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: 04:50:26 04/17/04 Sat
Author: Hendrik - 29 Mar 2004
Subject: Re: A Call to Hendrik
In reply to: Kev - 29 Mar 2004 's message, "Re: A Call to Hendrik" on 04:49:50 04/17/04 Sat

Thank you Kev.

Banamali's convictions appear to be not very balanced, and also somewhat contradictory. I dare say that in the first place his criticism seems to be levelled at those who became personally successful by preaching Kriya.

I still wonder what, according to Banamali, IS Lahiri Mahasaya's original teaching. He only says what it is NOT, and who has deviated from it. I believe Banamali has written a small booklet, "Quest for Truth". Perhaps one can find some hints there.


Sayacharan was also criticised as one who was simply capitalising on his grandfathers reputation.

Interesting. About Satya Charan we know not much as he is hardly mentioned in the Kriya literature, did publish little or nothing, and did not produce any disciples of renown - those I know of are Shibendu, and a number of freaks like Ashoke and Shailendra.

In what way 'simply capitalising'? "Simply" indicates that Banamali must have thought that there was not much to Satya Charan at all, apart from the 'capitalising'.

Capitalising in a material sense, or did he set himself up in an undue manner? Or was it about the teachings? Did you obtain any precise information from Banamali on this? His objections regarding Yogananda and Yukteswar are easy to discuss because we have the background, but in Satya Charan's case we know relatively little.

I had written a series of articles on Shibendu a year back which later I had deleted. My presumption then was that Shibendu and his style of teaching and present shape of his Kriyas may be the brainchild of his father and guru Satyacharan. Because Satyacharan, like Yogananda, was from the first generation that thrived without direct contact to Lahiri Mahasaya, hence giving way for new approaches to this brand of yoga, for better or worse.


Another name I often hear mentioned these days is 'Satyananda'. Himself he seems to have been on good terms with Yogananda, and what I have read of him seems to confirm that, but all of those Indian Kriyabans critical of Yogananda seem to have been closely connected to Satyananda in some way or other. -- Satyeswarananda was associated with Satyananda, Dasgupta was, and so was Hariharananda. I wonder how so many people around this one man were so critical of Yogananda. Kriyananda mentions some mischief but does not become more precise.

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.