Daya Mata's elected president

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > History of SRF > Daya Mata's elected president
Page 1 2 3 4	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
wholetruth Registered User (11/17/02 6:09 pm)	Re: Dhirananda It is easy to condemn Dhirananda and Nerode as Yogananda encouraged his followers to do, calling them "Judases." But an open, inquiring mind will want to look deeper. Of course, if you consider Yogananda perfect, you will consider his every utterance truth. Personally, I doubt that any true master would call anyone a "Judas," and lament about how he was betrayed, seeking sympathy and solace from his disciples. Yogananda did exactly that in his letters to Lynn. Can anyone answer my question about whether reading minds is a yogic power? Edited by: wholetruth at: 11/17/02 6:13:55 pm
bheema ma Registered User (11/17/02 8:13 pm)	Re: Omnicience? As others have stated, a courts "decision" about whether or not Dhirananda was Yogananda's disciple is not conclusive in any ultimate sense. You've made your point clearly: a court decided that he wasn't. I have no argument with that fact--only with the interpretation of it--namely that therefore Yogananda was a liar because a court decided in favor of Dhirananda. In the absence of other, more compelling facts than just that, I still stick with Yogananda. If somebody necessarily lied, I'd bet it was Dhirananda, not Yogananda. Unfortunately though, a lot of this discussion comes down to what and whom you believe. It isn't like there are a lot of 100 year olds roaming around to fill in the details and background to these stories. Did Yogananda have samadhi? How could you know or not know? What would his experience of samadhi imply or not imply? Is the world round or flat?! Your answers will depend to some degree on interpretation and belief. It's easy to state "facts" to support your belief, but others often interpret those "facts" (which sometimes sound an awful lot like opinion) in different ways. I wasn't alive while Yogananda was. But I've met quite a number of people who were. While they didn't always agree about other things, they did agree about him--in amazing ways that to my understanding are far too compelling to seem like "the big lie" they would have to be for Yogananda to be false. But that's my belief, and it's based on my experience of these disciples, and my own life. I can't "prove" that I'm right in any abstract way. Yogananda's reported ability to know the thoughts, words and actions, of his many hundreds of disciples, near and far away to me implies a degree of unity greater than just a yogic power gained by a bit of austerity.
Ringbearer7 Registered User (11/17/02 8:20 pm)	Re: Omnicience? "At the beginning the stationary had Yogananda in one upper corner, Dhirananda in the other." Well, I'm not sure what this means. Maybe Dhirananda printed those stationary! Or perhaps Yogananda was trying to accomodate Dhirananda's need for recognition? Anyways, from looking at old pictures it seems clear it was Yogananda who was the leader. Also in some old Kriya lessons (printed I believe while Dhirananda was still with Yoganandaji) it says: "It was Swami Sriyukteswarji who chose Swami Yogananda as his only representative to spread the message of Lost Yoga..." I have even heard some claim that it was Dhirananda who wrote that lesson. In any case, perhaps Dhirananda didn't like his position but I think it is clear that his position was a lesser one as compared to Yogananda. After all it was Yogananda who was asked by his Master to come to the West to teach Yoga. Dhirananda received no such request either from Sri Yukteswarji or Kebelanandaji. The request to come serve the work in the U.S. came from Swami Yogananda. I seem to recall reading that Yogananda first asked Swami Satyanandaji to come but he was unavailable so Dhirananda came instead.
Ringbearer7 Registered User (11/17/02 8:30 pm)	Wholetruth: Re: Dhirananda Who knows what a true Master will do or what "true Master" even means? Perhaps they are still quite human in many respects. Lynn and Yoganandaji were friends and most likely during his trails Yoganandaji needed a friend to confide to. What's wrong with that? Sure, he could just plunge into the Om and beyond and let all the trails fall away in Bliss but when he returns maybe something of this human need for solace returns. I don't know. Perhaps one day when we find ourselves experiencing these profound yogic experiences daily we will see that we are still quite human - maybe even more so.
username Registered User (11/17/02 9:15 pm)	Re: Omnicience? reading minds is a yogic power. The yogic powers are explaned in the Yoga Sutras
soulcircle Registered User (11/17/02 9:50 pm)	bheema ma, bheema ma, bheema ma, until...... until your schedule permits or until your heart allows you to learn more about Dhirananda, please know that it hurts some of us to think that you might not get to know this wonderful man and closer than close, co-author and co-leader to a man you love and follow..... from the deepest part of me, please friend Edited by: soulcircle at: 11/17/02 9:53:31 pm
bheema ma Registered User (11/18/02 8:17 am)	Knowing Dhirananda Dear Circle, Frankly it never occurred to me that I could "get to know" Dhirananda, or that doing so would be inspiring or helpful. I admit that what I've heard about him so far doesn't sound very appealing. How would you recommend I do so? I know of no resources to do so, written or online.
