#3 Chinmaya: Lusty Desires, Taoism, Vegetarianism, Adam&Eve
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.พ. 2007
- Swami Chinmayananda, renowned Vedantic Master, answers questions from his students at Humboldt State University at Arcada, CA, during one of the 10-day spiritual camps he held yearly during his visits to the US in the course of 20 years.
![เปิดบ้านสุดหรู "เเจ็ค the ghost" ลั่นถ้าป๋องกพลลำบากผมเลี้ยงเอง!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1xbW4vULqGc/mqdefault.jpg)
A hot brick that I was hugging on, now dropped that. What a sentence. Amazing
Thanks for posting this treasured historical videos, Swami chinmaya was such a wise, joyful realized master.
Generally, in the Hindu/Vedic culture, you - the student - are supposed to sit on the floor while the Guru sits on a platform. Iam seeing a couple of sincere seekers on chairs to the left and behind.
However, thanks for posting this. Swamiji is a great master/story teller.
You are so correct. Thank you for your insight. I was fortunate to have personally known and had a student-teacher relationship with Swami Chinmayananda since 1971 to the day of his death and he was a living example of what you say. I can definately attest to that. He wore himself out for the sake of his fellow beings, not only with regards to teaching Vedanta, but also helping the poor, the sick and the uneducated.
Thank you ! very educational talk ! very mind opening ! brings true conciousnes !
wise man. thanks for posting.
thanks to uploading..
sharing this to whole world..
great work...
Thank you very much for this great video.
Please note that Lust is at the mind and not at the body. If we become aware of it we already have won the battle.
Though it does not matter if we feel a master to be great or not for us being mere mortals and also that the majesty of Niagara does not get decreased by someone spitting at it.
In regard to Swami Chinmayananda, i have personally interacted with him and HE is indeed a great MASTER who demonstrated all that he spoke.
amazing. thanks
Gurudev prasanna
am thinking of buying the entire set of Swamiji's lectures.
I am indebted
Top!!!!
"Mastery" may be of a particular subject or discipline of knowledge and mastery of him/herself. The possibility of someone succumbing to be the master of others is for one who has not yet established in his/her true nature as Fullness Absolute (Ananda). If you know you are complete, you don't need to control others, because you found out that "others" are only yourself. This is pure love born of true Wisdom.
Let me explain in a possible way:
All energy is divine and there is nothing called as bad and good energy, having said that we need to divert the sex energy(Most powerful as it is a living source of sustenance and the reason why we tend to feel blissful at that moment as we forget ourselves) into more promising channels as we need to understand that to realize god we need to fine tune our energies with the source.
We cant put a 100 watt bulb in a 10000watt source. For us to tune into a higher wavelength we need to get out of lower wavelength into other side of spectrum.
Srikanth K i
You are very welcome. It is my pleasure to have been able to upload the recording of this talk which our late Swami Chinmayananda blessed me and so many others during the more that thirty years we were taught by Him. I am very glad you enjoyed it.
Jorge-Luis
What year was this (approximate or otherwise)? Thank you.
yes, you should refrain from posting since you werent there. it takes more to not post rather than shooting off at the mouth at every given chance.
I'm sorry Thesaral, I did not mean to rate you comment as bad, but the opposite. I just clicked on the wrong "hand".
You might ask that question to Jesus or Buddha, since they did just that.
Perhaps it is to prevent human misery, and to
take the seat from the ignorant or charlatans that sometimes offer themselves as teachers.
Let me explain:
Everything is energy and there is nothing like good and bad energy. The attitude behind the expression is called as guna and bhagwan is guna ateet and is beyond sattwa too.
Sex energy is the most powerful energy in the world and is indeed the reason for sustenance of this world and the same energy tranforms in to OJAS when reversed up wards from mooladhara chakra.
He is nt responding 2d Q's properly. You can't move a man away from sex saying dat u shld b man enough & shldn't fall for girls. I mean it is a beautiful feeling to b in love wid opposite sex & v need some1 to share our life wid. Inorder 2get a companion we have marriage. It doesn't mean that married men r sinners or they r all d time having sex. sexual urge drops wid time but it is the experience which is more & most important & v all must have. 1st u experience it den come out of it.
