Anyone familiar with Paramhamsa Yogananda?

[Guest guest]

I'm reading his Autobiography of a Yogi. It's really an interesting read, but I find the book only lightly brushes upon the Hindu deities, and really focuses more on Christianity and what Christ really meant.

 

Not enough about the Bhagavad-Gita or Krishna or Rama. Also, he unfortunately labels these divine avatars as prophets, yet prophets and avatars are two different things as far as most other religions are concerned at least.

[Guest guest]

Yes, thanks for your question. Before I decided to become a disciple of my spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada in 1975, I had previously read Yogananda's Autiobiogrphy of a Yogi. As a teenager, I found it to be an adventurous book, and was my first introduction to aspects of Vedic culture, but as you explain nicely, there was some confusion in the philosophy for me regarding prophets and avataras. This is because Yogananda is influenced by the Mayavadi philosophy of impersonalism which states that Lord Krsna is just another divine manifestation of the all-pervading divine energy, which manifests in many ways.This is considered to be an offensive mentality, according to the Vaisnava philosophy. Actually , it is the other way around, from the Supreme Energetic Source, Sri Krsna, all energy is emanating. This philosophy was first introduced by Sripad Sankaracarya, and is a deviation of the original , pure Vaisnava philosophy of the Vedas, given by Lord Krsna in the Bhagavad gita as it is.

 

When Srila Prabhupada took a walk through Yogananda's garden in L.A. , one time in the 70s, he remarked that Yogananda was a good "shopkeeper", or buinessman, in the sense that he had statues of Christ, Chandi, etc... in his garden , equating everyone on the same level. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the incarnation of Lord Krsna for this present Kali yuga age , stated taht we are simultaneously one with God, in quality , yet different in quantity. Lord Krsna is sat cit ananda vigraha, He has an eternal form comprised of bliss and knowledge, and as a tiny soul, part of Him, we also have those qualities, but in minute quantity. The son can never be equal to the "Father", yet , the son or daughter, can be "one" with their Father, by having and carrying out the same will of their father. They can never take the place of their father.Similarly, as soon as you hear some self-proclaimed guru saying that he is an avatara of Krsna, then immediately a red light should go on, and he should be rejected as bogus.All of Krsna's avataras are predicted in the Vedic sastras ( scriptures), thousands of years in advance.

 

In a conversation at John Lennon's home,in Ascot, in1969, Srila Prabhupada had this response to make regarding Yogananda :

 

JOHN: I've also read part of another translation ( of the Bhagavad gita ) by Paramahansa Yogananda.

 

PRABHUPADA: Yes, all these men take advantage of Krishna's book to lend an air of authority to their own speculations. Vivekananda has done it, Sri Aurobindo has done it, Dr. Radhakrishan has done it, Mahatma Gandhi has done it. Thousands of them have done it. But why do they use Bhagavad-gita as the vehicle for their own ideas? "

 

Prabhupada explains earlier in this conversation because it lends an air of credibility to Yogananda's and others interpertation, even though it misses the conclusion of the Bhagavad gita which is that we must surrender toLord Krsna, become His devotee, and give up all other "paths".

 

The following is an explanation to further clarify the deviant position taken today by Yogananda, Satya Sai Baba, the Maharishi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, and dozens of other people who are misguiding people by this incomplete teaching of Mayavada Impersonalism, as opposed to the personal realization of Bhakti(devotion) to Lord Krsna which is the conclusion of all the Vedic literatures.....

 

Mayavada Philosophy

This philosophy was established by Sripad Sankaracarya, in order to refute Buddhistic doctrine.

 

The Mayavadis believe that the Supreme Truth is brahman or spiritual energy which is unlimited, without form, qualities, or activity. According to Mayavada philosophy, all living entities are one with brahman, but at present, are covered by illusion, and therefore temporarily seperated from brahman. When the illusion is gone, the living entity becomes again one with the brahman and loses its identity.

The main idea is that everything is God, meaning that you too are God but somehow or other you forgot that you were God.

