It is much, much better to get on a good and decent track instead of telling or learning of a sidetracking approach. Yet here we go again:
Self-Realization Fellowship, SRF, is headquartered in California. It was registered as a church in California on March 29, 1935 and is governed by monks and nuns who are ordained Hindu swamis, yet say their aims and ideals include to show "original Christianity as taught by Christ" too.
Hinduism contains much significant lore. Its teachings cover much ground for swamis, householders and many others. There's a right way of doing a thing, a wrong way and perhaps the way they do it in the Army. However, hypocricy is not good for your developing artistry. Jesus condemned it - not artistry -, frankly.
Many senior monks in SRF and others were OK . . . But the leadership today seems to have deflected from the way Yogananda wanted implemented - so there is no accredited SRF University on a hill, no self-supporting communities - but he wanted them both, and did he not say "Where there is a will there is a way?"
Q: I seem to have a new theme in life: to clear the world of new age Hindu worshippers. Are you Atheist?
The Way leads back to a circle of no special content in Taoism. Such a stage is termed, "All is forgotten", in the oxherding pictures, but the Way (Tao) does not stop at that point.
Deep Penetration is what to aim at.
And words drop off at a point too.
Q: You have hit the nail on head perfectly! Keep on doing what you are doing. I know many SRF'ers feel the way you do sometimes but ... they have nervous disorders.
I found out that SRF membership pulled me towards that too.
Q: I am anti-mentor full stop. I think these Hindu mentors are the worst type of human being that exist. Of course I am angry, but who said anger was bad?
Hm, I see. You have come a long way, then.
Q: I have many things to vent about SRF, Yogananda, kriya yoga mentors, Hinduism, miracles, Ananda, and so on. But the thing that bothers me the most is that people fall for all that! I feel GUILTY because I fell for it and I know that others can side-step all that if they know what people like us know from the beginning.
One heavy and solid reason why I took courage to put up some correctives (that sort of information) on the net, is that maybe beginners should be warned.
Q: I can relate with you ... Your English is very good ... (no offense).
No offence taken.
Q: ... Bring down SRF because it makes one feel sort of sick inside ... it HAS TO BE DONE.
Han har hoppat i galen tunna. (Lit. "He has jumped into the wrong barrel." - ie guessed wrong, expressed something unsuitable, etc)
Q: I have visited the SRF Walrus Discussion board and posted some views there myself but I was banned from there. I do not know why . . .
The bulky SRF Walrus consisted of a conformly Yogananda-loyal bunch. What remained for the public in May 2011, was a tiny fraction only. However, a backup site (of the Walrus in 2006) has appeared, so you can get a feel of it. [◦Link
Q: I wish I could get back there to check out the latest gossip.
Often in life one should be given a second chance -
You can perhaps start a discussion forum yourself and perhaps find persons with similar experiences to share, or maybe search for the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (RI), which is an online Internet archive of information about cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. It contains a much less reliable message board where SRF, Kriyananda, and Ananda figure among many others. But I'm not there!
The following is excerpted and then made almost seamless.
I had left SRF in February 2001, so I didn't know about the mass exodus that followed soon after. I am German, [from] a formerly communist country.
When I was in the ashram I didn't have any problems to put up with the routine and "training" (again, I had been brought up in a communist country). There was only one nun who seemed really genuine and who was a true inspiration for me and who happened to be my direct superior for a while. The closest I've ever come to committing suicide was there during my postulant time. Ironically, I didn't go through with my plan to end "this incarnation" right then and there not because of fear of the karmic punishment that we had been told about (I was so down that I didn't care about that anymore), but because I thought it would be really ungrateful to SRF to bring them such bad publicity and that it all wasn't their fault but my own. (Hah!)
Then I discovered what the Bible truly says ... this had nothing whatever to do with what I was taught by SRF the Bible says, which made the whole teachings untrustworthy to me.
How the "Holy Science" proves that "original" Hinduism and "original" Christianity teach the same (as was also maintained). In the beginning of my "SRF career" I just accepted this claim, trusting blindly and hoping that I would "understand" later, not knowing much about the Bible at that point anyway.
But now that I have read the Bible cover to cover (having studied the historical and cultural backgrounds at the same time). So what is the term "original" Christianity supposed to mean? How can you separate that from the Christian Bible?
And how does the "Holy Science" prove anything if you take away the blind faith because of the gurus' saying, "It is so, and that's why it is a proof!"? Hope someone is out there who is able to explain that to me without using too much intellectual terminology ... Thanks! [Ex nun, 19 July 03]
COMMENT: How can you consider suicide in SRF if you "have no problems" adapting to it? When Yogananda teaches that his yoga method, kriya, is for gaining conscious death, it does not teach suicide! "We ought not to fear to practice conscious death, i.e., give rest to the internal organs. Death will then be under our control," he says. [Scp 57-58]
There is a lot on Sri Yukteswar's teachings on this site: [Link]
There is also something on how original original guru Christianity may become: [Link]
Sound rationalism helps in clearing the mind of dogmatic debris and may assist fresh, personal perception. Rationalist views, how far can some of them they help under certain circumstances? Under what conditions can they win and become effective?
In the case of disordered or jumbled communications the rational instance of the mind (the ego) assists in sorting out and ranking old ideas or even evaluate (judge) things (better) on top of them. A rationalistic view can help people attain at least a minimum of control or mastery in their living patterns. Cogent rationalism can assists in attaining excellence or mastery over this and that, including sorting our basic ideals.
The rational parts of the mind may help us reflecting on our own native ideals (if any) in comparison to ideals (overt and hidden) as given through groups and societies.
Calm evaluation of one's conditions and various cult-linked facets comes about on top of being basically sound and well informed, and going on from there on the ladder of cognitive development. Dr. Benjamin Bloom and colleagues have shown such steps. Eventually, candid evaluation often serves a turning point or three. Good and fair solutions may be found through accessed and ascending sober rationalism.
Nice evaluations may be expressed in several ways, and many of them need not be cogent. Symbols and idea-pictures are the examples of that. - The steps of rational inquiry often assist in arriving at conclusions, and firm conclusions may be needed to work against having got minimal or limited control. Also, being rational can help many persons from getting hurt in various ways.
Pertinent, sound conclusions can eventually help people to arrive at their own evaluations, and also attain personal, dear conclusions that are to be preferred than many statements that are based on just hearsay.
Psy: Dasgupta, Sailendra. Paramhansa Swami Yogananda: Life-portrait and Reminiscences. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2006. Google Books, partial view.
Srg: Yogananda, Paramahansa. The Science of Religion. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1982.
Tas: Ramakrishna. Tales and Parables of Sri Ramakrishna. 5th ed. Madras: Ramakrishna Math, 1974.
USER'S GUIDE: [Link]|
© 2004–2016, Tormod Kinnes, MPhil. [Email] ᴥ Disclaimer: [Link]