Thanks for bringing up that classic horseshit about the Guru taking on the illnesses and bad Karma of their followers.
I THINK Yogananda referred to that as well at some point in his stuff.

Again, that can be put through the Baloney Detector, and one sees that it cannot pass.
Isn't there an easier explanation?
Instead of saying that the Guru is a Divine Superhuman, and is taking on the Karma of the miserable Slaves, isn't it simpler to say that the Guru is just a normal human, and has a cold, or some other human illness?

I am sure there is some fancy explanation for why Yogananda was so chubby, when he is supposed to not eat.
But isn't it easier to just assume that Yogi was eating too many picinic baskets?

Coz

Quote
SarahL

Some relevant excerpts:

[i:4a97462690] I went to the doctor with Father and, because I had been taking on some of the same condition as I usually do with all of those who are
with me, I had some of the same trouble.

....I had told him about my being a difficult patient because I never knew whether what I came to a doctor with was my own or six other
people's. And the only way I could find out was to go. It's rather expensive but, when I know it isn't myself, then I know it's somebody else. And these things happen before I am aware of the fact that anybody has anything.[/i:4a97462690]

The way this would work, she would have say a sore throat, she would claim that it wasn't her own, it was one of her devotee's ailments. Naturally someone in the group would state that they indeed had a sore throat, everyone would be shocked and stunned, this would be seen as evidence of how great and holy Mother Hamilton was.
This worked as a guilt trip also, devotees felt they had to be careful in their thoughts and behavior, because Mother Hamilton might suffer for them if they did something wrong.
Amongst other abilities she was said to be able to bilocate, to read minds, and to predict the future.
I've come across several guru types who claim to take on other people's illnesses, also some folks who say they are shamans believe they do this also. I am not sure how this belief would be expressed in a DSM diagnosis, but it seems to me that it is certainly a delusion, and that the whole theme of being "contaminated" by others, of supposedly healing others by taking on their illnesses....is one worthy of deeper analysis.
Mania could also be a factor, the belief that one is superhuman, all knowing, and magical.

There can be two reasons:

1) Followers desperately need to believe their leader is more than human, so they refuse to accept that the person is human enough to get sick for ordinary reasons. They take it on themselves to see the leader's illness as having cosmic significance, or like scared kids in a divorce, blame themselves.

All too often leaders fail to see that their followers are behaving in this childish manner and dont tell them to grow up. In his book, [i:b4858fd5ae]Light at the Center[/i:b4858fd5ae], Agehananda Bharati tells of an encounter he had with a reputable guru whose silly followers peddled all kinds of stories of the guru's magical powers. In private, away from the adoring crowds, the guru told Bharati he didnt have any such powers. 'I never levitate' he said, 'nor do I do any of the feats told about me. It is the [i:b4858fd5ae]bhaktas [/i:b4858fd5ae](devotees) who say these things.'

Bharati wrote, 'Perhaps I should have asked him [u:b4858fd5ae]why [/u:b4858fd5ae] he didnt stop them from doing so.' (Bharati, [i:b4858fd5ae]'The Light at the Center: Context and Pretext of Modern Mysticism,[/i:b4858fd5ae] 1976)

2) The leader is paranoid, actually does believe he or she has special powers and believes he/she is menaced by occulut forces. The person has attracted likeminded followers, fosters their own paranoia. The followers isolate from the outside world and come to share the leader's delusions, feeling simulteneously bonded, protected priviliged and at the same time, menaced.

As an example of the first type of group David Lane writes:

'I have met a number of gurus (whose disciples claim that they are God in the flesh), who have been physically ill or sick.