 

Out of this perspective, the Mayavadis neither accept the form nor the personality of Krsna as absolute but as creation of maya. Therefore, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu called the Mayavadis the biggest offenders of Krsna.

 

Mayavada-philosophy is also spread under the name "Vedanta-philosophy". The majority of all western philosophers (if they are not dogmatic followers of the Bible) who are studying Indian culture and philosophy also fall into this category because they do not differentiate between the higher, spiritual energy, and the lower, material energy. They do not have a proper understanding of the transcendent nature of God.

 

Since people in general do not have sufficient information about the transcendental form of God, they are easily influenced by Mayavada philosophy. Whenever we meet people who accept the Vedas we will find that it is not so difficult to establish the Personality of Godhead on the basis of sastra. Since the majority of people are neither interested in any proofs from the sastra and don't recognize sastra as such, we have to establish Vaisnava philosophy on the basis of logic. There are some fatal defects in Mayavada philosophy which we should be able to recognize when confronted with it or otherwise have to deal with the subject:

 

1. Since we possess individuality, it is not logical that our ultimate source doesn't possess individuality. Since we can normally observe that personality is superior to an impersonal energy, we can conclude that personality is superior to impersonal energy. Since the Vedanta sutra explains that the Absolute Truth is the source of all existence, it must also be the source of personality and possess personality.

 

2. The Mayavadis say that the brahman is manifested in a personal form in this material world. How can something personal be manifested from something impersonal? Where do we have an experience of such a phenomena? Lord Krsna explains in Bg 7:24 that this theory is extremely illogical and indicates a lack of intelligence.

 

3. It is said that brahman is unchangeable. How then can it split into different living entities within the material world? And why should it do that? In Bhagavad-gita, Lord Krsna explains (15:7) that the living entities are eternal parts and parcels of the Supreme and states than individuality is an eternal principle (Bg 2:12).

 

4. If we were all God, why is there so much suffering and ignorance in the world? Also, if we say that we are God but just temporarily covered by illusion, then illusion would be more powerful than God, which doesn't make any sense.

 

5. The speculation that Krsna's body is material clearly indicates a complete misunderstanding regarding the transcendental appearance and nature of Krsna. Krsna's body does not consist of matter and contains unlimited, varied energies and attracts even liberated personalities, who are free from material attachments. (SB 1.7.10)

 

6. Reality according to Mayavada philosophy is beyond material form and duality. But they are erring in the premise that there is no spiritual form or variety. The negation of these facts is a materialistic concept and doesn't provide us any information about spiritual reality.

 

7. The desire to become one with God is called the "last snare of maya". Because the Mayavadis got frustrated with their attempt to become the supreme enjoyer in this material world, they want to become one with the Supreme. This desire is illusory because the soul is by constitution Krsna's servant. The Srimad Bhagavatam(10:2:32) explains that the misconception of the impersonalists is caused by an impure intelligence and that consequently their realizations are not ultimate and they are thus forced to fall down again to the material platform.

 

8. The material world is not false ("brahma satyam, jagan mithya" is one of their favourite slogans)/ because the material world originates in the Absolute Truth, it is real but temporary. However, the belief that the material world is permanent is false-in other words the material world is real but temporary.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

are advaitist Hindus, and not Vaishnava.

 

Just wondering, what is your view on yogis and yoga in general?

 

In any case, I do think Yogananda was TRAINED to appeal to the West by use of Christian symbols and philosophy. That was his purpose. From his book, it seems he was being groomed throughout his life to go to the West and preach Hinduism in a way that Westerners would understand it.

 

As for Krishna himself, it seems as if you believe there's only ONE name he goes by and that is Krishna. Then what about Yahweh for Jews and Jehovah for Christians? Who are those gods then?

 

Couldn't the Krishna avatar be simply the purest incarnation of the Lord himself, and yet the name itself is irrelevant?

 

Also, didn't the Vedas discuss two aspects of Brahman? Sirguna and Nirguna. That sirguna came out of nirguna Brahman, and then the world was manifest by sirguna Brahman?