I do realize that this is 10 years ago but just in case this misinterpretation still exist for this person, I would like to let them this person know my interpretation of the Swami's answer and clarify what was actually said as well as the misinterpreted points they have made. So when I read this, I notice an idea within your speech that needs absolute clarification, one being the misinterpretation of Swami's answer.
first sentence - "You can't move a man away from sex saying dat u shld b man enough & shldn't fall for girls." This sentence is stating that you can't motivate a man to stay away from sex by just stating that you should be manlier than that and that you shouldn't fall in love with girls. And it agrees with the Swami's point of anti-over-indulgence of sex but disagrees with his reasoning. The sentence states that love is wonderful and beautiful, nothing sinful, full of good intentions, and has nothing to do with being over-indulgent in sex. Now this is suggestive of a misinterpretation because he did not just say that you should be man enough and shouldn't fall for girls, he did not say that at all for that matter. I will restate what he had stated earlier momentarily.
Now, Swami is not against sex. He stated word for word "I am not saying that sex will not be there." Then in summary, he had stated just don't be totally occupied with it. He definitely wants you to "move away" from sex but not through manning up and not falling in love with women. The whole part about manliness and unmanliness was that a man who is overindulgent, preoccupied and fixated on sex, constantly needing to have sex to have reassurance of their masculinity, meaning they are not self-confident, is unmanly. He adds onto that saying that a true manly person is a person self-confident in their masculinity, not needing to overindulge in sex to prove and reassure to themselves that they are masculine. It's not "you should just be manly enough to not have sex," it's that sex is fine and it is NOT unmanly to have sex but those men who overindulge in the act needing constant reassurance of their masculinity are unmanly and a true man is one who need not sex to prove their masculinity, they are self-confident in their manliness.
"shouldn't fall for girls" - I do not know Swami's take on falling in love with people but given the context of the question (dealing with lust around women) he is answering I will interpret it not as if he's speaking of love but of a sexually involved man and his relationships with his supposed lover. Start quote, "so called woman whom you approach with love, they are loving their sleeves for making a sucker of you." The woman the lusty man is helplessly in love and is in a sexual relationship with, turns the man into an easily receivable minion, which is indignifying of the man. This is not to be taken as simple as "you shouldn't fall in love for women." That is an absolutely wrong interpretation. The whole answer he takes is oriented around the question, man's lust around women. You shouldn't take his line out of context otherwise you wound up with the wrong interpretation. Out of context, you can get so many wrong meanings out of anything so the background of what he is answering to is needed. What Swami Chinmayananda was saying was not that you shouldn't fall for anyone, he didn't speak of that subject so that is to be determined. What he did say however was that the woman you supposedly love, the you he is talking to is talking to the person asking the question earlier, the man of lust for woman. The woman you supposedly love and is in a sexual relationship with, suggesting an imaginary scenario, is by a good chance, using you. Now if we think of a man full of lust for women and is in over-indulgence of sexual intercourse with a specific woman who he thinks he loves, how do you think those relationships with a primary focus on sex turn out? Swami is saying that in those relationships, chances are the woman is taking advantage of the man's lust and supposed love (saying supposed because it could just be a lust for her body mistaked for love) and the man is easily taken control of by the woman. This is unbefitting of a man. Swami did not reject love, he said the man of lust and overindulgence who thinks he has love for this woman will chances are be used by the woman.
Therefore, I say that he is in fact responding to the second question properly by showing the steps to solve the problem through analysis (which can be used for almost any other mental problem regardless) and is intentionally discouraging the man asking the question to continue his lust, by listing out all the potential problems with lust while asking the man questions on how this lust-filled lifestyle affects him. Love was not discouraged and a simple answer as manning up wasn't stated. Swami even stated that the answer has to be realized on your own through your own objective analysis of yourself through a simple step by step procedure and not to be convinced by others. He encourages the man to continue his actions in the right path (being more conscious of his problems), discourages the negative path (listing potential problems and negative effects of life styles) while showing a way for the man to actually solve the problem (non-prejudiced analysis of your past experiences of yourself and seeing the effects of it objectively) and even provided a wise tip for the man (when you realize, not persuaded because that's not understanding, that's just good points you can't argue against, when you truly realize that the way you are acting is truly a waste of energy by your own analysis and realization, you then change).
he is racist against chinese
He is not a racist. He did not make any comments because he has not read about it. What racist remark did he make of Taoism. Its in your interpretation and poor judgement.