/I remember meeting with Agam Prasad Mathur at his home in Peepal Mandi, Agra, India, and noticed that he was not feeling well. Now from my perspective it looked like Agam was suffering from a bad cold or flu. I felt sorry for him since his health was not up to par. Yet, his disciples didn't say "Yea, guru has a bad cold." Rather, there were all sorts of dramatic explanations revolving around karma. "You see, Dave, the Master is taking on the karmas of his disciples and he is literally paying off their debt in his own body. He is so compassionate. The Master himself, of course, never suffers. He is always enjoying the divine inner bliss." Well, that's a nice way of "explaining way" Agam's obvious suffering, but such metaphysical trapeze work seems to me a long-winded way of avoiding the obvious: The guru is sick!

'That's okay, most of us get sick from time to time, but we don't need to resort to non credible theories for why we are sick. Indeed, if the guru's body is simply the manifestation of "eating karma" then when he is healthy it is no different than when he was sick. Yet, it is precisely when he is sick that the disciple wheels out the elaborate explanation for why he is in such a state.

In the Sociology of Knowledge there is a nice phrase for this kind of posturing: "Ideological Work"--the attempt to reconcile a discrepancy between theory and praxis. That is, what do you when your theology demands a certain ideal and the actual example of it cannot and does not live up to it? One then is forced by the searing breach to engage in ideological work. The bigger the gap between the ideal and the example and the more mentalistic footwork that is demanded. For instance, if you one is brought up in a spiritual tradition where the guru is seen as merely mortal there is not much difficulty when he or she gets a cold/flu. Hey, she's just sick. No need to elaborate. But in traditions where the guru is elevated to Almighty status there can be potential difficulties when the guru shows signs of physical weakness.

I remember noting that one esteemed guru in India seemed to get regularly ill after conducting mass initiations. The "unofficial" buzz around the ashram was that the guru was "taking" on the new initiates' karma. Naturally, I had a different hunch of the situation. I noticed that thousands of people would get really close to him during this time and, invariably, a few of them had colds or other contagious ailments. I thought to myself that this was the underlying cause for the guru's illness, since I even seem more prone to getting colds and the like after interacting with large groups of people (particularly when dealing with college students in conferences).

Then there are those "embarrassing" things that gurus do, like pick their nose. In India, especially in the Punjab, I have noticed a lot of gurus picking their nose (and I do mean "picking"!). Why? It's dusty. Now this is where I would expect some "karmic relief" theory to be brought out. "No, the guru is picking away at dirt of our soul and his nose is simply the symbol of it." However, I have yet to hear a karmic explanation for nose picking. Maybe it is too obvious or too personal or too funky. But I most certainly do hear karmic theories for colds, for yawning, for back troubles, etc. My sense is that some things are too bodily obvious to demand any ideological work. "No, the guru doesn't pee for himself. He is simply whizzing our sins down the toilet."

[vm.mtsac.edu]

The letter describing the myth-making process surrounding Da Free John / Adi Dam Samiraj was great and should probably be required reading for anyone interested in learning more on how intelligent and free-thinking individuals can get caught up within a cultic relationship. I'm tempted to quote and comment on many sections of the letter, but there's so much that this post would become way too long-winded. Suffice it to say, I give it two thumbs up.

The look into the Castaneda cult is interesting, but I'd prefer not looking at it through the eye's of Amy Wallace who makes such statements as:

Quote

I've written about the paranormal and spontaneous human combustion. It happens, believe me. I've written 13 books. And I've seen magic.

Writing books on these subjects (in a sloppy, biased manner) is popular because most people want to believe in such things and crave to see what they view as actual documented confirmation. It's a very profitable avenue and publishers of such material aren't concerned about actually confirming any of the information. Most people feel that if something is published as non-fiction that there is some sort of objective, unbiased scrutiny of the subject matter before it is allowed to print, but this is not true. For more info on this, see Flim-Flam by James Randi.

But looking at the process of how a creative writer and story teller such as Carlos Castaneda can become a cult leader, and possibly even a dangerous one, is important to see.

As for the Deikman material, some good points are made, but there's just so many wild spiritual assertions being made that I feel the need to make my objections known, which I'll address in a bit.

