VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:33:44 04/17/04 Sat
Author: Hendrik - 25 Mar 2004
Subject: Re: A Call to Hendrik

You always seem to provide the most balansed informed posts on this board,so I'm asking you to provide ssome help.There are a number of posts criticising Yogananda for using the title Paramahansa,mentioning that many members from other Kriya traditions are critical of Yogananda for this.When I met Banamali Lahiri(Great Grandson of Lahiri Baba who lives at 'The house')he was very critical indeed of Yogananda.He tore into The Autobiography as a falsification of Lahiri's life.Banamali was a very sincere practitioner of Kriya Yoga.

Its funny that 'Tester' should mention Ramakrishna, because in my experience,The Ramakrishna Swamis were not generally very impressed with the Autobiography either.

Over the years I ignored their views,including a very influential(in my life) Swami of The Ramakrishna Order

but now I seem to be having doubts.I am asking you because you are a sincere,balanced and informed follower of Yogananda,and would answer my questions without bursting into a tirade of heresy accusations.

Love,Kev.





Hi Kev,



I wanted to write to you anyway and ask about Banamali, now you are the one who is writing :-)



There are a number of posts criticising Yogananda for using the title Paramahansa,mentioning that many members from other Kriya traditions are critical of Yogananda for this.



Really that 'many'?! Look at it closely. There is the usual Satyeswarananda/Satyananda/Dasgupta camp finding fault with Yogananda's actions. Apart from that there are the Jnana Kriyabans influenced by Shibendu viewing PY from the platform of their Zen outlook. Anyone else?





Its funny that 'Tester' should mention Ramakrishna, because in my experience,The Ramakrishna Swamis were not generally very impressed with the Autobiography either.



Same with the Ramakrishna order. Have they ever met Yogananda? Ramakrishna did not belong to any one creed whereas Vivekananda preached Advaita Vedanta which is already an intellectual crystallization of Ramakrishna's intuitions which are many-sided and that of a mystic, not a philosopher. My guess is that the Ramakrishna order is primarily concerned with Vivekananda's understanding of yoga, because it is systematised, hence easier to grasp and easier to spread, so the people there with time may have adopted an orthodox philosophical outlook on yoga which does not match Yogananda's novel approach to Yoga including Christian elements, sending out Yoga lessons etc. which they take offence at. What Yogananda did may not have satisfied accepted Indian standards of yoga instruction, but it was successful in the USA and to spread Kriya there was his mission.



Some monks of the Ramakrishna order hold the belief that in order to understand Ramakrishna one must first study the works of Vivekananda, a view that is quite disputable. I find Ramakrishna easier to understand than Vivekananda.



Likewise the Lahiris who are orthodox Brahmins. Lahiri Mahasaya's writings as published by Yoganiketan strike me as being very orthodox Advaita Vedanta, surely more conventional and subject to tradition than e.g. Ramana Maharshi. Yogananda's approach to Yoga, being pure Bhakti, was completely different to whatever Banamali and Shibendu may read into their ancestor's writings.



The people who are critical of Yogananda are mostly adherents of a Jnana understanding of yoga (Satyeswarananda, Professor Nerode, students of Shibendu, Vivekananda adherents). Nerode, Banamali, and Shibendu are also scientists and no doubt to some extent have been formed by what they have been busy with for most of their lives. (Shibendu for instance says that "in the beginning there cannot be devotion" which only means that he does not or did not have it.) Preoccupation with 'belief system', 'mind', philosophy, self-salvation, science, 'common sense', 'conditioning' are all staple goods of Jnana, but not, for instance, of Bhakti (which however is described the easiest and safest path).



But in the Self-Realization Magazine issue of March-April 1962, pp. 20-22, there is a tribute to Bhupendranath Sanyal, who was then one of the last direct disciples of Lahiri Mahasaya. In 1959, when Bhupendranath was already 82 years old, Daya Mata met and asked him whether Lahiri Mahasaya had manifested more of bhakti or of jnana. Bhupendranath replied, "He was all-sided. He was the most loving person I have ever met, yet he expressed himself in terms of sublimest wisdom."



