnavaites and Sankara is the only one to oppose it, my comments are.....

 

Look at the level we have been able to contribute to philosophical discussion and look at Sankara who in a small portion of 32 years could produce so much literary work that has stayed for almost 2000 years..... Dont you think this could not have been done by an ordiniary human being. I feel humbled by the amount of energy and viveka of Sankara and if you are a vedantic student you would too...I am not saying that you need to accept them on book value, as this is against Gnanya Marga...

 

Reply to ......

i cannot be tolerant with mayavadis and self proclamed god and not tolerant with sri krsna bhagavan who is insulted by such people.. krsna is our best friend, it is not tolerable when he's heavily insulted by such offenders....

 

This is utter nonsense None of the followers of Sankara would insult Krishna...You are seeing followers of Sankara with your Jaundice eyes. Sankara is also never against Bhakti. In his Vivekachoodamani he specifically indicates that in addition to Viveka, Vairagya and other qualities in a man he also needs an Ardent Bhakti of his choosen God to gain Bliss, if he doesn't he is not fit to gain bliss.... Please note Krishna's personality is Vast and Huge and each one has been given grace by Rama or Krishna or Shiva to percieve Krishna's personality and build a relationship that is based on his own interpretation of the scriptures. We have no rights to condemn or euologice anyones thinking on this. I find we still need a combination of Bhakti that you guys very ardently follow and a great amount of shravana Mananna and nithidyasa which is eloborated by Sankara.... Ireally have no hard feelings on you when you spit out venom on me by telling me you cannot accept....Youe Quote....

 

i cannot be tolerant with mayavadis and self proclamed god and not tolerant with sri krsna bhagavan who is insulted by such people.. krsna is our best friend, it is not tolerable when he's heavily insulted by such offenders.. let them tolerate insults, not sri krsna

 

.... By doing this you are indicating that followers like you have missed one of the basic traits Krishna indicates ....Forgiveness...Dont you think you need to cultivate this.....

[imported_yasodanandana 0]

"This is utter nonsense None of the followers of Sankara would insult Krishna.."

 

yes his real followers are Krsna Devotees, he said "Bhaja Govindam" (worship govinda, stupid intellectuals) as ultimate instruction.. that's bhakti..

 

no one is speaking of condemning or forgiving, it is philosophy.. debates are useful and legitimate, and to worship everything is like worshiping nothing

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

How does it matter what the difference in their thinking was? Both paths are to the same ultimate goal; one takes you there on the road of self mastery(chinmaya), and the other through divine love and bhakti(ISKON). It should be noted that the Chinmaya method leads to bhakti in one form or another in any given lifetime, and likewise, iskon leads to self mastery when fully practised- so no one gains anything but a concieted view when comparing their own path to the other.

 

Let us be more tolerant and see bhagavan shree krishna in everyone!

 

 

[imported_subuddhi 0]

Dear Devotees,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I have been reading the discussions. They are quite stimulating and few devotees are writing after in depth studies.

 

I would like to request all devotees to maintain a decorum while arguing about some point. I agree that calling someone rascal will not help our cause. Srila Prabhupada was an acharya and he sometimes called people rascal - the purport of his using this word was to emind the person of his fallacy - the fallacy of being envious of Krsna.

 

We are not at his level and we have to win over hearts and souls so that they also get a chance to become Krishna Conscious. Our name calling will keep away even the modest souls as people do not like to get invloved in a verbal brawl.

 

Our philosophy is so strong that simply by stating it as it is an intelligent person will understand - by the shear logic of it. A hard core person will not budge from his position no matter what we say.

 

Lord Krishna Himself says that we should not propogate this knowledge to the one who is envious of Him. It is better to say "hare Krishna" to him and move forward.

 

Having said this I would like to share my own experience with Swami Chinmayananda and his followers.