I alway enjoy reading Corboy's posts because I know I'm going to find a quality and informative read. But there's a recurrent theme in many of these posts (as there is in mine). We're both going in opposite directions in this one area.

Corboy seems to assert that there is genuine spirituality as opposed to false spirituality. (Correct me when I miss the mark on my claims.) While I propose that all spirituality is based on false assumptions arising from altered states of consciousness.

I propose a friendly, informal and leisurely discussion on this subject where we can make a few comments back and forth whenever we find time to conveniently do so. There's a disclaimer earlier on this thread, and I'm sure it would apply to all the material that follows it, so I think we can speak our minds freely as long as it's done in a reasonably tasteful manner. Although salty and pointed statements can be fun (and this discussion should be enjoyable as well) as long as not personally directed. If there's faults in my conclusions, I wanna see 'em, don't be shy to slap me in the face with them if I seem to be missing a point. I'm not the type of person that one has to walk on egg shells around.

Instead of commenting on the Deikman material here, I'll start a new post where that can be the beginning of the discussion on the reality or lack of in the world of spirituality (assuming you'd be interested in such a discussion). My views will probably be opposed to pretty much everyone else's, so if anyone wants to jump in, feel free.

Also, this particular discussion shouldn't get in the way of the Yogananda related discussions. Anyone should feel to comment on those issues because after all, that's what this thread is about. But questioning spiritual concepts themselves has already come into play in this thread to a significant degree, and I feel we'd just be following up on those issues, so I don't feel any need for a new thread. After all, the discussion might not get very far. This subject matter is tricky and we may not be able to do much more than flush out our opinions on the subject.

From Evaluating Spiritual and Utopian Groups by Arthur J. Deikman:
[www.deikman.com]
(I'll put the quotes from the article in bold. My comments will be written in regular text.)

[b:e6880c2f8f]In order to do this one must recognize that the experience of the truly spiritual is not a fantasy, a delusion or an emotional binge but a valid aspect of human life known to almost everyone to some degree.[/b:e6880c2f8f]

How can the author here state as an unchallengeable fact that the "truly spiritual" [Who decides what 'real' spirituality is and what is not? Deikman will no doubt let us know.] is a reality that we must accept if we're going to be able to properly evaluate various "spiritual and utopian groups"? He starts with a popular New Age assumption that "almost everyone" has experienced evidence of some sort of a spiritual world to some degree or another. What if I made a similar statement and said that almost everyone has ingested an inebriant of some kind or another, whether it be alcohol or opium, and has experienced a more pleasant world where our personal worries are diminished, and that because of that there is another 'dimension' out there that we can go to and exist in that state all the time. We can see the problem with that train of thought when I use the drug example, but it's usually not so obvious when people do the same with spirituality as I feel Deikman has done here.


[b:e6880c2f8f]Even today, in a culture that has embraced the scientific world view, most people have intimations of a larger, more perfect reality that transcends the material world. This intangible perception has been shared by some of the principal physicists who established modern science, such as Newton and Einstein.[/b:e6880c2f8f]

Another typical New Age approach here. Deikman states, "Even today, in a culture that has embraced the scientific world view ..." suggesting that the scientific world view is shallow, or at the very least, not seeing the full picture. But in the very next sentence he praises physicists and the value of science when they seem to support the idea of a transcendent spiritual world. The New Age view that is being stated here is that science is short-sighted because it doesn't recognize spiritual planes of existence, but when we can use their findings to suggest the existence of such mythical realms, then science is our noble friend.


[b:e6880c2f8f]The intuition of the spiritual does not require esoteric, dramatic ecstasies; in its most convincing form it is part of everyday consciousness. There it is reflected in our awareness of "the good".[/b:e6880c2f8f]

I see. So there's a spiritual realm where only "the good" exists? How does having a sense of morality suggest that there is some type of heaven this "good" is filtered down from?