Gitano no divino Registered User (11/18/02 12:15 pm)	Ever-new joy Hey, for once I didn�t kill off the thread. This is great, and thanks for the good vibes. I�m feelin�some of that ever-new joy! (I�ll be happy to post the Mussolini stuff as soon as I can. It�s an eye-opener.) The excerpts from the Dhirananda lawsuit are under "Dhirananda bashes PY" (not a very attractive heading, that), but I don�t remember where it is on the board! To be fair, Yogananda was, by any standard, a remarkable, even exceptional, human being. I don�t think it does him any real service, though, to deify him. More importantly, we do OURSELVES a disservice by putting anyone on a pedestal to worship them. After all, if there is some field or ground of universal consciousness (or some such gibberish; I mean, how could words possibly describe it?!), then it is just as much in me as anyone else. To say, "Yes, but you must bow down and take the dust of so-and-so�s feet because you do not yet realize your divinity," seems counterproductive to me. Just when do I get to start affirming my own divinity, coach? How about................right now! No more bowing and scraping, no more kowtowing and handling dusty feet (eeewwww, gross). The pronam is a lovely, graceful gesture, but it�s out of my playbook now as well, at least for the time being. Now, the Latin custom is a kiss on either side of the cheek (among friends). I kind of like that. Next time I run into Daya Mata, think I outta try it out on her? "Hola, chiquitita, dame dos besitos, guapa! �Te quiero mucho, bebe! Ooooooh, as� me gusta." Better have a paramedic standing by--I don�t think ol�Betsy could stand the strain. I was deeply impressed to read long ago that Lahiri Mahasaya did not allow anyone to take the dust of his feet, for the reasons stated above. I once actually (I can�t bear to recall this) knelt to touch Daya Mata�s feet!!! She didn�t try to stop me (or anyone else at that satsang). She audibly repeated to herself, "Jai, Guru," over and over. The cynic in me now interprets that as an attempt to reinforce the impression of her own humility and mitigate any suggestion of self-aggrandizement. It no longer matters what the case was. I look back on those days in the SRF cult and think: M-I-C...K-E-Y.......M-O-U-S-E! "Hey, kids, be the first on your block to wear a gen-u-ine image of the gooroo around your neck. Impress your friends!" (And terrify your parents--how perfect!!)
srflongago Registered User (11/18/02 12:37 pm)	Re: Knowing Dhirananda bheema ma: At least two of Dhirananda's books can be bought in reprint from Amrita foundation phone 214 522 5224 fax (214)522-6184 Priscilla Alden Walker 4022 Stoneridge Drive Dallas, Texas 75204-1632 They are worth reading. I think his contribution was as great as Yogananda's in refining the Kriya teachings for transmission to a Western audience. He wrote and co-wrote many of the influential Yogoda tracts in the 1920's. SRF does not acknowledge this, even though it was proved in court in 1935!
djali123 Registered User (11/18/02 2:30 pm)	Re: Knowing Dhirananda Gitano, like you when I started the lessons I had a real problem with the "bowing down", and praying stuff. I felt like it was some sort of bowing down to authority. Or when I was supposed to revere and add a "ji" to the Guru's names. I didn't want to do that, because I would be a hypocrite if I said I felt that kind of reverence. I don't doubt that those who genuinely feel reverent may use the "ji" or "sri" as a sign of respect. I resolved this problem, by considering the SRF gurus as friends or spiritual guides rather than patriarchal figures up on the throne. I feel maybe this reverence in SRF has been emphasized too much as to make it an unspoken rule, so that people feel coerced to say Guruji or Gurudeva. Maybe this is only my perception and others don't feel this.