 

But if you even acknowledge the presence of nirguna Brahman you believe it is nirguna out of sirguna Brahman, and that sirguna Brahman's name is Krishna?

[Guest guest]

From his book, it seems he was being groomed throughout his life to go to the West and preach Hinduism in a way that Westerners would understand it.

•••fortunately westerners can understand more that this without compromises

 

As for Krishna himself, it seems as if you believe there's only ONE name he goes by and that is Krishna. Then what about Yahweh for Jews and Jehovah for Christians? Who are those gods then?

••being us gaudya vaishnavas we believe that any authentic name of god is valid. Krsna has a preminence because krsna's personality is the one from wich all the others are emanated

 

Couldn't the Krishna avatar be simply the purest incarnation of the Lord himself, and yet the name itself is irrelevant?

••for gaudya vaishnavas there's not a god who takes the krsna's aspect or form, but god has already an eternal sat cit ananda form and his name is krsna. Said this, in spiritual realm, reality and definition are the same thing. So the name is relevant, because the name of god is god himself

 

That sirguna came out of nirguna Brahman, and then the world was manifest by sirguna Brahman?

••for us is the opposite... nirguna brahman is less complete than saguna brahman, nirguna has not features, variety, so he cannot emanate them. So saguna brahman, param brahman, krsna, vishnu is the person who emanates nirguna brahman

 

and that sirguna Brahman's name is Krishna?

••saguna brahman is manifested in infinite forms.. varaha, maha vishnu, matsya, narasimha and so on.. krsna is the supreme among these infinite manifestations, the source of all sources

[Guest guest]

Still haven't answered by question on yogis and yoga in general. What is your opinion of this, since most yogis that I have heard about express the mayavadi philosphy? Are there even any yogis that believe Krishna is the Supreme and that sirguna brahman is above nirguna brahman?

 

Also, here are a few suppositions for you, I'd be interested in hearing your arguments for these:

 

What if, by nirguna brahman, it is meant that nirguna brahman has ALL qualities and is thus able to manifest as whatever it so desires. It has no distinct qualities, and sirguna brahman is the manifestation of those distinct qualities?

 

What if sirguna brahman does come out of nirguna brahman, and sirguna brahman is Krishna himself? What if sirguna brahman is in charge of one universe, while the other infinite manifestations of sirguna brahman that have emanated from nirguna brahman are in charge of OTHER universes?

 

You say that qualities cannot come from no qualities, essentially. Well, my supposition is that maybe they don't literally mean NO qualities, and it is meant that nirguna brahman possesses all qualities and no distinct qualities

 

Also, since you say qualities cannot come from no qualities, what did Krishna come from? He may be sat, cit, ananda, but even so, there must have been some beginning right? How could Krishna have always existed?

 

Another question I have is: it seems vaishnavas take the Bhagavad-Gita quite literally, and consider it as the absolute truth. Why is that? There are a number of scriptures out there that say different things, even within the Hindu tradition.

 

Do the Vedas say nirguna brahman came out of sirguna brahman, or vice versa? If sirguna came out of nirguna according to the vedas, why do you believe it's the other way?

 

 

Please don't take offense, I'm simply curious and would like to consider your perspective.

 

However, I also would like to say I don't find Yogananda to be that egoistic, nor have I found in any of his writings that he considers himself LITERALLY God. He simply says he is a part of Brahman, as we all supposedly are.

 

One more question though: If we are all different, fundamentally, then how do you explain the yogi siddhis that Yogananda and other yogis talk about? Such as being able to read other people's minds, tell their future, or the ability to materialize palaces and stuff?

[Guest guest]

Still haven't answered by question on yogis and yoga in general. What is your opinion of this, since most yogis that I have heard about express the mayavadi philosphy? Are there even any yogis that believe Krishna is the Supreme and that sirguna brahman is above nirguna brahman?