[b:e6880c2f8f]Tolstoy describes this perception in his novel, [i:e6880c2f8f]Anna Karenina[/i:e6880c2f8f].[/b:e6880c2f8f]

It's written in a novel? Hmm, must be something to it then.


[b:e6880c2f8f]... the spiritual shines ahead of us through the darkness and we seek its source.[/b:e6880c2f8f]

So the spiritual is something outside ourselves that we need to discover? Sounds like a cat chasing its tail to me.


[b:e6880c2f8f]The aim of the mystical traditions is the development of the ability to perceive directly (intuitively) the reality that underlies the world of appearances, whatever that reality may be called. All the traditions agree that the primary requirement for the development of this capacity is that a person shift from a self‑centered orientation to one of serving the Truth. This service must be without concern for personal gain.[/b:e6880c2f8f]

This is a simple mind-numbing trick to get people to serve you without question. It's not even possible to do, but it keeps one's mind running around on a hamster wheel and conveniently out of the way while being exploited. How can one shift their awareness from being self-centered to one that "serves" (catch that key word in his text) the "Truth" without concern for personal gain. The only reason someone would attempt this is for personal gain. People do it because they think they're going to find peace or truth or God or whatever. And that's personal gain regardless of how noble the robes look that one covers it up with.


[b:e6880c2f8f]For unitive perception, for that access to the spiritual domain, a selfless orientation is required in which the Truth is served for its own sake.[/b:e6880c2f8f]

How do we serve "Truth", and who decides exactly what this truth is? We serve Truth to gain access to the spiritual domain, but since we're not there, how do we know what Truth is? Someone must tell us, someone like Deikman. How can we join Deikman's spiritual-psychotherapy cult?


[b:e6880c2f8f]A genuine spiritual organization is run in such a way as to assist the student in making the shift from a self‑centered life to one that is centered in service.[/b:e6880c2f8f]

Sounds like "Arbeit Macht Frei" (Work Will Make You Free) which was the inscription on the front gate to the Auschwitz concentration camp. I'll take a pass on your wonderful world of selfless service.


[b:e6880c2f8f]... indoctrination is antithetical to the expression of individuality and the mystical literature makes clear that individuality is crucial to the developmental process and must eventually manifest itself.[/b:e6880c2f8f]

Huh? I thought individuality was bad? Now it's good again. Cute. Note how he states that "the mystical literature" says this, that and the other -- like they all say the same thing (and all happen to be in agreement with the author) -- convenient.


[b:e6880c2f8f]Spiritual development requires the opposite of indoctrination: learning to discern how the perception of the world is influenced by egocentric thought and motivations.[/b:e6880c2f8f]

This is insane. My comments are getting a little edgy because this guy is making less and less sense and we're suppose to eat it up. "Learning to discern how the perception of the world is influenced by egocentric thought and motivations" [i:e6880c2f8f]is[/i:e6880c2f8f] indoctrination! He's flat out telling us [i:e6880c2f8f]exactly[/i:e6880c2f8f] what we need to learn.


[b:e6880c2f8f]... careful attention to traditional teaching stories and anecdotes reveals that there are certain principles that are never violated ... There are no examples of teachers entering into sexual relations with their students ...[/b:e6880c2f8f]

There's a Buddhist story on how one teacher shagged some guy's wife to supposedly teach him some short of spiritual lesson. I guess since this was the student's wife, and not the student directly, I'll let Deikman slide on a technicality here.


[b:e6880c2f8f]A good place to start is with Freud's definition of a healthy individual ...[/b:e6880c2f8f]

Whoa there. Freud's twisted theories are fortunately long outdated, and some view him as having been a type of cult leader. I'll take a pass on starting with Freud.

I'm nitpicking here now, so I'll close my argument.

Wild spiritual assertions are being made here that we're suppose to accept as fact. This doesn't strike me as an appropriate way to address the process and study of cultic involvement and recovery. Rebuttal anyone?

HI,

I am new to this board but a friend of Yellowbeards. I am really too tired to post much or read many of the posts, so I just scanned many this a.m.

