>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals
        > Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga		 New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2 3 4
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
MastersChela
Registered User
(4/16/03 8:55 pm)
Reply 		Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
I was just wondering what anyone knew about Marshall Govindan? He has an ashram outside Montreal, Quebec where he teaches Kriya in weekend intensive seminars. He is a disciple of Yogi Rhamaya (spelling?) who says he is a direct disciple of Babaji. Govindan also says he's had two personal darshans with Babaji.

I ask because a very dear friend from many lives has been talking a lot about this organization and seems to be drifiting away from Master quite rapidly. This is not due to any negative experience with SRF or Master (we're both members of THE OTHER Yogananda organization). I was just wondering what anyone knew about Govindan or about his organization, either Good or Bad. I'm not worried, but wanting to know more from perhaps more objective sources.

Thanks everyone!!

MastersChela

Borg108
Registered User
(4/17/03 8:14 am)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
I've had some dealings with Marshall and am familiar with his way of doing things. His approach is suppossed to be the original way of kriya as taught by Babaji before being distilled down by Lahiri Mahasaya. Therefore, Marshall recognizes 144 kriyas rather than the 4 that Lahiri Mahasaya taught (kriya is a common word meaning action - it is not something unique to SRF or others who practice a similar form of kriya mediation). These 144 kriyas include yoga asanas, mantras, and visualization techniques, in addition to the kriya pranayama technique that is similar, but not exactly the same, as the one taught by SRF. Marshall also emphasizes yoga philosophy more than SRF does. Overall, I would say Marshall's approach is more in line with the way a traditional Indian sadhu might learn yoga. His organization has been growning rapidly over the past 10 years.

On the negative side, usually one becomes a teacher only when one's Guru authorizes him to do so. Marshall left Yogi Ramaiah and decided on his own that he should become a teacher. Even though Marshall's initiations are given on a donation basis, his organization has the common western orientation toward the monetary side of things rather than the Indian orientation of giving freely, IMO. Also, if you were to ask SRF, they would say the Babaji that Marshall reveres and follows is different from the one that those in SRF follow. Marshall"s Babaji is one born about 1800 years ago in Tamil Nadu, South India. For more information, about Marshall and Yogi Ramaiah see:

www.babaji.ca/english/index.html

www.geocities.com/prssmd2002/ramaiah.htm

Edited by: Borg108 at: 4/28/03 10:30:24 am
Ringbearer7
Registered User
(4/18/03 10:50 am)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
M.G. does not teach the Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya and in fact is just making a lot of stuff up. For example, he claims in a recent article that sounds of the "original" Kriya breath was "va...shi" for Shiva but that Yoganandaji changed this to what we have learned in SRF/Ananda because he did not want to offend Christians in the West. This is pure nonsense. First of all, there are other Kriya lines in India that teach Kriya with the same sound of breath as Yoganandaji taught - so this aspect of Kriya certainly not something that he changed. Secondly, the 3rd Kriya given by SRF (and I suppose Ananda also) uses a certain 12 syllable mantra whose meaning would be at least as offensive to delicate Christian sensibilities as "va...shi." If Yoganandaji had intended to modify Kriya to keep from offending Christians then he certainly would have adjusted that mantra in the 3rd also. He did not. In my opinion M.G. is just making stuff up because he doesn't know. I'd say BEWARE.

MastersChela
Registered User
(4/18/03 2:13 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
One of the main issues of my concern was an article I read in the magainze "What Is Enlightenment". The article was on Babaji, and there was a short interview with Govindan in which he basically said that he was the new dispensation of Babaji's teachings because Babaji had withdrawn his ray from Master because Master was having sex with the SRF nuns.

To me, the whole thing sounded less like he was "getting it from Babaji" and more like he was trying to discredit another teacher so that he would seem more "true". I think they call this "chopping off your enemy's head so you feel taller". You don't really get taller, though.

I want to be openminded about this. I live quite far from my brother gurubai, and it's often hard to gague where people are coming from over email. I'm doing all I can to learn about Govindan and to tune in more to Babaji in my meditations. I'm praying that he'll provide the answers I'm seeking.