 

I used to attend his lectures when I was young and in college (now I am 59 years old and in our movement since long). His lectures used to attract me for the brilliant vocabulary and fluent English - and of course the stories and jokes. I attended at least 3 full sessions on different chapters. I was impressed but it did not help me in my spiritual pursuit one bit.

 

Later on when I came in contact with devotees and started attending Sunday Feasts - mainly for delicious prasadam - I got a little taste of Bhakti. This was followed by hearing some lectures and reading small books written by Srila Prabhupada. Although the English was not so Shakesperean or Oxfordian as spoken by Swami Chinmayananda it made a big impact in my life and it transformed me completely.

 

The more I read and heard the more I was convinced about the spiritual benefits of devotional service. More than anything I found it very practical.

 

I appeal to all those who have not yet tsated it please come out of your ivory towers of so-called knowledge (the absolute truth is to surrender to Lord Krishna) and taste this rasa. I can bet that you will forget everything else.

 

Chanting of the holy names and specially the Hare Krishna Mahamantra will change your lives - inside out! Thats the yuga mantra and not so imperical, impractical, dry, speculative knowledge.

 

Ignorance is no bliss - but ignorance of some knowldge which makes us proud and prudent is definitely bliss.

 

Thank you very much and May Lord Krishna shower His mercy on all of us.

 

Your servant,

Subuddhi Krishna das

[Guest guest]

When Shankara said Bhaja Govindam he was actually referring to his guru who was also called Govinda. See the disciplic line below:

 

«From Narayana, to the lotus-born [brahma], to Vasistha, to Shakti and to his son Parashara, to Vyasa, to Shuka, to great Gaudapada, to Govinda-Yogindra and to his disciple Sri Shankaracarya, then to his disciples Padmapada, Hastamalaka, Totraka and Vartikakara [suresvara], to these our Masters we pay our respectful obeisance now and forever».

 

Clarification should be made as to what what mantra means.My understanding is that it does not mean that by repeating which comes liberation. It means that by thinking about which comes liberation. By repeating Krsna Krsna Krsna nothing will happen if you are Kans, it will only cause you fear. To the Christian evangelist the name of Krsna is like a knife, only to the devotee it is bliss.

 

A lot of the bickering supposed followers of these two groups engage in is merely because each does not really know what the other means. Isvara is not equatable with Krsna. Krsna is above Isvara. The unmanifest is not the ultimate in Advaita either. Krsna is beyond both the manifest and the unmanifest. The Advaita philosophy never says I am god, it says God is me. the difference is great! I am god is the biggest possible ego. God is me is the destruction of ego. It says there is in reality no ME it is only GOD only KRSNA. In the words of Paramhansa Yogananda "It is he that has worked as Mukunda, it is he that has worked as Yogananda and it is he that is working as Paramhansa". As Bhagavan Krsna says.. Two ideas keep man in complete bondage and are responsible for his complete liberation. The ideas of "I" and "Mine" are responsible for his complete bondage and the absence of these are his complete liberation. You can also find in Galatians : I have been crucified with the Christ and I no longer live but it is Christ that lives in me.

 

Whether burnt in the fires of jnana or drowned in the ocean of bhakti, the death of the ego is the important thing. It so happens though that in this age the society has "advanced" so that knowledge brings with it great arrogance. It is very important that Bhagavan says in bhagavad gita that this knowledge shall never be given to the non-devotees. Bhagavan also says the same thing in the Vijnana Bhairava tantra where he teaches Parvati 112 methods of absorption through ordinary events. This is for the very reason of arrogance setting in with knowledge if one has not been properly instructed. Wrong ideas sprout from grossly misinterpretting scripture because people are reading it without proper instruction. Shankara also says, You may be a great learned scholar, but inquiry into the scripture all by yourself, never do.

 

Undoubtedly, and unfortunately even bhakti is becoming contaminated now with people thinking they are better because they follow bhakti.

 

Well thats all for now. and remember there is no I in Krsna