>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Core Issues
        > The real question		 New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
YellowBeard420
Slow Down
(1/19/04 11:54 pm)
Reply
Re: Soul Snatchers
> SayItIsntSo wrote: "...good GOD what are you guys talking about?"

To sum up Punk Yogi's position, he believe's that anyone that questions the iron fisted authority of Yogananda is a "circus freak" because they dare to have the audacity to resist being fitted into the mold of the guru's image.

This seems to be the position of most of the posters here, but in different words of course.

> SayItIsntSo: "Man, I hate running into old devotees I used to know. They really think they can sway you back to their cult thinking."

Have the same thing happening here. When many here see someone's thought expanding freely outside of the guru's rigid thought patterns, all they can think of is assimilation. Their idea of unity is goose-step marching behind the will of another, and to bring others into this fold. True Freedom is incomprehensible to them because Kriya Yoga has never worked and never will for this purpose -- it's simply opium for the masses to subjugate independent thought.

> SayItIsntSo: "So, it's very official... I denounced Yogananda in a crowd. Lightening didn't strike. I'm still waiting."

Very bold, and freedom is only for the bold. As much as many would like to make us believe that the universe was spun from Yogananda's fingertips, this is not true. The only power Yogananda has is the power people give to him by subjugating themselves beneath his boot.

What draws us back to Yogananda is fear and insecurities. And his doctrine is prepared in a way to create these effects and to establish himself as the 'savior' from these fears. The fears of not arriving to some exulted plane of existence shaped in his image. The fears of not seeing some kind of 'third eye' which is nothing more than the symbol of his cult and dogma. The fears of dealing with life as an adult instead of as a dog on the thick leather leash of his will.

Many here fear walking free on their own because of all the fears that have been feed to them throughout their lives; they cannot comprehend that they are already self-sufficient and are already the Universe itself experiencing life through individual expression. They think that they have been created by Yogananda and are nothing more than a plaything of his megalomania. They think that they have to please him otherwise they'll be damned to some kind of rebirth in Yogananda's Hindu-Christian hybrid hell.

-----------

Punk Yogi -- some pretty funny bits there in your post which YB can appreciate even though they are unfortunately tailored to mock a state of freedom from the guru and dealing with life as a reality and not as an abstraction.

> Punk wrote in a parody of YB: "My function is merely to show everybody what a wonderful meal they could have if they removed everything from the table and fixed their eyes on me."

Punk is so use to 'cults of personality', whenever he hears about anything related to Self-realization, he thinks that it has to be focused on a person. Punk's been taught that becoming an extension of a person's ego that speaks on spiritual matters is a legitimate means of self discovery. And Punk thinks that YB is putting *his* dirty laundry on the table.

This is interesting that many here would say this considering that YB's entire message, said again and again in different words, is to detach yourself from becoming an extension of Yogananda's ego and become Self reliant. These readers interpret this as a call to become an extension of YB's ego. And you guys think that YB projects issues!

There's a spark in everyone that wants to become free. When we remove our belief structures and codependencies, we feel a state like falling. Don't fall back on anyone. No truly free person would want you to fall back on them regardless of whether that freedom is mundane or spiritual. Because then freedom would be gone for both. Codependency is destructive in all its guises. In the spiritual field it's called the guru-disciple relationship. And those that enter into this type of relationship are equally unhealthy, both the disciple and the guru.

“Not all spiritual paths lead to the Harmonious Oneness. Indeed, most are detours and distractions, nothing more.” -- by Lao Tzu from the Hua Hu Ching

---------

> Username wrote: "yellowbeard -- this is your best post yet!"

Many thanks to Sister Username. :)

chela2020
Registered User
(1/20/04 4:27 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
SsSsSnake:

Supernatural powers used by a guru are not for self-gain or to gather a following, but are used to reduce suffering in order to bring people to their true identity. Jesus basically used his powers out of compassion and to heal. He often told the person that he healed to go and tell no one.

I would suggest that you read chapter 18 of the Autobiography again. Here you will find someone who used his powers and was condemned for abusing them.