I am not new to cults. I was a Jehovah's Witness in my younger days, 5 years beginning at age 21. I didn't know any better. I became an atheist for the next 20 years and then found "The Autobiography of a Yogi." I questioned SRF but was lied to, and I joined. After a year I began hearing rumors about SRF and began investigating them. I left. Then I heard rumors about Yogananda, investigated and left him. I went to the Vedanta Society and lasted 3 years. I left. I could not accept all of their teachings, and I could not accept the way the swamis treated the devotees.

I recently joined a Zen Buddhist group. We do not believe in going into higher states of consciousness but just observe our thoughts. I observed the group, the abbot and the members for many months before taking the precepts. I am much more caucious now and much wiser, so I hope. I no longer expect to stay with any one religion for the rest of my life, but I certainly like how they teach, if you are not growing here, just leave. No control issues going on, no telling you that you will go to hell, etc.

I have been a member of SRF Walrus for about 4 years. At the moment I am arguing with members over the truths about Yogananda. I was once banned from Walrus along with Yellowbeard for doing the same things about a year or so ago. I created a new screen name. I expect to be banned again, but I don't really care. It never seizes to amaze me how gullible people are, but I have had to deal with my own gullibility throughout the years.

When I came to Zen I mentioned my situation, what I had been through. I was asked by a monk if I was still looking for a guru. I said, "No. I am finished with gurus." He said, "Good." For the first time in my life in regards to religion I can be myself, and I look up to no one, that is, I don't idolize anyone. I don't even know the Master of this organization in that I have never met him. I like that we are not to put anyone on a pedestal, that the Buddha said that we can all reach enlightenment or wisdom. The idea is to learn compassion and love. The idea is to not accept teachings as being truth. I also came to my own understanding that everything that you need is within you, that God is not out there, and feeling this inside of myself is what brought me to Buddhism because that is what they teach.

I have my own information on SRF and hope to share these things with all.

I checked out a bit of the SRF Walrus site and found it very interesting.
[p203.ezboard.com]

It makes me think how terrific the internet is for this sort of thing. That sort of info would be IMPOSSIBLE for an average person to access without the internet.
I for one, knew literally nothing about the monks, and their lives in that place. It was also terrific to read about what is going on with Daya Mata and her inner circle, and their lives of luxury.

The leaders of these cults must go into apoplectic fits to see all of their secrects exposed publicly.

Perhaps those types of message boards are one of the best weapons against these cults?
Of course, once they get their teeth into people, i am sure they can use those types of boards as proof of the works of the devil in the world.
But for the unbrainwashed, they could be quite effective, i think.

Coz

PS: i just remembered that MANY years ago, when i first read this stuff, there were all these "warnings" on their books, that "other" groups who were unofficial were releasing books about Yogananda that were untrue, and were not endorsed by SRF. I remember thinking, as i was young and foolish, that those OTHER people must be bad people, to do that.
So on a fresh, naive mind, those early warnings might work very well. I bet SRF concocts some type of conspiracy theory, that there is some disgruntled members out there, doing these horrible things on the internet.

Hi Coz,

Yes, the Internet has changed things, and Mother Center, as SRF headquarters is called, is more than upset over SRFWalrus. They have not been able to penetrate it to find out who is in charge of it, and so the rumor is that their arc enemy, Ananda Church of Self-Realization, started it, when I really believe it was started by an ex-monk from SRF. But no one really knows. How does Mother Center (anything but a Mother) handle this: They tell their members that it was started by Ananda, and they put down Ananda and its leader Donald Walters by telling people that he is teaching wrong things about Yogananda. Then they say that those on Walrus are all emotionally unstable, and yes, some are, and who would not be after dealing with them and/or doing Kriya yoga? But most members on Walrus are stable, they are the ones who question and who would have been burned at the stake in Salem. If you do any real thinking in SRF, you may think yourself out of SRF, but too many of those who even think are really emotionally tied to Yogananda, and so that is where their thinking stops.