psychdev Registered User (11/18/02 7:08 pm)	Omniscience Schmonicience Who cares? Is the Union of Affiliated Swamis (UAFSWS) insistent that all members MUST be omniscient, or they have to surrender their membership card? Does a "God realized" master have to be omniscient--in EVERY respect, at ALL times? What does it really mean to be omniscient? Does it mean that you are carrying around in your head at all times the thoughts of all people, all events, all pasts and all futures? Must get a bit confusing! Hard to imagine holding a coherent conversation with anyone, much less get any sleep or think other thoughts. I respect that fact that omniscience seems to be a litmus test for many here, and for man (most?) important monastics, such as Bro. Andamoy, whom I greatly respect and like. But is it REALLY essential for your own meditative practice and spiritual advancement? Does your faith in Master as a vehicle for spiritual teachings depend on this? FWIW, I think it's obvious that Master was not omniscient "at every moment, in every respect, all the time". To cite a few of the logical absurdities that this suggests: Would master have had financial problems during the 1929 if he were omnisicent (when Rajarsi lost a great deal of money in the stk mkt and had to reduce contributions)? Or when he was desperate to raise money for Mt. Washington? Or to advance his work? Obviously, if Master were omniscient he could have gone to the nearest racetract, lottery game, casino, or (equivalently), to the stock market. Let's get real. Another (rather obscure) example: If you look at one of the earlier versions of the Autobiography, you will find a reference to Einstein having "discovered the Unified Field Theory." This is, in fact, untrue--Einstein never succeeded in discovering the Unified Field theory. The Autobiography was corrected in one of the relatively recent (1980s editation). But Master obviously misunderstood this fact. Is that compatible with omnisicience--in ALL respects, ALL of the time? The only way around this is if one takes a Medieval Scholastic point of view and declare that even though something "appears" one way, it's actually the "accidents" rather than essence we see. Thus the Host looks like bread but it's actually transformed into the body of Christ. Well, OK, that may be true. But then the meaning of "body of Christ" is different than any ordinary meaning for "body"--as in "flesh and blood". Likewise for the word "omniscience". You have to argue that Master was just trying to "hide his powers" or that it was the wrong time to be omniscient. If you argue this, then I think the idea of Omniscience is not worth much, because you've devalued it. And, you know what? I really don't CARE. Because it doesn't begin to touch what is sacred about Master, or what is important in my personal practice, or the quality of my service to other people Omniscience has roughly the same status in my spiritual lexicon as "reincarnation", "karma", and "astral body"--all useful but not necessarily "true" beliefs, in an ultimate sense. These beliefs help us along the path; but they are not identical with the path. ==> As the Buddha said, you use a thorn (Dharma) to remove a thorn (ignorance). But when you are finished, you throw the thorn away. End of Diatribe. I will go to bed. Edited by: psychdev at: 11/19/02 6:55:18 am
dd108 Registered User (11/18/02 8:36 pm)	Re: Omniscience Schmonicience works for me
redpurusha Registered User (11/19/02 12:45 pm)	Re: Knowing Dhirananda djali123, I have felt very much the same in this regard. I mean, whenever I read Gurudeva or Guruji, and Sri Sri Whoeverji, etc, something doesn't feel right about it. Maybe its just not my way of addressing the Master or the saints, I don't think adding suffixes or prefixes shows any more reverence and respect than one already has. Much of the terminology of SRF, like "Mother Center" "Gurudevaji" and using the old version english of the new testament, i.e. "Thy shall follow thee, " etc. is unappealing to me. I understand Master used the King James version because it was the most accurate translation available, however, the modern day english version doesn't take away the meaning any more, and speaks in practical language we use everyday. Perhaps its less poetic, but thats just my preference (when praying, etc.)
Gitano no divino Registered User (11/19/02 1:21 pm)	Numinosity Well, djali123, it�s the most human thing in the world to seek a sense of the sacred in life. And of all the ideas to which I was exposed in SRF (and certainly many of them were very good and had a positive impact on my life), the conception of divinity as a friend is one of the best. If you conceive of that sacred dimension as a friend, I can�t imagine a better kind of spiritual life. I recently went to an exhibition of Romanesque art. It was beautiful, but all the depictions of Jesus, without exception, showed him as a scowling taskmaster, sitting in judgement on his erring creation. That conception of divinity may have had some relevance in an age when life was nasty, brutish, and short, but in our time, when life is merely nasty and brutish (witness gangsta rap--whew, STINKO!), it�s time to put a smile on that face. You have done that, and I congratulate you. Would that I could as well, but it may be a while before I place much faith in intimations of immortality, or embrace the apparently numinous dimension of life. That�s a shame, really, but as Carl Sagan (and others) have pointed out: the universe is under no obligation to make us feel better about ourselves or our destiny. Things are as they are, and we just have to live (and die) with it. On that tired and hopeless note, I say goodnight.
wholetruth Registered User (11/19/02 7:16 pm)	Re: Numinosity Doesn't Durga say in her book that Yogananda just wanted to be looked upon as a friend?
wholetruth Registered User (11/19/02 7:45 pm)	Re: Ever-new joy Gitano, my friend, is that really you? "To be fair, Yogananda was by, any standard, a remarkable, even exceptional, human being." That's the nicest thing you've said about him in months! To what do you attribute the change in outlook/attitude? The new Gitano may take some getting used to. I like you either way, dear friend. Your posts are always thought-provoking and humorous. Edited by: wholetruth at: 11/20/02 7:31:13 am
ATrueBeliever Registered User (11/20/02 8:09 am)	Re: Daya Mata's elected president The reference to the Unified Field Theory in AY 1st ed is: In a later development, his Unified Field Theory, the great physicist embodies in one mathematical formula the laws of gravitation and of electromagnetism. Reducing the cosmical structure to variations on a single law, Einstein4 reaches across the ages to the rishis who proclaimed a sole texture of creation-that of a protean maya. You are correct that it is incorrect.
