Date Posted:08:05 Author: Ketch - 9 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: David Frawley In reply to:
Anonymous - 9 Oct 2001
's message, "Re: David Frawley" on 08:03
Frawley, besides being a sage and a scholar, has no sectarian bone to pick regarding the various Yogananda based organizations. So, his review of the original Autobiography of a Yogi is free from the sectarian dogma and fundamentalism which is so freely dished out here. And, he is also free from any ties to Ananda and their point of view.
Oh really? Then why is it that his book review seems to be a rehash of allegations which have been made by Ananda for a long time? Why is he apparently completely unaware of the fact that Yogananda himself had substantially revised and extended the book?
From Frawley's book review:-
Lahiri Mahasaya, Yogananda's guru's guru and the main proponent of Kriya Yoga in India, had many thousands of disciples in India. Babaji also is a well known Himalayan yogi in this broad tradition.
So Babaji is a "well known Himalayan yogi in this broad tradition" according to Frawley. Would anyone familiar with kriya tradition write such a thing? True Babaji is "well known" to the extent that many have read about him in "Autobiography of a Yogi", however the context of the passage written by Frawley suggests something completely different. Frawley seems to believe that Babaji has thousands of disciples and is, or was easily accessible.
Despite the many claims by various people to have known or to be Babaji, for most kriyabans the fact remains that Babaji is far from "well known".
We do not know when or where he was born, who his parents were, who his guru was or if he even had one, where he learned Kriya Yoga, or anything about his life other than a few stories.