The insert in their books was aimed at Donald Walters and every other “direct disciple” of Yogananda’s who left and started their own organization.

One person whose father was a co-partner of Yogananda’s exposed Yogananda on the net, and SRF’s attorney came at him with fists flying. He decided to take the information off the Internet in order to stop a lawsuit. He didn’t have the money to pursue this matter in any court, after all, he is only a math professor at Cornell. How does SRF handle this? They say that he and Swami Dhirananda have a vendetta, that they were jealous of Yogananda’s popularity. What amazes me is that those on Walrus know that SRF lies and keeps secrets, but they don’t believe that SRF would lie about Yogananda, and when you point this out to them as Yellowbeard and I did, they fight you. They will say you are lying, and when you show proof, they say that those scriptures are wrong, or that person lied about him, etc. You will even be verbally abused in the name of protecting Yogananda’s “good” name. And then, last but not least, banned by Walrus itself, which may or may not happen to me this time.

SRF has at recent Convocation (a huge expensive gathering in L.A.) told devotees to not listen to gossip about SRF. When I was in SRF I found that I could not bring up questions to devotees. I recall reading a book that I found that was written by a direct disciple of Yogananda’s, Kamala. I asked someone about it, and since I asked the right person, I began hearing all of SRF’s gossip, and I was in shock because I had thought this time I had come to the right place. Later, I found a book published by Amrita, which was written by Yogananda, and since Amrita Foundation published it, it was not edited. (Editing Yogananda’s works are a biggie at SRF, especially if it makes him look better.) I asked two members about this book, and I was hushed and told, “I don’t go there. We have to remain loyal to Yogananda or we will spend many lifetimes without returning to this path.” At the time I thought, “Who cares?” Now I think, “Who wants to return to this mess?” This same member has already left SRF. Good for her.

One of the main ways that SRF keeps its members in line is to use loyalty issues. They pound it into you that you have to be loyal to Yogananda, and he did the same thing. When I questioned, I felt a lot of guilt because I felt disloyal, but after being a Jehovah’s Witness, I have learned to leave no stone unturned, so I questioned and lived with my guilt. Whenever I questioned SRF I got the run around. I knew that I was not only being lied to, but that they had questions that were made up by someone else, so they were just parroting them. I then talked to every direct disciple that left the group and started their own group. I learned some things, but not much. My feeling is, they don’t want a lawsuit like Walters has had these past several years. When I learned that SRF had spent over 6 million in court against Walters, I quit giving money. It took a while to totally walk away due to those issues of loyalty. I remember leaving for almost a year and coming back due to feeling that I should stay in my guru’s organization. I didn’t last long. Every time I visited with my friends that first told me of the gossip, I would hear more negative things about SRF. It finally wore me down. Then I began hearing things about Yogananda through another group, and I didn’t want to hear what this person was telling me. But because I could not live with my doubts, I investigated. I found a Ben Erskine and his lovely wife. I began talking to her. At first I thought that they were cons like SRF and their lawyer Mike Flynn had said. I tried to catch her in lies; I couldn’t. I talked with her for over a year, and then one day I called Mike Flynn. I told him that I was a Kriyaban (a person who has taken Kriya), and he said that he was also, and I thought to myself, “Well, why did you lie in court in the case against Walters and say that you didn’t have any connections with SRF.” I kept my mouth shut because I wanted information. I told him that Ben looked just like Yogananda, and he said, “If you saw a photo of Swami Dhiranananda, you would see that he looks just like Yogananda.” Again, I kept my mouth shut and thought, “I have a photo of him, and they look nothing alike.” Then he said that he really liked Ben and Lorna, that Ben just wants to know who his father is, and that they are good, honest people. After that Lorna and I became the best of friends, and we talk daily over the phone. I have a photo of Ben when he was sixteen, and next to that photo is a photo of Yogananda. When I first saw the photo, I thought that it was a photo of Yogananda, not Ben. At the time I still felt very connected to Yogananda, and this disturbed me greatly. I tried to believe that maybe they doctored up the photo, but it was a Xerox of a very old photo, and they would not have the knowledge to doctor it up. Now why SRF’s so-called last DNA test claims that Ben is not related to Yogananda, I don’t know? Does money really speak? I met Ben and Lorna in Encinitas a couple of months ago. We sat at a café in town, and I was talking to Ben, and all the sudden I saw Yogananda’s eyes starting back at me. I looked away. Part of me still did not want to believe that he was Yogananda’s son. I turned back to him and said, “You have Yogananda’s eyes.” He just smiled. What I thought was really funny was that they were visiting all of the temples where Ben had been as a child. They sat at the Hollywood Temple to listen to a lecture, and then in Encinitas they went to the gardens and walked around. When they were leaving, Lorna signed the guest book, giving their name and address, and as they were walking out, a nun ran up to see who signed the book. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall.