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(4/18/03 3:00 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
Yes, I read that article also. When questioned about the Eskrine case M.G. claimed that Babaji came to Yoganandaji sometime in the 40's and told him to give up his Swami's robes because of his affairs with women. Give me a break. If the Erskine story is true (which I doubt) then Yogananda was having affairs in the early 30's...what the heck took the Lord so long!?!?!?! He is just making this stuff up.

Look, M.G. apparently broke with his master. There are two possibilities:

1) M.G. is a bad disciple
2) His master is a bad master.

Either possibility seriously calls into question M.G.'s qualifications as a authorized Kriya acharya.



Edited by: Ringbearer7 at: 4/19/03 11:21:21 am
Borg108
Registered User
(4/20/03 6:33 am)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
Ringbearer7,

If I might get off topic for a moment, I don't think SRF need worry about offending any Christian sensibilities with the 3rd kriya mantra because they never tell you that it is a mantra or what it means. They present it as a series of syllables only. I was practicing it for years without knowing it was an ancient and beautiful Vaishnava mantra until someone in Ananda told me. Even then, I didn't accept it at first because SRF gives out the bengali rather than the sanskrit pronounciation of the syllables, so it seemed different until I thought about it a bit. This is but another example of SRF hinduphobia depriving us of worthwhile information and the opportunity to add more devotion to our practice.

Edited by: Borg108 at: 4/20/03 3:19:38 pm
Ringbearer7
Registered User
(4/20/03 10:54 am)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
Good point Borg - but I don't know if I entirely agree. It seems that SRF is just inconsistent. They don't explain the meaning of the mantra in the 3rd Kriya but then also add Krishna to the altar and remove the crosses from pictures of Paramhansaji and Rajasi. So I am not convinced that their not explaining the meaning of that mantra is due to them trying to not offend Christians. Whatever the case, SRF is certainly too much like a Christian church for me. Having said that, Happy Easter to everyone! :-)

stermejo
Registered User
(4/20/03 1:51 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
Could be that SRF is drawing some informed conclusions regarding religion in today's world given countless examples of religious oriented violence during the past 30 years.

Regarding hinduphobia, good term, just check the news on the "progress' of Hindu political leaders in deconstructing India's sectarian constitution. Search article's by Laurinda Keys.

Don't consider me an anti-Hindu, I am deeply hurt that much of this violence takes place in Gujarat State. Why? It seems that throughout my association with SRF and even when I meet a "random" Indian on the street, they "happen" to be from Gujarat. Those associations having led me to visit Gujarat, where the people seem very decent, making the insanity of such violence that much more inconcievable.

I guess my point is that SRF, in erasing crosses from pictures or disregarding mantras (OM Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya) may be trying to back away, even if unconsciously, from association with the "ungodly sectarianism" (see Ch 18 AY) of today's religion. I say "unconsciously" because altering photos is especially egregious and a poor way to achieve that goal.

The whole thing makes me long for the day that the memory of formal religion vanishes from human history. Besides, the true Sanatana Dharma, is the religion (or path back to God) lodged in the heart of everyman.

MastersChela
Registered User
(4/22/03 2:23 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
To turn this thread back to the original subject for a moment, I wanted to say that I'd doubted this claim of Govindan's that Lahiri "watered down" Kriya from what Babaji taught. To quote Borg108 from an earlier post:

Quote:
His approach is supposed to be the original way of kriya as taught by Babaji before being distilled down by Lahiri Mahasaya. Therefore, Marshall recognizes 144 kriyas rather than the 4 that Lahiri Mahasaya taught


Then, I found this quote from Master in the Autobiography of a Yogi (first edition) , in a footnote in Chapter 35, "The Christlike Life of Lahiri Mahasaya":

"As Kriya Yoga is capable of many subdivisions, Lahiri Mahasaya wisely sifted out four steps which he discerned to be those which contained the essential marrow, and which were of the highest value in actual practice."

So here, either Master himself, or his editor, Tara (perhaps an even more telling possibility) is admitting that Lahiri's (and subsequently Master's) Kriya Yoga is not the "complete" set of techniques which Babaji taught to his Himalayan troop of saints. I don't say this to write off Master or SRF or @nand@ or any of the organizations teaching Lahiri's Kriya (obviously, as a Master, Lahiri could make important choices like this), but it does give some merit to Govindan's story. Just wanted to throw that out there...

