Kriya Oaths

Don't be bound by anything. That philosophy will save you. - Yogananda [Dr 26]

"Do not swear the kriya oath to save yourself!" What does it mean? [1]

There are different kriya yoga traditions, and somewhat different "rules of the game" for the adherents in some of them. But a strong oath of loyalty and much else precludes the learning of kriya in such circles as Yogananda's fellowship, SRF. Yogananda and his fellowship also claim they are in perfect attunement with Jesus, who told followers not to swear: "Do not swear at all ... [Matthew 5:34-37]." SRF's Kriya Pledge is still there! Be strong; you don't need it.

Different kriya oaths are presented below. They relate to Paramahansa Yogananda and his grand-grand-guru Babaji, claimed by Yogananda to be in constant communion with Jesus - but Babaji has made followers take oaths all the same. Let us say there is something or someone very wrong in the "desert marauder picture". Perhaps no one in Yogananda's society has told you that Yogananda said his ways had been those of a vicous, murderous desert marauder in a former life? His biography tells of it. [Psy 112]

Many teachers of kriya yoga relate to Babaji, but their oaths are different. And some do not have oaths at all. In Satyanana Yoga you can learn kriya yoga without any oaths, by learning kriya from publicly available books [Cy; Kta]. This line of kriya goes back to the illustrous Swami Sivananda (1887-1963), and through him to Babaji, says Sivananda's disciple Satyananda.

Sivananda and Satyananda

When Sivananda was young, his name was Kuppuswami, and he studied medicine with eagerness and great ability to learn. Later in life, in the town of Rishikesh in north India he got a guru who ordained him as a swami. Sivananda became one of the most prolific yoga teachers ever, writing 296 books. Yet he said, "An ounce of practice is better than tons of theory. Practice yoga, religion and philosophy in daily life and attain Self-realization."

Sivananda's disciple Satyananda writes in Early Teachings of Swami Satyananda [Ets] that Sivananda had learnt kriya yoga from Babaji in the mid-1920s, and that Sivananda one day in 1956 taught it to him in ten minutes.

Sivananda called him and asked, "What . . .? You don't practise kriya yoga?"

No, Satyananda did not. On this, Sivananda took him to his room and in ten minutes he taught him kriya yoga. Sivananda went on to give him 108 rupees and said, "Now you can go. This ashram is not the place for you." [Cf. Ets 89]

He did not say, "Machines are becoming more important than man, and that is unwise." Sivananda wanted him to take the word yoga "from door to door and from shore to shore and from home to home." After Sivananda died in 1963, Satyananda started teaching kriya. And some of the kriya practices that Satyananda teach, were never taught by Sivananda, but culled from other sources.

Satyananda kept moving for many years, and taught kriya to many people, and today it is given freely through books, with no swear-strings attached.

Before you commit yourself a lot, consider the consequences, for example of giving up essential parts of human freedom, as someone who is sworn in to obey gurus: Consider how unlikely it is that you know you have the power to stay true to your word after swearing the SRF kriya pledge below.

Self-Realization Fellowship Kriya Yoga Pledge

The current SRF kriya pledge seems to run like this:

Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, Bhagavan Krishna, Mahavatar Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya, Swami Sri Yukteswarji, and our Guru, Paramahansa Yogananda: I bow to you all. I will practice Kriya Yoga faithfully and regularly to the best of my ability. I will not reveal its techniques to anyone without written permission from the Mother Center of Self-Realization Fellowship at Los Angeles, California. In my path toward God I accept you as my Gurus, O Jesus Christ, Bhagavan Krishna, Mahavatar Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya, Swami Sri Yukteswar, and Paramahansa Yogananda. To God and to you, my Gurus, I offer my unconditional devotion and loyalty. With this spiritual baptism of Kriya Yoga Initiation I now become a member of Self-Realization Fellowship, and pledge that I will do my best to exemplify the ideals and promote the aims of this path. [◦Source]

It appears SRF now has removed the part of unconditional love for the six unmet gurus in the current pledge. That love part used to be a part of the pledge earlier. Then you pledged unconditional loyalty, love and devotion to the six said gurus of the SRF deal. Some of the claimed gurus teach differently, such as Jesus and Yogananda.

