Epilogue

Epilogue

On the first page of this series it stands out that we lack statistics about how many SRF members kill themselves as compared to the general population. It is possible to be happy in a closed religious group, since all such groups are not alike, and further, some groups may correspond quite well with the personality structures of members.

Some leave groups anyhow. How they fare depend on the degree of their previous involvement. If they had put their hearts and souls into the group previously, it may be awfully hard to break with the group or its founder. This happens to some.

There is too little focus in SRF on members' rights and Human Rights. Cult leavers may need much help and lots of time to get a good life outside the cult.

As for SRF, some testimonies tend to be reliable, and a few are clearly not. It is possible to sift such information somewhat, even for an outsider, but it presumably works better for former members - insiders, if they have "clean slates of mind" afterwards, and are well informed and oriented otherwise too.

That there are cult-troubles in the kriya-church founded by Yogananda, is not always welcome news to members.

The second page says there are different management forms, just as there are different leader styles. It is not as simple as either this or that - many forms and overlapping forms are possible.

A cult is defined by cult hallmarks. By knowing in advance of the hallmarks, it is easier to avoid bad cults, hopefully. One may study the material or the links to get a good, general grasp for evaluating one's cherished group.

On the third page there are some personal questions that may give further help as to your role in the group you feel tied to. Self-contradictions in the teachings and over-bossy dictates may signal the group is a trap, at least to some.

Stick to your previous assets and seek to increase them, in order to get better odds to get a good life outside of the cult, or within in, if breaking with it seems too demanding or impossible. Seek a laxer fare, in that case. Generally speaking, we may be free to build the good life that we want, within or outside of the cult, if you we about it systematically and carefully throughout. It is also possible to learn to inspect things better. There are books on that, for example, and a page here and there. Greed for power, for dominance over others, and/or for wealth and splendour on the backs of others, often innocents, mark some charismatic leaders or cult leaders. It may take years for these factors to surface, though.

On page four the attention is drawn to research by Dr Philip Zimbardo. He finds that emotional needs of belonging are played on by cults, and insecurity too. But cult deals that appear initially to be win deals, may turn sour around the bend. It is better to be forewarned than rudely disappointed after being taken in.

A way to lessen the impact of cults is to make the society nicer, suggests Zimbardo.

On this page cult deprogramming is talked of too. Deprogramming may in itself work as a form of corky mind control, but has proved somewhat successful, particularly with religious cult members. Deprogramming can mean the freeing of someone (often oneself) from any previously uncritically assimilated idea; or some intervention. A former SRF member who had tried to deprogram herself, writes, "I discovered that I was seething with resentment over the years of self-abasement, and humiliated by the fact that I had aided my captors." It may be far better to leave deprogamming to analysts.

A problem with SRF is that its founder, the guru Yogananda, was an orator that at times talked too big. I have brought documentation on several other pages that the guru has other skeletons in the cupboard too: self-contradictions, idyllisation, praise of dictatorship, huge claims that are largely unproved, and so on. When young persons in sensitive and vulnerable life stages come across such assertions, they may reap problems according to how firmly they believe in him. SRF, to be sure, is a Hindu society, but it presents itself as Christian too, and includes Jesus among its gurus, its Christs. This presentation does not stand inspection: avccording to the Bible it is not true. Further, a Catholic professor, "Father Matheo", concludes that SRF teachings are heresy as compared to Catholicism.

On page five we look into another side to SRF's work - how they edit and re-edit Yogananda against fair customs.

On page six some basics of handling stress are laid bare. Changing one's guru or beliefs or group is one of the major stresses that life can offer, according to some. Psychology offer suggestions for how to deal with stress more proficiently.

On page seven, Yogananda's claims of having been Shakespeare in a former life, are presented with amusing, surfacing information about Sir Henry Neville.

On page eight it is shown that Yogananda's claims on members ("spirit serfs") extend beyond the grave and into future lives. And leaving that guru is not welcome by him, to say the least, but will be the cause of colossal sufferings, his teachings imply.

His teachings and practice could conflict with the Human Rights laws in many countries, and they do not quite match up with general teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, as shown.

Some who have left Yogananda's fellowship, SRF, seek counsel or therapy. And some that are in the fellowship, could need it more, in the light of certain beliefs they uphold, contrary to relevant evidence. That is also the opinion of some SRF monastics who left the SRF premises more recently - about one third of its monastics, as evidenced on the SRF Walrus discussion board.

Literature  



   USER'S GUIDE to abbreviations, the site's bibliography, letter codes, dictionaries, site design and navigation, tips for searching the site and page referrals. [LINK]
   © 2008–2010, Tormod Kinnes. [E-MAIL] —  Disclaimer: [LINK]