What powers did Yogananda use? Many, but I don’t recall them all. He once made a salt shaker wobble and spin on a table in front of devotees. At large audiences I was told that he would hold his palms out to the audience, facing towards them, and light would flash from them. He read people’s minds, and that is in his books. He was also told that he would hold open his hand, show that nothing was there, close and open it again, and an object would appear. Often this object was then given to a person.

Edited by: chela2020 at: 2/2/04 6:27 am
etzchaim
Registered User
(1/20/04 6:21 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Chela, what were you doing in Sunday school? Jesus was getting people drunk at weddings, reproducing fishes and loaves in large public gatherings and walking around taking demons out of people, in public, no less and on Shabbos! He had his doubting friends stickin' their hands in his side so they knew he was really raised from the dead.

I've seen some very high Yogis from India doing the same things that Yogananda did. They seemed to be demonstrating that the materialistic, ultra rational world the West believes in is not all there is to reality.

Yoganda may have actually been doing just that for Westerners - showing that someone other than Jesus and dead people they read about in books could move beyond the physical plane. He also may have been showing off, who knows? I'm not vexing myself over it. He doesn't seem like Lord Voldemort to me, so it doesn't really bother me too much. You, on the other hand, seem really stricken by it and that tells me that something else is going on in you. I agree with you that emphasis shouldn't be put on Astral powers, and have quite a few issues with SRF's presentation of these, but they sure do remind me of Christianity and the use of miracles to prove someone is a Saint. There is something almost vindictive about the way you are approaching this. If he was using his siddhis too much, I'm sure his karma is making his soul learn about what he did wrong.

Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/20/04 6:51 am
SsSsSnake
Registered User
(1/20/04 6:44 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
my only interest is that I never new he did those things.I have to admit to being impressed,at least it showed he wasnt all talk.:rollin

chela2020
Registered User
(1/20/04 7:18 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Eztchaim,

I know of all the miracles that Christ was said to have performed, and whether he really performed them or not is debatable even among Bible scholars. Did he really turn water into wine or was that just another parable where he was really referring to himself as "good wine", or like the Jesus scholars said, it was just added to the Bible and Christ had not said it at all. That is just one example.

Obviously, you have not read chapter 18 of the Autobiography of a Yogi, where miracles of the type that Yogananda performed were condemned. And yes, many yogis in India use them, but that doesn't mean that they are really high yogis, just means that they have these powers, which are easy to obtain, which takes you away from the path, and which Patanjali warns against doing, but at the same time Yogananda teaches his followers to use occult powers in his lessons. I find that irresponisble. He also said that we should not make a circus out of our meditation, and yet he has us focusing on the 3rd eye, which brings on visions and powers, or so I was told from a member of Siddhi Yoga and so, to me, this actually turns meditation into the very circus that he preached against.

As to whether I am being vindictive or not, that is up to you to decide. I have had several people writing me e-mails asking questions about Yogananda, and some have said that I should not delete what I know. I have had very mixed feelings. On one hand, people on this board are often Yogananda's devotees, while others are not or are still in confusion in regards to him and want answers. I may not have the answers that they desire; I don't pretend to have known Yogananda very well, other than his actions, what is written, what others have informed me as to who he was and wasn't, and what the scriptures tell me in regards to what a true and/or false guru is. In the past, I kept feeling responsible for what I said on this board about either SRF or Yogananda, as if it were in my own hands that these people's spirituality lays. It is in God's hands; not my own. People come on this board saying they are devotees of Yogananda and that we should follow his teachings, but at the same time they are putting down SRF, and in his teachings he says to not say negative things about others, and he even told Rajasi to not get into the politics of SRF. Mother Center also warns people about SRFWalrus and tells them to stay away, but people show up here anyway. They read things about SRF, and then begin to read about Yogananda, and they are upset. Why, I ask, didn't they just quit reading the Walrus when they saw how it was going? Why didn't they listen to Mother Center? Karma.