..yoga means union with the absolute.. so there's many people who think that the absolute is personal.. krsna/vishnu.. the are called bhakti yogi, vaishnavas

 

What if, by nirguna brahman, it is meant that nirguna brahman has ALL qualities

..nir means NO and guna means QUALITY.. so nirguna cannot be considered full of qualities.. if nirguna has all qualities he's saguna and among the qualities he has the one of the personality. So the brahman with qualities and personality is param brahman sri krsna/vishnu

 

What if sirguna brahman does come out of nirguna brahman, and sirguna brahman is Krishna himself?

..the name krsna means the all attractive. And from what attraction comes? from qualities.. so it is not possible that the one who is supremely attractive because he has all qualities, comes from something with no qualities... NIR-GUNA brahman

 

Well, my supposition is that maybe they don't literally mean NO qualities, and it is meant that nirguna brahman possesses all qualities and no distinct qualities

.. a quality is the variety... who has all the qualities cannot miss the variety

 

Also, since you say qualities cannot come from no qualities, what did Krishna come from?

..he's not coming, hes eternal personality of godhead.. no start no end

 

He may be sat, cit, ananda, but even so, there must have been some beginning right?

..if he's SAT.. eternal... he has no beginning

 

How could Krishna have always existed?

..

Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized

 

TEXT 12

 

na tv evaham jatu nasam

na tvam neme janadhipah

na caiva na bhavisyamah

sarve vayam atah param

 

SYNONYMS

na--never; tu--but; eva--certainly; aham--I; jatu--become; na--never; asam--existed; na--it is not so; tvam--yourself; na--not; ime--all these; jana-adhipah--kings; na--never; ca--also; eva--certainly; na--not like that; bhavisyamah--shall exist; sarve--all of us; vayam--we; atah param--hereafter.

 

TRANSLATION

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

 

..

it seems vaishnavas take the Bhagavad-Gita quite literally, and consider it as the absolute truth. Why is that?

..if you write about you, about your dialog with a friend and so on, if i trust you i read and interprete this book faithfully.. not adding some meaing that i like

 

There are a number of scriptures out there that say different things, even within the Hindu tradition.

..i think that if we consider the vedic culture as a whole and we learn it with ggod method it is very easy to understand the common meanings of everything. And i am speaking of interpreting faithfully

 

Do the Vedas say nirguna brahman came out of sirguna brahman, or vice versa?

...when the material attachment are so huge, the first effort for god and vedas is to eradicate the concept that we are only dull matter. So, being everyday exposd to the material variety, the scriptures for first say to us that in the absolute there's not the material variety made of sorrow, pain and death. Then, when we have learned this, there's scriptures who tells us about spiritual variety, and that variaty is made of sat (eternity), cit (consciousness) and ananda (bliss)

 

Please don't take offense, I'm simply curious and would like to consider your perspective.

..oh no problem at all!!

 

If we are all different, fundamentally, then how do you explain the yogi siddhis that Yogananda and other yogis talk about? Such as being able to read other people's minds, tell their future, or the ability to materialize palaces and stuff?

..in itihasas and puranas these things are written with great details.. They are simply material powers and they can be used for good and for bad. Even in our world we have extraordinaly powers, bill gates make more money in a second than me in one hundred lives

 

 

[Guest guest]

"If we are all different, fundamentally, then how do you explain the yogi siddhis that Yogananda and other yogis talk about? Such as being able to read other people's minds, tell their future, or the ability to materialize palaces and stuff?

..in itihasas and puranas these things are written with great details.. They are simply material powers and they can be used for good and for bad. Even in our world we have extraordinaly powers, bill gates make more money in a second than me in one hundred lives"

 

I was talking about the basic philosophy behind why atoms can be controlled and made to form one thing or another, and the basic principles that underly the ability to read minds, see the future, etc.

 

In any case, another question is: What is your interpretation of maya? Do you believe in it?

 

 

[Guest guest]

it is impossible to not believe in maya.