A suspect guru line

There are more than strange inconsistencies involved. SRF claims that Jesus and Krishna both are venerable "gurus of the line" to be included along with "headmaster" Babaji and three more. Why "drum up" some celebrated ones and call them gurus of the line when their teachings are greatly at variance? Why on earth include Jesus, who warned against other Masters than himself and says salvation comes only from Jews? Jesus also says in Matthew that the soul can be destroyed, Yogananda and Lahiri Mahasaya teach differently. Do they outvote Jesus?

Krishna is drawn into the Babaji line of SRF gurus too. Krishna teaches differently than Jesus about the soul. It is immortal, says Krishna and Yogananda. "be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell," says Jesus [Matthew 10:28]. Krishna also says in the Bhagavad Gita 16:7-9 that those who teach the world is unreal (untrue) are demoniac. Three of the kriya gurus say explicitly that the material world is illusory. The Gita translation referred to is not unfounded.

Yogananda ties

1. Not lenient behind a facade of god-words. The SRF kriya pledge fixates positions with you as the inferior one. And it is an oath that ties a follower hand and foot against the words of Jesus against swearing - [Link].

The kriya oath is more severe than what is customary in India. In the wide kriya tradition and in Hinduism in general as well, there may be changes of minor gurus. The disciple is moved from one to another. It happens, can be fair, and is seldom thought to be odious. But the teachings of Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship are far more severe. They fix a binding relationship to six unmet or hardly met gurus through an oath - I should say claimed gurus who say different things on important subjects - and would it not be odd if they worked together?

The "deal" of Yogananda is harsher common guru-disciple relationships of India, and not only fair play and Human Rights. It may be that SRF as an organisation of this world says, "If you cannot stand it any longer, you are free to go." But the guru's word is different, and there is the rub. It is like a suitcase with a double bottom. One of the reasons is that SRF teaches his wisdom is flawless, which it is clearly not. Also, in SRF they believe that a departing disciple sooner or later will have to get back to the guru anyhow, surrendering. That is what they really think. I have it in writing.

2. Personal moral is into it. It is quite impossible to know beforehand or dictate yourself what and how you will feel through the years to come. Think of if: One day you pledge unconditional devotion - which is getting bound to feel in much the same way for the rest of your life, no matter what. Can you do it? Do you have that foresight and control over your happenings? Then you would be divine and in no need of help, presumably.

If this is hard to get at, there are words by Jerome Bruner and Haim G. Ginott on another page to usher it in, hopefully. [More]

Why should anyone naively put their head on the block in the first place by swearing an embarrassing oath? As far as I see, they could be better off without it. There is a risk of getting outsmarted to the degree we relinquish formerly won and had freedom degrees, including several Human Rights. You can learn kriya yoga for free, should you so desire. I just mention it. [Link A; Cy; Kta; and Link B].

3. Appearing to molest your Human Rights. The SRF kriya yoga pledge appears to violate Human Rights laws in many countries, such as articles 16-18 for SRF inmates, the monastics that run the organization. All of them are not able to retire to a villa with a view for the sake of peace, unlike their late leader, Daya Mata (1914-2010). [Human Rights] [◦Rick Ross Article, near bottom].

4. Dangers. Suppose you are led to commit yourself to an inherently indecent, Human Rights-violating pledge, and then drop the gurus after being sworn in. Then you are bound for "colossal sufferings" for life-times, for the oath involves several incarnations, Yogananda says in a talk:

"There is only one guru uniquely the devotee's own. But if you turn away from the emissary of God, He silently asks: 'What is wrong with you . . .?' . . . He who cannot learn through the wisdom and love of his God-ordained guru will not find God in this life. Several incarnations at least must pass before he will have another such opportunity." - Paramahansa Yogananda, SRF magazine, spring 1974, p 6. From a talk at Mother Centre, 8/17/39

Yogananda explains how dying and being born involves colossal sufferings:

Babaji added, 'Repeat to each of your disciples this majestic promise from the Bhagavad Gita: "Swalpamasya dharmasya, trayata mahato bhoyat"—"Even a little bit of the practice of this religion will save you from dire fears and colossal sufferings [Bhagavad Gita 2:40]". [Autobiography, ch. 34]

In the Yogananda translation of the Bhagavad Gita the passage runs, "Even a tiny bit of this real religion protects one from great fear (the colossal sufferings inherent in the repeated cycles of birth and death). Hence, the "several incarnations at least" of Yogananda mean "many lives of colossal sufferings", according to the premises laid down. [Yi 70]

❖ The "several incarnations at least" of Yogananda mean "many lives of colossal sufferings." Maybe you don't want that.