So, I get half the people on this board angry with me because I say what I know to be true about Yogananda, and the other half thanking me. And for those who get angry or hurt, I delete. I have to stop deleting. I am not responsible for others reading my posts. Yellowbeard is right; if you don't like what he is saying, just don't read it. If you don't like what I am saying about Yogananda, then either debate or ignore what I have to say, and it is also your right to abuse me for saying these things, and then to continue to claim that you are following Yogananda's teachings in spite of how you are abusing others.

Now, what is going on with me? Well, I once loved Yogananda very much, but I thought that he was exactly what SRF and even he claimed to be; I feel betrayed, not just by him but by SRF. It was hurtful learning these things about him. And you say that I just expect too much of him and no one can meet up to my expectations, but that is not true. There are holy men out there who do meet my expectations, and there are True gurus out there who follow the teachings, who have not fallen on the path.

What I have felt from your posts, is, you stand up for Yogananda because if it is proven that he is a false guru, then all those who follow in his path are. If he really was not a swami, because he didn't know the sadhu mantra, then no one who has followed him can have the claim of being a swami. (This came from two people who claimed that a court case in the U.S. asked him to drop the title of "swami" because he didn't know the sahdu mantra.)

To quote Christ, if he really said it: Matthew 15:14: "If, then, the blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit." I no longer wish to follow the blind; it is the pits.





Edited by: chela2020 at: 2/2/04 6:36 am
etzchaim
Registered User
(1/20/04 7:44 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Chela, I'm aware that Yogananda was scolded for his use of the siddhis, and I am quite certain that one of the Yogis I saw doing similar things that Yogananda did was extremely high and realized.

I honestly don't think it matters as much as you. Neither of us believe that Yogananda was fully enlightened, but I'm a bit more mellow in my judgement of his use of his Astral powers. It's not a life or death situation. My Guru has 'scolded' me for much less!

As for whether Jesus did what the NT says he did, that is entirely outside the point I'm trying to make. Yogananda was talking to Westerners who were living in a very different time than we are, coming from mainly Christian backgrounds. What matters is what people believe, not some abstract concept of the 'real Jesus', what ever that was. The whole concept of the 'historical Jesus' was only brought up at the end of the 20th century, and many religious Christians even today do not pay any attention to whether Jesus said such and such, or did such and such. Their source is the New Testament.

Whether you, as a late 20th century woman believe in the New Testament or not is really irrelevant to what Yogananda was doing, whether or not he was doing thing legitimately or not. I personally don't like all the emphasis on siddhis, but on the other hand, I really do think that some people needed to see certain things in order for them to move beyond certain types of doubt and Western bias. I also think that the need to decide whether Yogananda was perfect or whether he made some mistakes is endemic to what is wrong with SRF and the approach they have taken, and almost everyone who has had long exposure to SRF seems to have been affected by it, including you. It's just something I've noticed that is radically different than the approach that Shelley and my Guru take with Yogananda and the teachings he brought over. We seem to focus more on what we are doing and whether we are growing spiritually or not, rather than on whether Yogananda was a perfect Guru or not.

I see two sides to the same coin here - a very natural reaction to extremes that everyone seems to demonstrate to greater or lesser degrees. There are Yogananda lovers and Yogananda haters with hardly a soul in between. What about the possibility that he was just a guy who practiced Yoga and tried his best to teach people, given the responsibilities that were handed him, and like other people, had some faults? My personal view is that he was highly developed and had some personality issues which his soul is no doubt learning about, like would happen to every human being, experimented a bit with the practices, wisely or unwisely, and created too big of an organization for his britches and especially the britches of the people who took over from him. I'm startled by the love/hate thing happening, and have come to the conclusion that this is as much about keeping a Corporation afloat by playing on peoples expectations and desire for Divine Perfection as it is Yogananda's personality flaws. The hate seems just as raw and instinctual as the love.