In the Western countries many people have a rigid and skeptical mind and do not have that kind of intense emotional life that is common among Indians. Hence they resort to a philosophical understanding of Yoga and turn to Jnana which is essentially an indirect path. People who work in the scientific field look for a 'scientific' (i.e. mentally understandable) access to yoga. I think for this reason generally yogis like Ramana Maharshi and paths like Tibetan Buddhism and Zen become more easily popular in Europe and America than those of a devotional temperament which are not likely to be understood. Christian mysticism is also largely dead for long although it has produced a legion of formidable saints.



Yoga anyway is by nature irrational and a-scientific, because it transcends reason. The notion that there is a scientific way to God I consider as a PR gag of Yogananda and otherwise as nonsense; nowadays it also sounds old-fashioned. Someone who has to assure himself to be following a 'scientific' or 'rational' path can only have a limited understanding of yoga because he feels the need to first bring in the instrumentality of mind in order to justify that which is beyond it. I do not see why anyone who has an intuitive connection to yoga and its object or one who feels an imperative call from within should feel the need to justify himself, except of course for communication with those who don't have themselves that access.



I do not believe in Kriya Yoga as such. I see it as a Tantra-derived set of spiritual techniques and little else. What it does and what it means apparently differs with every teacher and practitioner. Apparently it generates some shakti with some people, but at the same time bolsters up the walls of ego. Ketch mentioned in an earlier post that he has observed that misfortune and calamity befalls many people once they have turned to that path.



Yogananda tuned down the Kriyas and coupled Kriya practice with Bhakti which in his case meant surrender to the Guru, thereby circumventing the danger and channeling the generated energies into the right direction. In this case Kriya appears to work well, accelerating spiritual progress. Those who couple it with Jnana only seem to make little progress or bolster up their ego with the generated Shakti. There are so many instances. Even Shibendu who has mastered Kriya and definitely attained results by it does not strike me as a yogi by nature, which is an observation that makes me somewhat uneasy. Shibendu has reduced Yoga to a mere fifth-stage Advaita, asks his disciples not to study spiritual books, and many fall into that trap. He appeals to the many half-baken intellectual seekers of today, others he draws with his big name.



I believe there is a lot of misconception about enlightenment and the behaviour of those who have attained realization. Shirdi Sai Baba for instance, one of the great saints of India, would get into fits of rage quite often and his disciples took to their heels then. Vivekananda used to shout at his brother disciple Brahmananda for hours until the latter was weeping. Both were nevertheless described as jivanmuktas by Ramakrishna, and particularly Brahmananda had attained to a very lofty spiritual state. Even Ramana Maharshi, the incarnation of Peace, was once observed to be shouting at Christians.



Here is something that may further illustrate that point. On one of his first visits to Swami Ramdas' Anandashram, in the late 1940's, the later Swami Satchidananda - present leader of Anandashram - met Mother Krishnabai, the foremost disciple of Ramdas, a lady who due to her total surrender to Ramdas had attained the third stage of God-Realization and finished her sadhana within only a couple of years; Ramdas even wrote a book on her. Satchidananda observed:



One day, after bhajan, I heard Mataji talking to somebody in a high pitch and apparently in an angry mood. I went near to watch her and found that hot words were being exchanged between her and another inmate. I thought within myself why there should be quarrels even in the Ashram. Knowing my thoughts, as it were, Mataji turned towards me and with her characteristic smile said: "Don't go away with the idea that we do not quarrel in the Ashram. We too quarrel here. Why should we not? But our quarrel must not be allowed to dry up our love for each other. We should be like children who fight for some time among themselves only to be friends again. Our quarrels should leave no bitterness behind."



Another day I saw Mataji taking a stroll behind the Ashram hall, talking with a Sanyasin inmate of the Ashram. During the talks, to which I was a passive listener, the Sanyasin asked her:



"One of the signs mentioned in the Sastras of a God-realised person is fearlessness. How do you then say you are not free from fear?"