Further difficulties for those sworn in to Yogananda and Co

There are further dilemmas in the picture that guru paints of future lives. One might be that of finding Yogananda again if he is reincarnated to become a murderous desert robber, a tyrant - but not a kriya guru. What is loyalty to him and the other SRF gurus in such a picture? And why draw it here?

Yogananda told he had been the archer Arjuna in a former life. The Bhagavad Gita says Arjuna was enlightened (Chapter 11). But if Yogananda's unsubstantiated hints and claims about his past lives as Arjuna, the massacring Norman king William the Conqueror, a vicious, murderous desert robber, William Shakespeare, and so on be true - without evidence - he did not teach liberating kriya or similar methods in any mentioned incarnation after Arjuna, who was enlightened, says the Gita [chapter 11]. So what is the kriya guru in for next?

If such a pattern of continuing deterioration for Yogananda keeps on, the sworn-in Yogananda follower who does not get enlightened in this life, may get added trouble if the guru's next lives are that of murderous, vicious marauders and massacre-kings or worse . . . So there is more to wonder about than "Will he be pretty, will he be rich?" What will he will be? At any rate there is a danger that a reborn Yogananda will not teach liberating means for a while, for he did not after Arjuna's enlightenment. Arjuna, in the ancient stories, went on killing after the great battle of Kurushetra too - and at least one of the lives Yogananda talks of, made himself shudder with fear, writes his biographer Dasgupta. [Yogananda's claimed former lives]

Even if some should meet him in person again, there is the danger of going uninstructed - acccording his tellings of former lives after he allegedly was Gita-enlightened.

Steering out of extreme misery in time

What is reproduced below is a part of Yogananda's kriya oath from 1921, when he had been in the United States for half a year. At that time there was not any demand that you should love six gurus. That was conveniently added later by steps and stages. Krishna was the last one, appearing only around 1970. Yogananda dictated the following on 10 January 1921.

I promise and swear to act according to the following rules. . . . I will never reveal it to anyone without your permission. I will try my utmost to follow your general advice . . . . . . If I divulge without your permission extreme misery will overtake me according to natural laws. I will in every way help to spread this cause . . . I will help others to get this divine knowledge if I myself think I enjoy it . . . [SOURCE: Rosser, Brenda Lewis. Treasures Against Time - Ttp 380]

There could have been other versions at that time. Now spreading the cause in every way is an alarming demand. There is no limit; a guru is given all power. If the guru Yogananda says "Dance naked in the streets of Boston to attract attention to this cause" to one of his first initiates, a dentist's wife, she would be obliged to try her utmost to dance naked on the streets of Boston. Because she had been made to swear "in every way" and further. Dancing naked or with veils in front of the guru is absolutely not outside it . . . But the pledge was changed.

Glimpses into another Interesting Pledge

Are there problems with that pledge?

You pledge to surrender your being and pleasures so that all others gain their ends, bed that you become. It looks wiser and better to get your ends and succeed well rather than to surrender and be a bed and be drunk and eaten. It matters to look through a contract carefully before signing it. Consider that a hint.

Further, to pledge through figurative terms is stupid. "Be a balm", "be drink and food", "be a bed for those who need a bed" can mean a lot of things. How many beds or how big a bed is that? In sum: the pledge may suit "door-mats of guilt" most of all.

Others may get far better deals of living than what the pledge above allows you room for, surrendered to be made use of a whole, unspecified lot.

Also, to ponder the possible long-range consequences may help against overstretching severely, for the effects of that could last a lifetime, if not longer. Why promise more than you have control over (and can manage) yourself? To promise this and that over your head may not work out well in the long run. And to pledge oneself by way of metaphors can hardly be other than a blunder. There are many metaphors in the pledge above.

And you pledge to give up yourself indefinitely - for what? - Babaji has given up himself too, it is stated elsewhere, and "you have given your word, you are tied by it." To give up yourself to another who allegedly has given up himself, where does that take you? Since some gurus in the kriya tradition - including Yogananda and Babaji - say they have dissolved themselves, where are they? Are they? is the better question, methinks. Yogananda is recorded by his direct disciple Kriyananda to have said, "I killed Yogananda a long time ago." Where are the ones to pledge anything to? Poof! [Np, chap. 38]

Where is the gain?