Edited by: MastersChela at: 4/22/03 2:27:04 pm
Ringbearer7
Registered User
(4/22/03 6:23 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
"So here, either Master himself, or his editor, Tara (perhaps an even more telling possibility) is admitting that Lahiri's (and subsequently Master's) Kriya Yoga is not the "complete" set of techniques which Babaji taught to his Himalayan troop of saints."

Who knows what was taught to Lahiri Mahasaya by Babaji or even what Yoganandaji taught to Dr. Lewis or Rajasi for that matter. I doubt that very advanced disciples are given a fixed one-size-fits-all formula by their Masters for their realization and I also doubt if Babaji has a "complete" set of lessons that he gives to his disciples. Whatever the case, it is certain that the Kriya that is taught in SRF and @nanad@ is not the same in all aspects to what was taught by Lahiri Mahasaya and I have heard SRF monks say as much. I'm sure Kriyananda and others will tell you the same.

"I don't say this to write off Master or SRF or @nand@ or any of the organizations teaching Lahiri's Kriya (obviously, as a Master, Lahiri could make important choices like this), but it does give some merit to Govindan's story."

Not really, Govindan used to be a member of SRF and so certainly read the AY. His Master also had plenty of opportunity to read the AY. M.G. uses Yoganandaji's picture of Babaji and makes claims that they have the "real" Kriya of Babaji. It is just marketing and nothing more. Unfortunately there are plenty of guillable people who will fall for this sort of thing. It is very appealing to imagine that you are one of the elect that is practicing "Babaji's Original Kriya Yoga" - a priveledge not even the great disciples such as Sri Yukteswarji, Kebalanandaji, Pachonon Battycharya or Pranabanandaji had! You know, Swami Satyeswarananda (disciple of Swami Satyananda) in San Diego also claims to have received the "complete" (Purna) Kriya direct from Babaji (and even lived with him for 10+ years!) and yet what he teaches seems to differ dramatically from what M.G. teaches. So which one is the real Kriya of Babaji? My guess is neither.

Did you read what I wrote in an earlier post about the sounds of the inhaling and exhaling breaths? It is clear that M.G. or his Master is just making stuff up.

MastersChela
Registered User
(4/23/03 2:19 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
Quote:
Who knows what was taught to Lahiri Mahasaya by Babaji or even what Yoganandaji taught to Dr. Lewis or Rajasi for that matter. I doubt that very advanced disciples are given a fixed one-size-fits-all formula by their Masters for their realization and I also doubt if Babaji has a "complete" set of lessons that he gives to his disciples. Whatever the case, it is certain that the Kriya that is taught in SRF and @nanad@ is not the same in all aspects to what was taught by Lahiri Mahasaya and I have heard SRF monks say as much. I'm sure Kriyananda and others will tell you the same


I agree with this statement in every respect. I think you're right in saying that there isn't a "cookie-cutter" method of teaching, especially to advanced disciples. In fact, the whole purpose of the disciple-guru system is so that each soul has a teacher and a method individually tailored by God to fit their own soul. Each Guru understands His/Her disciples even better than they understand themselves, and therefore changes the teachings to suit the students' needs.

This takes me to your next statement:

Quote:
thing. It is very appealing to imagine that you are one of the elect that is practicing "Babaji's Original Kriya Yoga" - a priveledge not even the great disciples such as Sri Yukteswarji, Kebalanandaji, Pachonon Battycharya or Pranabanandaji had! You know, Swami Satyeswarananda (disciple of Swami Satyananda) in San Diego also claims to have received the "complete" (Purna) Kriya direct from Babaji (and even lived with him for 10+ years!) and yet what he teaches seems to differ dramatically from what M.G. teaches. So which one is the real Kriya of Babaji? My guess is neither.


Based on the first statement, that the Guru tailors the teachings to each student (or each group of students), isn't it possible that BOTH of these teachers (as well as SRF, @ananda@, and others in the Lahiri lineage) are giving the "true" Kriya Yoga of Babaji? Isn't it true that with Kriya it's one's devotion, one's love and trust in the Guru that matters... One's attunement with the line of souls that has brought the technique to you?

I haven't seen Govindan's teachings yet (although I have an offer out to get them from a fellow devotee and will make my own decisions when I read them), but I think that many people here have been able to accept the differences in Yogananda's Kriya vs. Lahiri's Kriya as the right of the Guru to tailor the teachings to his students' temperments. Couldn't Babaji be capable of the same tailoring?