SsSsSnake
Registered User
(1/20/04 7:47 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
who scalded Y for using powers?

chela2020
Registered User
(1/20/04 8:04 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
SsSsSnake,

I am not sure who are you asking this question of, but I added more to my last post. I know it just confuses people.

etzchaim
Registered User
(1/20/04 8:10 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
His Guru told him to chill, basically. Guru's tend to scold their disciples and disciples have a way of acting out their personalities rather than the instructions of their Guru's, I've noticed...

Sri Yukteswar also warned Yogananda about starting Kriya organizations, too...he didn't listen to that either.

I'm into the whole 'well, jeez, I'm human' bit. I warn Willie Nelson, Jr. about leaping up on cluttered tables all the time. Does he listen? No. He ends up knocking stuff over and sliding all the way across the table on the plethera of books and paper and other clutter, and lands on his butt on the floor. He's a kitten. Humans will human and kittens will kitten is what I always say.

We should all try to develop ourselves but when people start wacking each other over the head, I wonder about what they don't like in themselves, and then I can usually figure out the problem then.

Guru's are there to let you know what you need to work on, but I fail to see Sri Yukteswar's 'scoldings' and 'warnings' as a rejection of Yogananda's validity.

etzchaim
Registered User
(1/20/04 8:20 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Chela, you think I'm abusing you? I'm sorry if that is how it's coming across. I'm really just disagreeing with some of what you believe. Honestly, several posters, including myself have stated that Yellowbeards posts feel abusive and you apparently like him and think he's fine. It's because you agree with him on most things.

In no way am I telling you that your path isn't valid for you. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as abusive. I also think it's important for people to know what the issues are within SRF, and with Yogananda. Quite frankly, by deleting all your posts, an important opinion is lost, and the forums are disrupted - they become useless then. The way to get to the truth is often to hammer out the issues with people you disagree with. I don't think any of us has the market on truth. All I can do is state my opinions, like you are doing.

My basic stance is that we need perspective and that Yogananda is most likely somewhere in between Perfect Saint and and Demonic Brainwasher. I personally think both extremes are simplistic and much of the demonizing seems reactionary to me, while the True Believers seem lost in a fantasy. I apologize if that feels abusive!

Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/20/04 8:28 am
chela2020
Registered User
(1/20/04 8:33 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Eztchaim,

No, not you. I am talking about how people on this board become abusive towards those who say anything negative about Yogananda, and some come on and abuse those who put down SRF. It was more of a general statement. No one is immune from doing this, not even me, sometimes, people do get under my skin.

I also agree with you that some of things Yellowbeard says are abusive, and I have mentioned that to him, probably via e-mail. I have always stated that he has a right to be here, to state his opinion, and while I don't agree with all that he has to say, I agree with much of it, just as I do with your posts as well as others. I do like how everyone is now just debating with him and visa versa, and I hope that lasts. Seems like, just as soon as a certain person comes on this board and begins saying abusive things to him, that some follow suit, or maybe it is just how I see it.

I will do my best to not delete my posts, because of what you said.

Edited by: chela2020 at: 1/20/04 8:38 am
etzchaim
Registered User
(1/20/04 8:50 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Chela, thanks for that last response. I too wish we could be only debating. I've noticed that I sometimes swing to the opposite of what's being said out of an emotional reaction and later I notice that my real opinion is in between, but I was just reacting. I've gotten so much out of these forums, though, even from the non-debates! It's pushing me to grow beyond my comfort zones, I guess, particularly the Christian discussions, because I had such a bias against it. I still have most of my main beliefs, but completely disagree with some of the things I've said in earlier versions of the forum! My whole understanding has changed. It's an interesting dip into the murky world of emotinally based biases...

Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/20/04 8:57 am
chela2020
Registered User
(1/20/04 9:01 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Eztchaim,

It is sorta like going to your parent's funeral where emotions are already running high, and brothers and sisters get into it, and then they have to remind themselves that they are brothers and sisters. In this case the funeral is the organization, and with some it is also the leader of it.



etzchaim
Registered User
(1/20/04 9:26 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
This is a lot like an Irish Wake, then... I shall refrain from quoting Pogues songs in reference to ghosts...