Gitano no divino Registered User (11/20/02 12:26 pm)	and nothing but the truth Wholetruth, buddy!! Well, I was feeling pretty good about not killing off this thread, so I thought I could afford to be generous. He did accomplish some pretty remarkable things, after all. If I were to go to another country to preach my doctrine of nihilistic hopelessness and despair, I don�t think I would meet with half his success. He had a significant impact on Western religion. And as srflongago has said, he was an excellent yoga teacher, one of the best he (srflongago) ever had. That�s a pretty good recommendation, really. But this doesn�t let him off the hook. He may have been a highly accomplished yogi, personable, charismatic, and very clever, but I believe he had serious flaws as well, which were magnified by his success. I further believe that these flaws got hardwired into the organization, which is why there are so many problems today (Emerson: an institution is the lengthened shadow of one man). This doesn�t exonerate the Bad Ladies or their coterie of mandarins and palace eunuchs in the Janakananda ashram, of course, but it helps to explain the situation. Srflongago has written that we could look instead to Sri Yukteswar and Lahiri Mahasaya as role models in practiciing yoga. I like that idea, but predictably, I have some reservations. It may surprise some to learn that a picture of Sri Yukteswar hangs in my bedroom still, and that he was always my favorite. He seemed to have no appetite for BS, and I liked that. Still, he didn�t get serious about his spiritual life until after he was done with the householder routine (the traditional Indian way). Even as a householder, though, he didn�t work at a regular job, because his mother taught him to disdain that. Instead, he lived off of investments! The rest of us dumb schmucks have to work hard for the money, and such toil has been known to impede the dawning of enlightenment. Now, LH was even more radical. He�s out "walking in the woods one day, in the merry, merry month of May," when all of a sudden his guru catches up with him and gives him a kind of Harry Potter-on-mescaline spiritual makeover. In fact, we learn that LH was a superman yogi in a past life, and his householder role in this life is just for show. Then it gets better. Though he works at a regular job, he doesn�t make much money, and he spends all his spare time meditating. So, his wife starts ridin�him pretty hard (you know how WIVES can be: picky, picky). He gives her the Hogwarts treatment, and she mellows out in a hurry (sure wish I could learn to do that). Then he persuades his students to kick in enough cash to support his family, and the problem is solved (sure wish I could learn to do that). I just don�t know. When I see what years of kriya yoga did for Yogananda and his band of faithful, I truly wonder if it�s worth the effort. As for earlier gurus, well, I wasn�t born ALREADY ILLUMINED (I know, surprise, surprise) or RICH. Kind of puts me in a bind. The other problem is that the meditation techniques of SRF involve a lot of bhakti directed towards the guru, and I ain�t goin�there no more. Maybe it�s true that Guru is God and God is Guru, but it�s a long row to hoe if (like me) you no longer believe in either gurus or gods. I would like some impersonal, non-religious kind of meditation practice that isn�t all psychobabble promoted by a secular self-help guru. Of course, with my attitude, probably nothing will work at this point, though I�m open to suggestions. So, I go back to my doctrine of nihilistic hopelessness and despair. It�s thin gruel, theologically speaking, but it�s all mine, as much of it as I want! At least when I sin, I don�t compound the error with hypocrisy. Not that I sin, mind you--I�m too busy WORKING to have time for that!!
bheema ma Registered User (11/20/02 3:03 pm)	Re: and nothing but the truth Why not devotion to your own higher Self--(remember the concept of "SELF-Realization"?!). After all, everyone's devoted to something--why not to your own highest potential? I believe the idea is philosophically sound, though that's not my forte. I'm sure if it isn't for some reason others will jump in an correct me. On a different note: to me the whole disciple/guru relationship concept has always been much more in the direction of a very deep friendship or healthy marriage. Issues around coercion/submission don't (or at least shouldn't) apply in that context because of the deep level of commitment and friendship. Don't know if that makes sense to anyone but me.
ATrueBeliever Registered User (11/20/02 3:40 pm)	Re: and nothing but the truth For Self Realization (without a lot of dogmatic baggage) see: www.ramana-maharshi.org/who_am_i.pdf www.ramana-maharshi.org/self_enquiry.pdf www.ramana-maharshi.org/s...uction.pdf

Page 1 2 3 4

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - History of SRF -

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