I too, at first was sceptical of this idea of the "true" Kriya. I think it may well be a fancy marketing technique (aka: my Kriya is better than yours), but is it any less believeable that someone says they're a disciple of Babaji vs. a disciple of Yogananda? Babaji, if we accept what Yogananda says in the AY, is still in the material body on earth. Isn't he JUST as capable of having new devotees as Master (perhaps MORE capbable, as Master doesn't currently have a body on the physical plane)? I don't think we can accept the concept of Babaji being a deathless guru, then disbelieve all those who claim to recieve teaching directly from him. That's like the Christians saying that Christ was "both fully Man and Fully God" and then getting pissed when people say that Christ (if fully Man) must have felt some temptation to sin. If he DIDN'T feel temptation to sin, would he even BE "fully man"?

I know it probably sounds like I've done an "about face" on this Marshall Govindan thing; but I haven't. I'm just working hard to tune into Babaji, and things are becoming clearer, meditation by meditation. It seems that in relgious groups, people get the most violent against those who are the most like them (Sunnis and Shities, Fundamentalist Christians and the Catholic church, SRF and @nand@...), when we SHOULD be trying to see how we're ALL THE SAME. We are all children of God, and just because someone teaches Kriya different than we like it taught or than it was taught to us doesn't mean they're "making it up." If Govindan is a disciple of Babaji, then isn't he a part of our extended spiritual family?

What do you all think of these ideas? Shouldn't INCLUSIVENESS triumph over EXCLUSIVENESS? Perhpas Govindan's orgainization too needs to focus on this when they think that presenting their Kriya as the "original" is a good idea, but should we exaccerbate the situation by claiming that he's lying about recieving the teachings from Babaji?

MastersChela
Registered User
(4/23/03 2:27 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
One reason for my reconsideration is that my Spiritual Brother talked to Govindan about this "What Is Enlightenment" article and said that Govindan told him his view of the situation has changed and his respect for Master has grown. He admitted he was mistaken. I think that's a great thing, and that we should perhaps give him a second chance because of it.

Any thoughts?

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(4/23/03 6:48 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
"but is it any less believeable that someone says they're a disciple of Babaji vs. a disciple of Yogananda?"

Babaji appeared to only a handful of Lahiri Mahsaya's most advanced disciples and in each case only on a few occassions. These days we have people who claim to have been roomates with Babaji for 12 years, people who claim that Babaji is running an ashram in India, people who claim they are selling Babaji's Kriya for $200 an initiation and so on. Yes,I think it is very much less believable.

"It seems that in relgious groups, people get the most violent against those who are the most like them (Sunnis and Shities, Fundamentalist Christians and the Catholic church, SRF and @nand@...), when we SHOULD be trying to see how we're ALL THE SAME."

No we are not all the same. Some people are crooks and liars and some people are not. Some are murderes and some are not. If we were all the same then why not ask Charles Manson to be your guru? All the same, right?

"What do you all think of these ideas? Shouldn't INCLUSIVENESS triumph over EXCLUSIVENESS? Perhpas Govindan's orgainization too needs to focus on this when they think that presenting their Kriya as the "original" is a good idea, but should we exaccerbate the situation by claiming that he's lying about recieving the teachings from Babaji?"

Sure, we ultimately we are all children of God - I suppose I can take that on faith. But if you are asking me to say that a liar is not a liar, or a cheat is not a cheat...no way. This is what my reason and discrimination tell me about M.G. and I see nothing particularly spiritual in not expressing my opinions about him. He makes claims that are false and presents them as truth (coming from Babaji no less!) This makes him fair game in my opinion.

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(4/23/03 6:58 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
How has "his view of the situation changed" exactly? I mean, he claimed that Yoganandaji had a falling out with Babaji in the 40's due to Yogananda's alleged womanizing. Where was he mistaken in his claim? I am really curious about this.

"He admitted he was mistaken. I think that's a great thing, and that we should perhaps give him a second chance because of it."

Or it could be a sign that he is a victim of his own very vivid imagination. Do you suppose he will write an retraction and apology to be published in W.I.E.?

Please ask your friend in what regard M.G. was mistaken concering his comments and Yoganandaji in W.I.E.