From my perspective, I went through a major crisis when I thought that what I'd learned was 'false' because of a few specific SRF'ers on this forum and in other places on the Net. I also have some major past life connections with Kriya and Sri Yukteswar, so I'm coming out of a major 'dark night', you might say, with much more than I had going into it and a pretty stable orientation towards how Kriya was handed down to me.

At one point I concluded that even if all of this Kriya stuff is 'false', the techniques have actually been good for me and I continue to like and respect my Guru, even if I disagree with him on a few things and don't like organizations.

It's fairly confusing, because, as I've just found out, we entirely skip SRF's second Kriya and I have no idea where that's coming from. The rest of it, up through SRF's 4th Kriya is almost exactly the same, with the exception of our use of the pancha tattwa shapes and colors (these are common in most Tantric schools). So who's right? The only thing I can conclude is that if it's working for me, whatever that means to me at any given moment, it's right for me, and I would extend that to any one. If what you are doing doesn't work, examine it, see what's up with it, see if someone is doing something similar that might work better, or go find something else that DOES work for you. Don't be afraid and don't feel guilty. Those are very poisonous emotions. When you find something that works, believe it is working, and don't let people who are not experiencing what you experience affect you with judgments and taunting. They are icky...

One of the few Lubavitchisms I've kept is the motto they have: "Practice random acts of loving kindness". I'm still working on making that integrated into my life and personality - it's difficult sometimes, believe me - but my gut tells me that a little bit of that spread throughout the world, and more particularly, in SRF, would make a huge difference. Less wacking over the head, more loving kindness...

I'd add to that a sense of humor and a kitten.

Edited by: etzchaim at: 1/20/04 9:30 am
chela2020
Registered User
(1/20/04 10:45 am)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Eztchaim,

Irish wake. Funny. I have never been to one, but I can imagine.

From my understanding of Kriya, different Masters change it, just as Yogananda did, and that is okay for them to do this. Then you have those who say, if you change it, it can screw you up mentally. Who knows? For some or maybe even many, Kriya does work, for others it just isn't right. I have said it before: I just feel that it is best to have a guru who is here on earth when you do kriya or any meditation practice because they can guide you better than an organization, who when you ask them a question about an experience you had in meditation, are clueless. You have a guru you can talk to personally. You are fortunate.

I know of some oganizations, though, that have gurus, and still some devotees flip out. Could it be that the guru of that organization doesn't have a one on one relationship with his/her disciple but leaves it up to others in the organization to help this person? I don't know. I know some in TM have had alot of problems as have those who received shaktipad from another so-called qualified member in Siddhi Yoga. The gurus in both of those organizations are not always there for you personally. It is obvious from your posts that you are having no ill effects from kriya. No one can really be the judge as to whether any meditation practice is working for them or not, except for you and your guru.




ranger20
Registered User
(1/20/04 12:15 pm)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Irish wake is an interesting image. What has died, at least for me, is a certain kind of naivete, thinking of SRFdom as a little domain exempt from the muddiness of maya. I cannot remember the exact references, but I recall Hillman writing that the naive attitude actually demands a betrayal.

I mentioned recently, taking a friend to an SRF social function in the past. One of the comments he made was, "they've deified the teacher." A clear perception, after just an hour or so, of listening to "Master this," and "Master that." I think that's a dynamic behind some of the wrangling here. I believe that SRF is behind this deification trend, that it has accelerated in the last decade or so, and that it amounts to an attempt to "push the river," and results in some fairly unnatural trends that certainly walri are sensitive to.

A problem in meditation came to me some time ago - after stilling/elevating the consciousness to some degreee with pranayama, what then? SRF lessons say, after concentrating the mind, "true" meditation is focus on God. How do you focus on God? That is one of the gifts of the major religious traditions, - there are time honored ways that catch the imagination, as traditional "fingers pointing" to the Great Mystery.

