VoyForums

VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234567[8]9 ]


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

Date Posted: 14:10
Author: Mike Drake 1 Jun 2001
Subject: Response to Ketch
In reply to: ketch - 1 Jun 2001 's message, "Re: Yogananda's" on 14:06

Right: Yogananda actually blessed the marriage in 1931. Then, eight years later, he invoked the marriage as the reason for ousting the member. This scarcely helps Yogananda’s case. If anything, it just makes his explanation for the ouster appear disingenuous.

The “our laws” may refer to the California ban on interracial marriage*, but in any case that doesn’t help either: at best, it suggests that Yogananda and SRF aided and abetted an unjust law.

The point of the “dirty chiseler” quotation isn’t that such language is “objectionable”. Rather, it is that one would expect greater equanimity from an “enlightened” being.

What I am “implying” (was it really all that implicit?) by my post is that Yogananda was probably a lot further away from enlightenment than many adherents believe. Just how far is an open question.

And no, I’m not a Christian fundie. I looked into Yogananda’s background only as the result of a debate with a friend (who himself is a Yogananda adherent). Which is why I suggested that Yogananda’s detractors and competitors shouldn’t take succor in my post: it is only by chance that I “investigated” Yogananda, and it might just as well have been any other guru.

I do not intend to offend, and readers may at their pleasure ignore the unfriendly facts I allege. But I am pleased to respond to those who thoughtfully disagree.

Best.
______
NOTES

* This interpretation of Yogananda’s remark seems doubtful. While there was a ban on interracial marriage in California, it was probably sparsely enforced by the 1930s. In any case, Yogananda explained that Chowdhury was expelled from SRF because what he did was against “our” law (plural) – not “California” law or “the” law (singular). Maybe someone has more information on this. In all events, if California wanted keep its unjust, unconstitutional, unenlightened law on the books, it was California’s own duty to enforce it – not Yogananda’s or SRF’s.

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


Replies:



VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:

Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.