MastersChela
Registered User
(4/24/03 2:50 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
I will ask my friend about what was said between he and Govindan. I'll let you know what I turn up.

I'm going to keep playing devil's advocate on this with you; not because I agree with Govindan's methods or teachings (I stress again that I have NO personal experience either way with him and refuse to make a judgement about him because of this), but just for the discussion's sake. I like where this is going, and I like the ideas and emotions we're throwing back and forth. Let's keep it lively! (but not personal).

Quote:
He makes claims that are false and presents them as truth (coming from Babaji no less!) This makes him fair game in my opinion.


I agree that perhaps his "why it was changed" behind some things may be flawed... for example the "va-shi" thing. I don't think this was "changed" to be more acceptable for Christians either. But, I DO think it is possible that Babaji taught him to do his Kriyas this way, and to teach others to do Kriya this way. Who cares what sound you think about in your head? That's not the point of Kriya.

Quote:
Babaji appeared to only a handful of Lahiri Mahsaya's most advanced disciples and in each case only on a few occassions.


This is true. Babaji only appeared in his physical body to all but a few. However, he has appeared to MANY people in deep meditation, and has communicated to them through intution. If you look closely to Govindan's website, he never claims to have been visited by Babaji in the Material plane. Even in the AY, Master says that any devotee who calls on Babaji with sincere devotion will attract his attention.

Quote:
No we are not all the same. Some people are crooks and liars and some people are not. Some are murderes and some are not. If we were all the same then why not ask Charles Manson to be your guru? All the same, right?


I think this is a question of INTENTION. I know you're exaggerating to prove a point, but seriously... Even if he is mistaken on specific points regarding Kriya, even if he isn't teaching the "original Kriya", he has studied in India, and he IS teaching Yoga. Yoga is Yoga. You don't need SRF's Kriya (or anyone elses, for that matter) to reach God. These are techniques. There are MANY. Govindan is trying to help people find God. Charles Manson was most definitly not trying to lead people to God.

And again, I ask, what GOOD does it do to throw names like liar and cheat and criminal at people? These are not their true natures. Especially if someone has admitted to a mistake, why can we not forgive? God doesn't hold a grudge, neither should we. We should work on US. When that's perfected, then we turn to perfecting others.

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(4/24/03 5:11 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
"But, I DO think it is possible that Babaji taught him to do his Kriyas this way, and to teach others to do Kriya this way. Who cares what sound you think about in your head? That's not the point of Kriya."

The point of this is that M.G. falsely claimed that Yoganandaji changed the sounds and then even went so far to attribute a motivation as to why Yoganandaji did this. If M.G. didn't know the facts of the matter then why did he bring this up in the first place? Better just to keep quiet. Why did he do it? I guess it was in order to try to emphasize the fact that he teaches "Babaji's Kriya (tm)" and what most others in the West are doing is only a modified Kriya created by Yogananda in order to not offend the sensibilities of the Christians. It's a good marketing on M.G.'s part in my opinion except for the fact that his statements are false.

"However, he has appeared to MANY people in deep meditation, and has communicated to them through intution."

There's also a lot of people who have very vivid imaginations.

"I think this is a question of INTENTION. I know you're exaggerating to prove a point, but seriously... Even if he is mistaken on specific points regarding Kriya, even if he isn't teaching the "original Kriya", he has studied in India, and he IS teaching Yoga. Yoga is Yoga."

Fine, then let him teach Yoga. Why does he need to use Babaji's name, Babaji's picture (as per Yoganandaji) and go about spreading rumors and misinformation about Yoganandaji and the Kriya that Yoganandaji taught? Respect for ones spiritual tradition and lineage I think are noble qualities. It distrubs me to see people using Babaji as a marketing device for selling their $200 seminars when in the past Babaji was only spoken of in whispered tones of deepest devotion and awe.

"And again, I ask, what GOOD does it do to throw names like liar and cheat and criminal at people?"

I never said he was a criminal. What good does it do? Perhaps it might make someone take a closer look so they won't be taken in by a cheat. I think that is a good thing. If he is truely a disciple of Babaji then I doubt this will distrub him and his character should be able stand up to any extra scrutiny.

"We should work on US. When that's perfected, then we turn to perfecting others."