Once SRF set itself to be a RELIGION, I think that became a problem. What to focus on became "one of the gurus," or "a saint" or a quality, like peace, light, calmness, etc, or "your own conception of God." A quality like peace or light my help with relaxation and stress control. If I had a "clear conception," I'd probably be somewhere else. And if I can't really take "one of the gurus" as an Ishta, what then?

Those instructions always left me wanting something more. I think it must have left SRF uneasy too. From Lahiri giving kriya and telling people to keep to their own faith, to trying to become the religion of the coming age is a huge leap, and kind of demands that the mythology of the avatar be stressed.

A while ago I saw the slides by someone who had travelled to India, and I was struck by the appropriateness of the altar images at one of the YSS temples (Dakshineswar I think). Christ and Krishna were way off to the side, and the other four (Babaji, Lahiri, SY, PY) were over the altar. There was a recognition in that, I believe, that there is a qualitative difference between them.

There's a decent conceptual model of that difference in book two of "God Talks With Arjuna." It's stated that the devotion of many people - especially of saints - creates a "blueprint in the ether" of the aspect of God they were devoted to, that kind of cuts astral grooves (my phrase) and that makes it easier for others to get to the infinite on that road. So for millenia, millions of people have been focused on Krishna and Jesus as divine incarnations, and that has, in a very real sense, made it true, whatever the history. It would be true now, even if they had not existed as actual incarnations.

Because Yogananda said in 1951 that he wasn't interested in starting a church, and because SRF wasn't clearly defined as a CHURCH until 1960, I think this is a mistake of the followers and not the founder. I was fairly comfortable with Yogananda as a teacher, and even a guru ("dispeller of darkness"), but not so as "a God Image." A hundred years is not a real long time to cut astral grooves, especially when historical controversy is in the air. One could almost say an Ishta can't have too much history. History has to become story, or parable, and that takes it's own time.

I do think SRF is trying to hurry the process. When did the 20x24 pictures of Yogananda appear prominently in front of the altar at the temples and centers? Within the last 10 years I think. One is told that we have six gurus and it's okay to focus where you have an affinity, but in the lectures and the readings and the breathy piety of "Master said," that sentiment is not born out in practice. One becomes a bit uncomfortable without the intensity of devotion that some probably have, and many try to "act as if" they have, in the hopes, perhaps, that it will come.

This kind of forced march by the organization, to install the founder on a pedestal is at the heart of much of this controversy I believe. One who brought kriya and the lessons and the very awarenss that the search for God is possible made a huge contribution to many people, including me. It's a shame that his history has to be burdened by the needs of the corporation, to retrofit him as PERFECT in every respect.

bsjones
Registered User
(1/20/04 12:32 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
 Re: How do you focus on God?
"A problem in meditation came to me some time ago - after stilling/elevating the consciousness to some degreee with pranayama, what then? SRF lessons say, after concentrating the mind, "true" meditation is focus on God. How do you focus on God? That is one of the gifts of the major religious traditions, - there are time honored ways that catch the imagination, as traditional "fingers pointing" to the Great Mystery."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this answer!

Edited by: bsjones at: 1/20/04 1:54 pm
chela2020
Registered User
(1/20/04 2:31 pm)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
ranger20,

Great post. I don't think I was as much naive, and it was because I didn't have the facts, and there was no way in the beginning to find them. Perhaps, in a way that is being naive, but I certainly looked for facts, and of course Yogananda was not telling us to believe but to meditate and see if he is right or not. The politics of SRF came later. But yes, when you have certain ideas about a guru or an organization, "the naive attitude demands betrayal".

What died for me was the image of Yogananda and thinking of him as my guru. What also died for me was being so naive as if to think any organization was close to perfection. How stupid of me to have thought that Eastern religion was less messed up than Western. But as for Yogananda and SRF, as people who are searching for God, as we all, that has not died for me. I can still love them as humans who are on the same path to God as the rest of us, who, like even myself, get sidetracked. I just can't look up to them anymore. I now understand that all organizations have their problems and are not perfect. And while even holy men are not perfect; I still believe that there are saints, and that a saint is a sinner who never gave up. It all boils down to, some people are more perfect than others, and I need to look up to those whose footsteps I desire to follow.