Back to the loyalty issue. I once told one of their ministers that I had listened to what Walters had said, and he said, “If you were loyal, you would not have listened.” I said, “I am loyal only to God and to the guru.” Later. I questioned a direct disciple, and he said, “SRF and Yogananda are one and the same. If you are disloyal to SRF, you are disloyal to Yogananda.” I thought not, but now I realize that he is right—they are one and the same, and since Yogananda demanded loyalty, then how can this monk be wrong? What was really interesting to me was that I had loved this monk’s lectures. They were so full of love and wonderful vibrations, but on the phone, due to my questioning, he was cold as a stone covered in a blanket of ice. I learned then the fine art of giving a lecture, and later on someone told me that they practice coming across in the right manner. And yet, I was told that this monk has wanted to leave SRF, has even wanted to go to India to die, but SRF will not allow him to go. I have also heard that he is very saddened over how his guru's teachings have changed. It must be hard to live with conflicting feelings, to live a lie.

Some fifteen years ago I overheard it explained that SRF didn't care what happens nowadays, not at all, that whether they have lots of members isn't important, that whether books sell doesn't matter - because only one thing is priority importance.

That one thing is that Yogananda's body must be moved to Mount Washington and only the "real" monks and "real" nuns know anything about the REAL reason for the existence of SRF at this time.

I overheard that it was only known to those considered to be near the top of the 'pyramid.'

You see, those elite pyramid-top monks/nuns are so prescient and so evermore spiritually evolved than us book-consumer sudras that only they realize that in 500 years every single person on the planet will be making pilgrimages to Mount Washington.

Yes.

And there they will worship at the (moved) tomb of Yogananda.

You see, it will take five centuries before us commoner dispensible consumers are told that the Messiah has already returned.

Jesus the Christ returned already, during the 20th Century and he went to America - where nobody recognized him, I mean: Him.

Well, not nobody.

You see, there is a special cadre of monks and nuns who RECOGNIZED the return of JESUS CHRIST when it occurred, and they had to keep it a secret, cuz They are so spiritually evolved, and Future History will recount how ONLY they had advanced spiritual discernment to realize that Yogananda was the Christ, returned, and you & me who are just so spiritually devolved that we didn't recognize Jesus.

This is what they believe.

The only thing that is important is that they preserve Mount Washington and the remains of Yogananda.

They must do this for posterity.

Also, there was something all about all of the "earth changes" or something, but that that wasn't important, what was important was that five hundred years from now EVERYBODY WOULD REALIZE THAT YOGANANDA HAD LIVED UNRECOGNIZED IN THE USA -- that he was Jesus, the Messiah.



I would have liked to ask questions, but they didn't know I was overhearing their enthusiastic chatter.


I've read that lots of the nuns high up in SRF are mormon. Were they raised in polygamous families? Did they leave the LDS, or are they practicing members of LDS?

Does anyone know if the mormon church is actually in charge of SRF?