Perhaps you should ask where the gain is. Is it in getting your way paved or being a pavement for others? Is it in being served or being a servant? It depends. Sagacity of living comes into these matters. There is not any deep need to support those who live only for momentary pleasures, or support skating on very thin ice without considering serious consequences. Jesus taught it is greater to serve - but not foolish skaters and seekers of momentary pleasures alone: It matters to know that Buddha tells it is not very fit to give to undeserving ones.

Or let us say you find it fit to bring food to a drowning man against better judgement - If so you have been stupid. Buddhism does not hold dumb service to be of great value, but sagacious, discrete service can be and bring merit. Buddhism tells there are fine things to do, such as being educated and learn a profession well. You can then support some others, even some monastics if you feel for it and if they are not unworthy of your decency.

Hearts can be fooled

This hinted at, Buddha also allows for giving teachings to "all and sundry" for the case of the few who get able to derive benefits from the teachings. To know what to give to whom, when to give, how to, and so on, requires at least reflection for those who are not yet awake enough to ken it from deep within. "Follow your good heart," can also work well, provided you are not cheated much and often. [More]

There is a risk of getting manipulated and swindled by oaths. They serve as the strings of "gifts with strings" all to often.

Back to "bed": Have we considered who determines the metaphors at any time and their most valid meanings? Is it ourselves? We ordinarily do well to know for sure beforehand, before a lot of binding is effected. A man is bound by his word, the proverb goes.

You want to be punished; you seek warmth from the moon. You seek to be punished, then you treat your body and mind rougher. You may even make yourself "thingish" in your own mind, by making up your mind about it. Punished by the dwindling "dear me", by not showing gentle concern for yourself and your needs may topple your future and make you less jolly and more cramped. Is that how far your guilt wants to get rid of you?

One day you might stop, think and wonder if it is better to maintain a laundry instead, and get your own refrigerator. Some are not prepared for it.

Good beginner questions

Back to the "riverbed pledge" above: "Why not also "I will be a river bed for those who need a river bed"?"

Beginner questions are often great. Will you:

• Be greatly served towards getting your goals or meeting with your end - asking sincerely for such as "the Real Thing" and great success, or
• Become the incredibly self-effacing servant who is in for so-called extinction or not so-called extinction?
• Or none of these set-up alternatives?
• Can more be added here - now or later, maybe?

It must be good to know - beforehand. There are so many traps around. You do not know the one to trust at times. Yet, born with an inquisitive mind, try to find out what seems to be the best or worst bargain of the two if you dare: Is it to be helped along the way and given your goals for free - thought gifts without strings - or is it to thank well for not that? Study the "balm-and-bed pledge" and decide wisely.

Now, what is left if you surrender yourself wholly? And what is gaining the end? And if you surrender just apparently, why use such a word? Try and consider how difficult it can be to progress after you have surrendered free will, autonomy and the right to remonstrate? [You do not know, is the bet.]

And what about some vivacity and esprit here - I mean: is not good and child-natured frivolity all right in the greatest freedom?"

Beginner questions are often great. Become like children, asked Jesus. They are true beginners in lots of areas. He also told us to be clever - that is taken to be brilliant as well.

On our guard like good Scotland Yard and CIA agents?

What is set up appears to run like this:

"Although you have some freedom - a good fare and sound autonomy - surrender it for a long-range goal, a goal that encompasses those sort of things (called moksha) anyhow."

There is sound freedom and not sound freedom. If you are up to it, you know how to deal with the freedom degrees that are yours so that you do not lose them.

We could be on our guard and learn to ask: "Is there room for solid evidence or fair play here? Is there enough concern for me or my own hard-won liberty in these schemes? Could it be that we should try to get along through own efforts instead of being ensnared?" Buddhism tends that outlook. It suits self-help efforts nicely.

Old

To make my life a success
there was a need to be me -
just myself in my own right.

The fruits and berries of thankful endeavours had better serve your freedom and artistic fairness, frivolous mirth and growing self-sufficiency. That could be a very useful multiple tip.

And what about your innermost or divine authority? Will it be taken care of full well?

Can old and new gurus play like children or better? There are some men around that would rather die than that, it seems. They tend to be over-estimated. They may not have enough personal liberty and so on. As a matter of fact, there are certain vital things that need to be guarded thoroughly.