I used to ask SRF how to meditate on God, and they never could explain it to me. Now that I know, it still isn't easy. Like you said, we are to think of an aspect of our Ishta, visualize him or her or to focus on an aspect of God, such as love or peace but holding those thoughts is not easy. The idea is to continue the mantra, focusing on it and/or some aspect of God until it all drops away automatically or you fall to sleep, or decide to just get up and do something else. Someday, hopefully, while you are meditating, you will have the experience of God. The mantra or technique will just drop away and God remains for a brief moment of bliss.

From what I have read since leaving SRF is, an avatar always comes to earth as an avatar, he/she has no past, as in, was never the incarnation of anyone other than an avatar. I think it is irrelevant as to whether one believes in an avatar or not. It is much easier for the Hindu mind to pray to one, or even for a Christian to pray to Christ and consider him one. Of course, when I was a Christian, I always just prayed to God and not Christ. Out of superstition, fear, whatever, I always ended it "in Christ's name," and I always thought that strange.

Now for those who don't even want to worship an avatar, but think of God as Consciousness, as the Absolute, as Brahman, then Buddhist meditation is good. As for Hinduism: Ramana Marharshi's or even Sri Nisargadatta Maharaji's method of inquiry works well. Being a Bhakti, I prefer devotional, and so the inquiry, while it would more than likely work for me, isn't what I desire to do, which means it wouldn't work because I would fail to do it. And so these last two types are for those who can't conceive of an Ishta. But if it is just that you can't relate to the Ishta's in SRF, there are other Avatars.

All in all, it looks like you and I are at the same Irish wake, both of us were thinking that SRFdom was exempt from maya. No one is, and that is the problem. We all want heaven now.

Edited by: chela2020 at: 1/23/04 7:39 am
etzchaim
Registered User
(1/20/04 3:06 pm)
Reply 		Re: Personal Responsibility
Chela, I'm familiar with the idea that the Guru can change the techniques. After seeing SRF's version, I really do prefer what I learned. Shelley said that Yogananda taught him separately, and he went off in another direction with Kabballah and Native American practices, which is far different from the way SRF went. Kriyananda actually brought much more Hinduism back into the teachings that I received, and Buddhism, Zen in particular, and Sufism, so I feel like I have a global mystical education to work with.

I have seen more people lose their bearings when they were working more on their own than with a teacher, but some people seem to be fine without a teacher and some people with teachers, even good ones, lose their bearings, so there doesn't seem to be any really hard and fast rules, just generalities. It's important to listen to what 'you' personally need for your own development and to be able to talk to others or have access to information to help you make your own decisions.

Siddhi Yoga is very big in Ann Arbor. It's rather interesting to meet some of the people involved. They too have a Fundamentalist thing going on. Shaktipat is actually rather dangerous for many people (as is TM, but for different reasons). I haven't seen my friend the Bubba Da Free John/Adi Da/Whatever He's Calling Himself Now, devotee in a few years. The last I saw her, she seemed to be doing OK, except for a rather frenetic energy that didn't seem right, but we didn't go into anything very deeply. Once, a man came into the Temple trying to get advice for a friend. She'd been practicing a very powerful form of Pranayama on her own that she picked up somewhere. He'd found her one morning wandering around the beach in total disarray and completely zoned out, with blood all over her fingers from her nails ripping. When he brought her to her home, he discovered that she had moved everything, and he really emphasized EVERYTHING, into the center of each room in well ordered piles, as close to centered as she could get them, and as tall as possible. Then she had torn out every electrical outlet with her hands - wires included. He said he checked the entire house, and she hadn't missed any of them. Scarry.

SsSsSnake
Registered User
(1/20/04 3:09 pm)
Reply 		Re: How do you focus on God?
Dont the lessons say that the Aum is Gods Vibration so meditate on That?

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Core Issues -



Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.