We have the desire to be CIT, all knowing, all conscious, but we are not.. So there's a force, a power who makes us blind and forgetful

 

by grace of god we are sat cit ananda and we live in a perfect status in vaikunta

 

we are free, because god has no need, he does not need us and he likes to be loved... and love without freedom is not possible

 

so we are free to desire to forget god

 

but having us no power, god through maya gives to us the possibility to forget

 

[maadhav]

he reminds me gita verse 6.41:

 

prApya puNyaKR^itA.m lokAnushhitvA shAshvatIh samAh .

shuchInA.m shrImatA.m gene yogabhrashhTo.a bhijAyate ..

 

i think he was a gyana yogi (advaiti)

and preached xians using .'s backgraound.

 

his guru or grand guru has written a book

with sound logic and astrology showing that

teh war of hamabharat happened 8000 or so years ago, whre as as most vaishnavas believe it happened about 5000 years ago. i suggest that puraNic historians and astrologers study it to come to a final conclusion about it.

 

-----

my other point is that such questions as this subject thread will alwasy start dvaita-advaita arguments, and it is not necessary to debate at this time of global terrorism and when islam has invaded in india- the vedic land.

 

the debator of this topic (dvaita-advaita) debate about the supreme truth that is far beyond most to achieve. so, i say, why not each side achieve the supreme destination first

and tehn see what is the truth there? till then follow your own sadhana, and fight together (ore even separately) the common enemy of the vedic dharma and culture. to the muslims both the debators a kafirs, worthless. to the hindus both are of the same culture and dharma.

 

a right time to debate is when the asuric ideology is removed from the vedic land. till then, continue a sadhana of your choice, but please make india free from the invaded ideologies.

 

[Guest guest]

my other point is that such questions as this subject thread will alwasy start dvaita-advaita arguments, and it is not necessary to debate at this time of global terrorism and when islam has invaded in india- the vedic land.

 

if you think that this debate is a waste of time do not partecipate

 

why not each side achieve the supreme destination first and tehn see what is the truth there?

 

how can you achieve the supreme destination if you do not know what is it? if this is your theory everyone can achieve it.. even muslims

 

to the muslims both the debators a kafirs, worthless.

 

free to have their opinion... why care?

 

to the hindus both are of the same culture and dharma.

 

the meanings are opposite, where's the same culture?

 

a right time to debate is when the asuric ideology is removed from the vedic land.

 

so go to remove, do not stay here losing time discussing with us

 

please make india free from the invaded ideologies.

 

discussing about dharma is the key to establish dharma

 

 

[maadhav]

to the muslims both the debators a kafirs, worthless.

 

<< free to have their opinion... why care? >>

 

they must convert kafirs, even by force, or kill them, and you also becaue you are a kafir to them.

 

and you don't care?

 

buddha was a kafir, and they destroyed his bamian statue, and you dont care?

 

vedic temple -akshardham- in amdavad was a kafir temple and they attacked it and killed hindus,

and you dont care?

 

at what point would you care?

 

[Guest guest]

at what point would you care?

 

i care for criminal actions not for ideas.. they are free to consider me a kafir, i consider them blinded by maya not accepting krsna syamasundara as supreme and bona fide vaishnava spiritual masters

 

but if no one make any wrong action i do not care... if some crimen is there, the criminals have to be personally punished,, hindu, muslims, hebrew, christians and so on

 

if a hindu steals, destroys, rapes or kills are you responsible?

[maadhav]

<< if a hindu steals, destroys, rapes or kills are you responsible? >>

 

no. he should be punished.

i would be very sorry for it because gita does not tell to do such things,

 

but per koran and or hadith it is religious duty of muslims to do such things to kafirs. any one who follows such an idology is a potential danger to the society.

for proof, look the total history of islam.

 

would you like to be a member of KKK with an excuse that you are not a criminal until you actually are caught doing crime? i guess not.

 

just as it is foolish (and devilish) to become a member of KKK, it is foolish ( and barbaric) to become a follower of islam.

 

when one says, "i am a muslim." that means he says,

"i will convet or kill kafirs and destroy temples.

we muslims have done it all the times, and will do it.

jihad is our way of life. we kill cows and kafirs.

we destroy non muslims' religious infrastructure and religious leaders and books."