I have no desire whatsoever of perfecting M.G. or anybody else for that matter. My discrimination tells me that M.G. is a cheat or delusional or both. You asked for opinions and I gave you mine. I think the use of discrimination is a prerequisite for "perfection."

MastersChela
Registered User
(4/24/03 6:12 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
Quote:
You asked for opinions and I gave you mine.


And I'm most glad that that you have! What a wonderful topic. I really respect your point of view. I don't nessesarily agree with everything you've said, but I think your heart and your motiviations are definitly in the right place.

Namaste, my brother Gurubai!

MastersChela
Registered User
(4/24/03 11:33 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
Quote:
There's also a lot of people who have very vivid imaginations.


Yes, there are, but does that mean that EVERYONE who says they've encountered Babaji in meditation is just imagining it? I've said this in another post, and I'll say it again. My Guru has come to me in meditation. I cannot "prove" to anyone that it wasn't just my "immagination," but I KNOW that it happened and that it was a superconscious, not a subconconcious (imagination) experience, because it changed my life... Both times.

Master said in his writings that the way one can tell if an experience in meditation is real (superconscious) or just a trick of the mind is to see if it changes your life. If you cannot go back to being the person you were, if you see the delusion in some aspect of your former life, if your ego dies a bit (or a lot) from the experience, then you KNOW it was real.

Not knowing or having any experience with Govindan, I can't make this kind of observation about him. Can you, Ringbearer?

It's not that I don't agree with what you're saying about protecting people from those who would take their money and feign sprituality for profit. I think this is a valid point. However (and I'd argue this point regarding some of the recent posts about Ammachi too), I feel like a spiritual teacher's merrit isn't measureed by the material blessings they give to the world or whether or not they turn a profit from their teachings. I hear A LOT on this board people complaining about how there aren't any "Indian style" teachers in America who take students in for free. The United States has a much different economy than India in the time of the AY or even India today. Money is required to run an ashram. Those with the means to pay SHOULD pay for spiritual teachings. And I know a little organization in Nevada City, CA whose name I will not utter here, and which gets a lot of grief, that will ALWAYS take those who cannot pay (believe me, I know from experience), if they are the "waiting, truth-thirsty souls" who are in need of spritual nourishment. There are many other teachers too who will take in those who cannot pay. That is usually why those who can pay are asked to pay so much (and now that I CAN, I do so with gladdness)... The TRUE measure of a spiritual teacher is in their willingness to give GOD, to give the techniques that will reach GOD. Spritual teachers' duties are not running hospitals for the poor, they're not building homes for the homeless. That is the duty of their disciples, who need to do good works in order to burn away past Karmas. The teacher's only duty is to the souls of his/her devotees.

Edited by: MastersChela at: 4/24/03 11:36:32 pm
Borg108
Registered User
(4/25/03 6:09 pm)
Reply 		Re: Marshall Govindan--Babaji's Kriya Yoga
MastersChela,

You raise some good points. I would like to comment on just the money issue. First, it is important to understand the difference between being a householder and being a sannyasi or renunciant. A sannyasi, whether in the India or the West, is one who has surrendered his or her life to God and accepts whatever comes (or doesn't come) from God. There is full faith that they will be taken care of and thus no need to enmesh oneself any longer in profit making activities. You may recall the story in the AY about when Guruji was young and in Swami Dayanandaji's ashram. He asked what would happen if he was hungry and didn't ask others for food. Swamiji told him to starve then rather than think that he depended on man and not God to meet his needs. This is what sannyas is all about. It is still sometimes practiced in the West by those like the Peace Pilgrim or Swami Ram Tirtha when he came to America penniless and not knowing anyone here.

SRF monastics are, to my mind, not real sannyasis. Swami Atmanadaji told Swami Jnanandaji that YSS was no longer a suitable place for sadhus when he left YSS in the late 1950s. SRF monastics are, IMO, celibate householders who are unwilling or unable to depend solely on God for their support. Even in India this is so with YSS charging for classes and meals during Sharad Sangham and posting guards at Ranchi. But at least they try to set these charges and book prices low enough so that many can afford to pay them. SRF used to also do this. But over the past 30 years they have raised the costs of their books and tapes so that fewer people can afford them than could in the past. They have also been very protective of the value of their copyrights and have been willing to spend many millions of dollars to defend them. But still, as far as money matters go, SRF is not as aggressive as some others whose product is spirituality.

