Date Posted:08:07 Author: Anonymous - 10 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: David Frawley In reply to:
Ketch - 9 Oct 2001
's message, "Re: David Frawley" on 08:05
Ketch says: 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?
David Frawley has his own opinions on this matter. You accuse, and defame, this fine man of 'rehashing' the 'allegations' of Ananda, merely because he agrees with the Ananda view. In fact, he came to this conclusion separately, which only adds more weight to the MANY people who understand what's going on here.
Additionally, Mr. Frawley has no organizational ties with either Ananda or SRF, Inc. His views are entirely free of the bias of either organization.
Also, Mr. Frawley is well aware of the HUNDREDS of changes made by SRF in the Autobiography of a Yogi. Changes that you are obviously unaware of. Let me enlighten you Ketch. The first edition of the Autobiography, the one that Mr. Frawley reviewed, is the one published by Ananda.
Yogananda made a few revisions, up until 1952, including the addition of a chapter and some modifications (but not the deletion) of his comments on World Brotherhood Colonies.
AFTER Yogananda's mahasamadhi, long after, SRF made HUNDREDS of changes. They deleted EVERYTHING that the Master said about World Brotherhood Colonies, and they forged the Master's signature and name, among the HUNDREDS of changes made by SRF, Inc.
The only edition of the Autobiography that is in the public domain is the 1946 version published by Ananda. SRF could publish the later edition (1952) if they would like to get the most up to date version that was actually written by Yogananda. But they won't, because they would have to admit that they made HUNDREDS of changes themselves, without the Master's authorization. And people would see that Yogananda actually made just a few changes himself.
By the way, SRF has no letter or ANY other FACTUAL evidence that proves their rather bizarre claim that the Master wanted them to make HUNDREDS of changes, including the forging of the Master's signature.
Ketch says: 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.
Babaji is 'well known' by thousands in India and America. For his true devotees, to 'know' Babaji has nothing to do with knowing his date of birth, etc. I've met people in India who have had experiences of the great Mahavatar, and I know many in America who have had truly exceptional blessings from Babaji. Some of these people are not part of the SRF copyrighted lineage of Masters. They have come to know Babaji either directly, or through other disciples.
The Autobiography of a Yogi is not the only place that people 'meet' Babaji, though it is one important one.
Your casual dismissal of David Frawley as a 'False Authority' flies in the face of considerable support of Mr. Frawley by many learned sages in India and America. I suggest you do your homework before so easily dissing such a fine person.