 

now you want to wait till they really do it?

no hindu will, now.

 

[Guest guest]

any one who follows such an idology is a potential danger to the society.

 

the majority of muslims are not

 

you have no right to touch with a finger one who has'nt commited any crime

 

 

[Guest guest]

its amazing how even the ancient path of sanatana dharma which accepts both the impersonal and personal god as the same brings about such misunderstandings in people like prabhupada. the cheap remarks of prabhupada against fellow saints like yogananda , vivekananda , aurobindo etc makes one wonder how he managed to become a krishna devotee first of all. his narrow vision and egoistic utterings reminds me of a story.

 

once a man who was devoted to vishnu was worshipping the idol when suddenly vishnu appeared before him. the man's joy knew no bounds and he started to sing praises of the great lord and burnt fragrant incense before him. but....he noticed suddenly that the other half of vishnu was shiva. so that shiva doesnt smell the sweet fragrance meant for vishnu the man got up and closed the nostril of shiva!! prabhupada is like this pathetic man in the story...narrow and blinded to obvious truth. krishna is everything...he is the yeah ...he is the nay...and he is beyond both.

 

i wonder when we will learn to coexist and not villify other faiths.

 

being intolerant of stupidity ( my intolerance of prabhpada's stupidity) is not intolerance. its a cry against narrow brains.

 

 

[Guest guest]

you simply are a disturbance in society, you stupidly judge things that you do not know and that you have not studied

[maadhav]

<< you have no right to touch with a finger one who has'nt commited any crime >>

 

and what right the muslims had to invade india for 1000 years?

 

becaue islam is invaded in the vedic land,

it must go out.

 

by the quoted line you are saying:

 

"you have no right to touch with a finger to a cobra who has'nt commited any crime (not bitten yet.)"

 

sorry, hindus do not and will not think that way.

 

talking about right?

who made the rights? the current gov.

and why you think it is a perfect gov. and dharmic?

 

one who follows a barbaric ideology will sooner or later

caue problems. a cobra cannot help but bite and kill.

cobras do not follow gita.

 

[Guest guest]

I read auto bio of a yogi some time ago. I believe Babaji instructed Yogananda to show the similarities between . and hinduism. In the part of the book when he went to a kumbha mela, i don't remember very well. Yogananda didn't want to go to school but his guru made him so he would learn english and come to the west.

 

His guru Yukteshwar also showed the similarities between . and hinduism in his book "The Holy Science". Yogananda founded a magazine "East West" I believe it was called.

[Guest guest]

<< you have no right to touch with a finger one who has'nt commited any crime >>

and what right the muslims had to invade india for 1000 years?

••1)the fact that one does something wrong does not autorize you to make something also wrong. Adharma cannot be fighted by another adharma. The more old muslim who is now living in india maybe has 100 years old.. how can he inveded for 1000years?

 

you have no right to touch with a finger to a cobra who has'nt commited any crime (not bitten yet.)

••so enter in police, be an investgative agent and make crime's prevention.. study the situation and decide singularly who's going on to give troubles and act. A religion's war is useless

 

who made the rights? the current gov.

••there's democracy.. vote for someone else and you'll be satisfied or propose yourself as candidate, if the people will choose you, you will act for their benefit. Any different actions would be imposition and terrorism.. so adharma

 

and why you think it is a perfect gov. and dharmic?

••so change it with election.. otherwise what system you want to use?, rebellion?, terrorism?, anarchy,? getting governemnt with violence?, two airplanes on new delhi or mumbai as bin laden has done with new york? hindu suicides with explosive jackets?

 

one who follows a barbaric ideology will sooner or later

caue problems.

••so please do not follow the barbaric ideology of bothering people who has not fault because someone of their religion did something bad some centuries ago. you believe in reincarnation, maybe the one who's now muslim where a hindu at that time... and you risk to became a muslim in the next life if you spend your life thinking constantly at them