Does Mormon Doctrine speak of a "Secret Return of Jesus - to the 'special' country America?



Were all monks and nuns told that they took monastic vows to the Messiah?

Do the hindus who are in the India part of SRF -- do they also 'know' that Yogananda is considered to be Jesus, the returned Messiah, by the High Escelon of SRF?



Does anybody have any links for me?


Does anybody here feel that this is what Yogananda taught the inner circle of mormon nuns?



Sorry for all the questions.

I don't have any insider info on SRF, but that does sound "logical" to their belief system.
I would have no problem believing that they believe that Para-Yogi was God/Christ, and that one day we will all realize this.
He did say he was One with Christ and God. Same difference.

I would imagine they might also think that one day he will perform a Resurrection, and return to save the world.
From all of my readings, if one really did believe what Para-Yogi wrote about himself, than that would be a mere parlour trick for him to come back from the dead.

After all, he didn't die, he "left his body", and then they perpetrated the embalming hoax at the time of his death.

No question in my book, SRF is a fanatical cult.

Coz

Quote
Cosmophilospher
I don't have any insider info on SRF, but that does sound "logical" to their belief system.

I would have no problem believing that they believe that Para-Yogi was God/Christ, and that one day we will all realize this.

Coz

:roll:

Thank you for the quick response. That conversation I overheard was so long ago, I've not thought about it in ages; it sounded nutso and I guess the perpetrators spreading the "Good News" within distance of my ears were full fledged "bliss bunnies" - a phrase I'd never seen before yesterday, on that board you recommended.

The reason I remembered it was that I was very startled when I read that the Kriyananda people are so scared that SRF will cremate the body and spread the ashes in India.

That's when I panoramically recalled that according to what was depicted as the "inner circle" of "true" "real" devotees, there is a small cadre who keeps this critical information away from the other (lowly) monks & devotees, and this is what they consider the sole purpose of SRF.

Anyway, the emotionalism I read somewhere or another about how "they" would utterly destroy the physical remains, so that no DNA evidence :roll: would be available for retrieval -- that triggered this long ago memory.

And it occurred to me that maybe this Sole Purpose of the so-called Mother Center, with all the pathological arrogance and deep clinical narcissism it infers -- MAY be the "reason" the ex-monks and ex-nuns are looking for, for WHY they were so peculiarly treated, and WHY they do not understand what SRF is doing and up to.

I can't find anything on the Internet about this, but I did overhear the entire scenario I explained above.

It's an obvious sign of an outright cult - that the few so-called Highly Evolved Spiritual Persons can keep this "Good News" from the peon-monks and peon-nuns, and it doesn't matter at all if they leave, as the Sole Purpose actually concerns the Future - a full five hundred years hence.

Just in case this might be helpful information to anyone who has escaped from that christian apocolyptic cult, shoddily disguised as "western hinduism" -- I decided I might as well share what I know, although granted, it's anecdotal at best -- it may make real sense to any of the NON-inner circle who spent years of their lives at SRF.

Uncanny that today is the birthday of Yogananda today.

I can't imagine what his family - his physical relatives would think of the Sole Purpose of SRF as I heard it described.

Most Americans, I presume, would readily recognize that at the top of the pyramid are a number of End Times christians, and would simply chalk it up to popularized fundamentalist christianity with a bit o' newagism added for flavor.

But, LOL - :roll: - whatever would the Hindu devotees in India and at Yogoda Satsanga Society think about their American so-called Mother Center?

This is so pathetic - in the cult sense, and simultaneously so funny - in the purely human sense.

And I was pretty surprised that the Kriyananda folks seem to have no idea what SRF has been working towards for so long -- it's so long ago that this stuff came to my attention. You'd think that someone at anandaville would have contact with at least ONE of the Highly Spiritually Evolved Inner Circle of SRF -- but maybe it's really only a tiny select favored few who know this Truth.

It's preposterous. LOL!