Non-violence

Paramahansa Yogananda (1893-1952) came to America, where he taught non-violence, or non-harm, ahimsa. It is a first step in Patanjali's yoga. When World War 2 broke out, however, Yogananda sent followers to fight in the war, about six years after he had written for dictatorship in his magazine, praising Mussolini and so on. You may note a bossy tone -

So his non-violence was not any absolute principle. In the SRF Lessons from thirty-odd years ago, that did not stand out well, to the effect that a reader got puzzled and dropped many social advantages too, advantages gained by attacking problems and studies, and just sticking to that afterwards.

According to the yogic ahimsa norm (non-harm), attacking oneself is not good, but seems indeed unfriendly. A dreary and confusing thing was that the Babaji emissary (Yogananda) who taught non-violence, also wanted followers to attack and kill the ego. What sort of morbid and unclarified violence is that?

The ego in psychoanalysis

The ego in psychoanalytic thinking is a dear, irreplaceable personality instance, namely "in psychoanalytic theory, that portion of the human personality which is experienced as the "self" or "I" and is in contact with the external world through perception. It is the part which remembers, evaluates, plans, and in other ways is responsive to and acts in the surrounding physical and social world." Ego "comprises, in Freud's term, the executive functions of personality; it is the integrator between the outer and inner worlds . . . The ego gives continuity and consistency to behaviour by providing a personal point of reference, which relates the events of the past (retained in memory) and actions of the present and of the future (represented in anticipation and imagination) . . .

Since the concept and structure of the ego were defined by Freud and explored by Jung, other theorists have developed somewhat different conceptualisations of the ego . . . In physical maturity, persons differ considerably in the forms and effectiveness of ego functioning . . . The person of strong ego . . . is objective . . . he can follow resolves, and choose decisively among alternatives; . . . he can resist immediate social influences while contemplating and choosing a self-selected course."

On the other hand, the ego-weak person "is impulsive . . . perception of reality and self is distorted; he is less capable of productive work because his energy is drained into the protection of warped and unrealistic self-concepts; he may be burdened by neurotic symptoms."[Ebu "ego"].

A healthy ego does not try to get killed in SRF or otherwise

"Each sect magnifies its own view," says Ramakrishna. [Rap 489]

"Unrealistic" and "burdened" - how many sect adherents have developed into that as a result of ego-killer teachings and giving up too much too easily? Some could slowly get more than confused by inconsistent guru guidance. The guru who infuses trust in others, when he or his fellowship change what has been maintained earlier, people may get problems and feel lost. And some could have got problems from the guidelines earlier too, depending on how bad they were in the first place. For example, in Yogananda's early aims and ideals for the fellowship he set up, he advocated nuts instead of meat. Now there are many who are allergic to nuts. Nuts can kill some. And nuts are not included in the SRF aims and ideals any longer . . . Hence, try to defend what is good for you. There are many central topics in a life. Many are taught to turn inwards to know them. Just how to do it may form part of standard methods too.

The intellect is from the higher mind too, and should not be looked down on. It is precious, advances cultural understanding and values, appreciates excellence and learns to judge swindles.

When you are told to "kill the ego" - SRF gurus do repeatedly - you are getting misled and need an intellect and a healthy ego to combat demagogical mayhem and being locked from good contacts. Killing and maiming central personality instances is not ahimsa: killing the ego is very violent. Go as gently as is good for yourself, then. Look into long-range consequenses too. [Link]

"Safety First" and "Secrecy First" as Mottoes

Kriya yoga initiation and practice work to your loss if you get deranged from them. Guru statements against looking at woman, "at any cost" call for seclusion. Let it be the right sort of seclusion, if so. Compare the [◦Daya Mata seclusion story]. The persistently revered president of SRF for many decades has been found out - trying to live in a good home instead of being among most other SRF nuns.

In SRF they teach that the "purpose of life is the evolution, through self-effort of man's limited mortal consciousness into God Consciousness (SRF Aims and Ideals, 2nd paragraph; it is on-line)." "Killing the ego" seems to run counter to cultured mind development.

Babaji is reported to say, "Who is the Doer of all actions? ... the Lord [Pa 344]." Shyama Lahiri and Yogananda teaches the same, but also that the material universe is a dream, an illusion. Further, Yukteswar is cited by Yogananda to advice us not to believe an illness is real.

As for Krishna with 18 000 wives he abducted, that side to him is definitely downplayed in SRF for the sake of a guru-decreed, well restricted sex life.

❖ Beware of who or what you pledge yourself to. And you can learn kriya yoga for free - also on this site.