Marshall's organization, for example, seems to have a "charge what the market will bear" attitude toward book pricing, seminar fees, etc. They have also been aggressively expanding their product line (not unlike SRF and Ananda) as another way to increase revenues.

Most problematic of all is Amma who not only charges what the market will bear and says that profits will help the poor, but who solicits donations for charitable works and instead uses most of these these profits and donations to build up the infrastructure her organization (See the Amma Inc thread.)This is using spirituality to commit fraud and deceit.

Of course, those who have the means to give should do so freely whether here or in India. Spiritual organizations who want to embody the ideals of renunciation and surrendar to God should have faith that this will occur and rely on God's will to support and sustain them. Let them fade away rather than believe that their support comes from how much they can charge to maximize profits. There are spiritual organizations both here and in India who do rely on God for their support, and who do get supported. They gave away books on a donation basis or sell them at a low price to cover costs. They would never think of charging for retreats as Amma and Ananda do, or suggesting a high price per day donation as SRF does. They are all still around through God's grace manifested in the generosity of their supporters.

Edited by: Borg108 at: 4/26/03 8:14:21 pm
MastersChela
Registered User
(4/26/03 7:40 am)
Reply 		Money for nuthin' and your Kriya for free
Another point I might like to add on this, and one that Kriyananda made very well in his book A Place called Ananda is that people in America have a cultural mentality that things that are really good cost money. If something is free or given on a "donation only" basis, people won't take it as seriously or give it as much weight in their consciousness. This concept is put in our heads at an early age. When my Dad started giving me an allowance at an early age, he said that I'd appreciate things more if I spent my own money on them. I've found this to be true over the years. My wife and I bought our first car together just last year after driving our high school/college clunkers (bought for us by parents) into the ground. The car we bought was old and had LOTS of miles on it, but we've taken better care of it than ANYTHING we've owned before.

In this light, when people pay a premium for a retreat or a book, they feel like they're getting something good, and they treat it as such. I'm not using this as an excuse for those who would use this aspect of American culture to rip people off, however. What I AM saying is that Master's teachings deserve to be taken seriously. They deserve to be studied closely and with an attitude that they are VALUABLE. Asking a higher price for them creates that sort of mindset in the people who buy them.

Quote:
There are spiritual organizations both here and in India who do rely on God for their support, and who do get supported. They gave away books on a donation basis or sell them at a low price to cover costs. They would never think of charging for retreats as Amma and Ananda do, or suggesting a high price per day donation as SRF does.


I think there's also a difference between running an ashram and running a retreat center. If you want to go to Ananda and stay for an extended period, trading work for food and a bed (as in an ashram), then you don't have to pay a dime for this (I stayed there free of charge for a month, worked in the kitchen and did landscaping, and still had time for sadhana and to attend classes on free time). However, if you want to stay for a specific class, eat the food (which costs the retreat center money) stay in a room with water and electricity (which costs money) and learn from knowlegable teachers (who deserve to make a living), then I don't see why it's so terrible to charge for a retreat. People come to retreat to get away from their work and to focus on Sadhana, which is often a challenge for many people. People come to an ashram TO work and find God in their work... These are somewhat different goals and in turn deserve to be seen differently in light of economics.

stermejo
Registered User
(4/26/03 2:00 pm)
Reply 		Re: Money for nuthin' and your Kriya for free
Just to add my 2 cents on the REAL Kryia issue, I read MG and Satyeshwarananda long ago. Their claims and stories just blew by me. First, I found Sat's writings real strange, jumping from topic to topic all within the same paragraph. He was all over the place.

With MG, I passed all the Babaji stuff and read with interest only the South Indian folklore as I am not very familiar with South India. BUT, 144 techniques? I didn't remember that. Probably because 144 twists and turns to Kryia is way too much to keep up with. At least, if you have a Life as in working for a living.

Why did Lahiri distill the Kryia? For householders! You see, the sadhu who has all day to practice a technique NEEDS 144 Kryias just to keep occupied. An idle mind...as they say?

Page 1 2 3 4 << 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 - Non-SRF Teachings and Ideals -



Powered By ezboardŽ Ver. 7.32
Copyright Š1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.