Mataji: "I do not know what the Sastras say. But it is a fact that I have fear. I am, for instance, afraid to go alone to the lavatory in the dark. In the state of ignorance we all have fear. We think we are the body and individuals seperate from everything else in the universe. We are afraid, say of a thief, a snake or a tiger, feeling they might do us harm. But a person in the Godward path, doing intense sadhana, does overcome this sense of fear and often moves about in the forests and graveyards at midnight. But this fearlessness is not the mark of highest spiritual attainment, as he is still subjected to the play of the Gunas. Only when he transcends the three Gunas, by being established in the absolute Truth, does he go beyond both fear and fearlessness. In this state he identifies himself with everything, even with fear, and in another sense, he is beyond everything, beyond fear. So when I am afraid, I know also that I, my fear and the object I am afraid of, are all one. I am aware of this unity. I have fear and yet I am above fear."



-- The Vision, Vol. 71, Oct. 2003 No. 1, pp. 16-17





I do not think there is need to worry or have doubts. Yogananda produced yogis like Rajarsi, Gyana Mata, Durga Mata, Dr. Lewis, Kamala, Oliver Black etc. etc. whereas those persons critical of him did not even shine like those disciples. The critics resort to philosophy, common sense, arguments etc., but that does not diminish Yogananda's spiritual stature. Surely he was displaying ego, but being a Bhakta his prime goal was God-communion, not egolessness. 'Paramahansa' means 'Supreme Swan', and indeed like a swan triumphantly he sailed along and brought love and illumination to thousands.



I would be disturbed though if any of the woman stories around Yogananda would have been true, because this would be abuse and I do not believe in sex being part of a master-disciple relationship outside of Tantra etc., but so far not one of those stories could escape the muddy waters of hearsay and imputation. Some of them have been proved wrong, but this is another story. What Nerode has written in his article (now deleted) is apparently bullshit to a great degree. I also wonder how a man who is going after young women at the same time could feel a very deep platonic soul-love to a sick and unhandsome old lady like Gyanamata. It does not go together.





When I met Banamali Lahiri(Great Grandson of Lahiri Baba who lives at 'The house')he was very critical indeed of Yogananda.He tore into The Autobiography as a falsification of Lahiri's life.Banamali was a very sincere practitioner of Kriya Yoga.



A man may be a very sincere practitioner, but that does not say anything about his yogic progress. I am sure many on this board are sincere practitioners; who is a master?



What did Banamali Lahiri actually say, precisely? You also once mentioned that he was very critical of Shibendu. What were the points of his criticism? What is, according to Banamali, the real message of Lahiri Mahasaya, and in what way does he feel his life is falsified?





Yogananda got most of his information on Lahiri Mahasaya from old books written about him as well as from interviews with people who knew him. In addition to that Yogananda had mastered Kriya and attained what could be attained from it. So I wonder how Banamali can serve as the greater authority on Lahiri Mahasaya and his message - he never met him personally nor was he known himself to be an advanced yogi, I might be wrong. It seems to be a common tendency in the Lahiri family to consider Lahiri Mahasaya's and the interpretation of his teaching as sort of family property.





One more thing: I suggest to not place much importance to what any people on those boards say. There is a lot of bias here, and if someone boasts about his spiritual experience that means nothing. Half-knowledge can be dangerous, and I would trust rather the common sense of an average person than the petrified opinion of an 'advanced' sadhaka. The only one who has the authority to teach you about anything spiritual is yourself, and a Master if there is one around. I do not consider any one of the more popular living Kriya teachers a master of yoga, but that is just my opinion.





I do not know whether Yogananda did right or wrong calling himself publicly a Paramahansa. He did, and people accuse him of displaying ego, but if he didn't they would accuse him of going against the wishes of his Guru who gave him the title. What should he do? -- To me this matter is a nonissue like the question whether his title should be spelt Paramhansa or Paramahansa with an added 'a'.



I am not a follower of Yogananda, and luckily have also given up Kriya some time ago, but be sure that I will buy and read The Second Coming of Christ when it is out. Apart from the fascinating content, God talks to Arjuna was an editorial masterpiece and a feast to the eyes, and I assume Mrinalini Mata will have worked wonders with this new work also.



Sorry I am somewhat giddy from all the traveling and may not have been all coherent. If you have further questions, please ask or e-mail.



Best regards,



Hendrik

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.