DowntheCrookedPath

Paramahansa Yogananda's Misuse of the Powers

2012-01-12T07:18:00.000-08:00

Friday, December 16, 2011Yogananda's Misuse of the Powers According to Swami Satyeswarananda

"Kriya, Finding the True Path" by Swami Satyeswarananda Giri, page 170.

"...the author remembers once Satyananda told him, 'One day, when Yogananada returned to India, he asked me, 'Why don't you exhibit miracles and attract people and then serve?'

I told him, 'Nothing is impossible through the Lord, but who am I to do such things?' I politely but firmly told him, 'Please don't request me to do such things.'"

On the subject of miracles, both friends had different attitudes; Yogananda was always fond of miracles due to the influence of Jyoti, Light, in his life, while Satyananda was attuned with Anahat Dwani, inner sound for Sthirattva, eternal Tranquility, and thus remained restrained from being outward to exhibit miracles.

It seemed that for Yogananda with his assertive character the drawing of others' attention came naturally.

Frankly speaking, to an orthodox or conversative Indian yogi, this style would appear as tuktak, that is, using cheap shots to draw attention to oneself and thereby generate name and fame, the vehicle of divine ego.

In Vedic culture, the sages have indicated in the past that exhibiting miracles using yogic powers by one for individual gain, name and fame, or for other individual interests, would bring the downfall of a yogi. As a result, all sages have condemned it."

Page 176:In his younger days, the influence of Jyoti, or light, brought Yognanda to be interested in miracles; while the sentiment to be great and to be the leader brought him to be interested in hypnotism. He was very found of hypnotism. By hypnotizing people he wanted to control them.

In Indian spiritual disciplines hypnotism is never praise. The application of hypnotism on others and to control others lives, is considered a kind of doing injustice to humanity itself. That is the status of hypotism in Vedic society.

Nevertheless, it is a method by which one can control others.

"In those days, he (Yogananda) was highly curious and interested in culturing sammohan bidya or hypnotism. He did not take lessons from anyone on this subject.

"By applying his will power, looking at others, and by touching other's bodies he started applying hypnotism. In particular he used to apply it on young boys.

"I (Satyananda) have seen him also failing to effectively apply it on someone younger than him but quite adult." Yogananda Sanga by Swami Satyananda, page 35.

Yogananda used to sometimes take his disciples' hands in his hands and pressed them; thereby, he used to influence the person. On the other hand, the disciples throught their Guruji was blessing them in that way, because they were already under his control.

Once Brahmachari Amulya Kumar, a direct disciple of Swami Abhedananda (disciple of Sri Ramakrishna), a personal friend of the author said, "Yogananda during his return trip to India presided over my Guruji's birthday celebration at the Albert Hall, Calcutta. He was requested by our brother disciples because our Guruji once said that he taught Yogananda in the U.S.A. how to talk with the American people.

(Swami Abhedananda was in the U.S.A. almost twenty years, prior to Yogananda's arrival in the U.S.A.)

Swami Abhedananda went on:

"I attended there. The moment he entered the hall, he sent a vibration in the Hall and gave a shock to the audience: I felt it; others too. Then, I was afraid even to look into his eyes, because I heard about him culturing sammohan bidya, hypnotism."

"The realized sages say that in connection with using yogic powers one has to be very careful, otherwise, there is every possiblity of a downfall.

With the will power he (Yogananda) had cured many people to the last day of his life".

"The eight primary mystic perfections are as follows:

Anima-siddhi - The ability to decrease the size of one's body and become smaller than the smallest particle. Through this siddhi one may enter into stone or change the density in one's body, enabling one to pass through solid matter.

Mahima-siddhi - The ability to increase the size of one's body, ultimately enveloping the universe.

Laghima-siddhi - The ability to make one's body lighter than air and fly at will. The perfection of this siddhi enables one to travel on the sun's rays and enter into the sun planet.

Prapti-siddhi - The ability to manifest any object one desires within one's hand. This siddhi removes the limitations of space which separate two objects from each other. It is said one will even be able to touch the moon with one's finger [i.e. the limitation of distance is removed].

Prakamya-siddhi - The ability to attain anything one desires.Ishita-siddhi - The ability to control the sub-potencies of the laws of nature. This enables one to control various energies and seemingly defy the laws of nature. On the lowest level, one may make fire come from one's mouth, etc.

Vashita-siddhi - The ability to bring others under one's control.

Kamavasayita-siddhi - The ability to attain anything anywhere. This is the highest of the eight and contains most of the abilities of the other perfections.

The ten secondary perfections are as follows:

1) The ability to be free from hunger and thirst. With this perfection one no longer depends on food and water for maintenance of one's body. One will be able to sustain himself simply on prana, the life air.

2) The ability to hear things far away. With this perfection one can hear any conversation spoken anywhere in the world.

3) The ability to see things far away. With this perfection one develops a mystic vision, by which one can see any person or place.

4) The ability to travel at the speed of the mind. With this perfection one can travel great distances in a moment simply by thinking of the destination.

5) The ability to assume any form one desires. This enables one to change one's physical body at will.

6) The ability to enter the bodies of others. This perfection enables one to enter into the bodies of others and enjoy through their senses. Since ghosts do not have physical senses, they often resort to this to satisfy their desires through other's bodies.

7) The ability to control the time of one's death. With this perfection one may choose the time of leaving his body.

The ability to witness the pastimes between the demigods and the celestial girls called apsaras.

9) Satya-sankalpa - Perfect accomplishment of one's determination. Whatever one desires to happen will happen.

10) Satya-vak - Giving orders that are unimpeded. With this perfection one's very word is truth. Simply by saying something it occurs.

Besides these eighteen, there are five inferior perfections as follows:

The ability to know past, present and future.

The ability to tolerate heat, cold and other dualities.

The ability to know the minds of others.

The ability to check the influence of fire, water, poison, and weapons.

The ability to remain unconquered by others.

www.indiadivine.org/tattva12.htm

www.icrcanada.org/kundandpara.html

vedabase.net/sb/5/5/35

Bhagavatam 5.5.35: "Due to this, all mystic powers automatically approached Him, such as the ability to travel in outer space at the speed of mind, to appear and disappear, to enter the bodies of others, and to see things far, far away. Although He could do all this, He did not exercise these powers.”

Patanjali, Book III--37,3 "these powers stand in contradistinction to the highest spiritual vision. In manifestation they are called magical powers". Thus these powers in the waking state represent obstacles in the mystical state".

Paul Pond, PhD. wrote in his article on Kundalini: "The dangers spoken of (using siddhis), aside from the distraction from spiritual goals, are the psychological and physical damage these practices can have on the individual. There are also the ethical implications of the misuse of these powers both for the individual and society". (Think of how Yogananda taught us to read minds in the lessons and how dangerous that is.)

He also quoted others: "Lal Ded, a famous Hindu mystic of the 14th century is described by Jayalal Kaul: 'She cleansed the mirror of her heart for the Truth to shine unmistakable and clear. She took the middle path, of moderation in food and drink, neither pandering to her appetites nor undergoing extreme penance. Nor did she hanker after the siddhis, the miraculous powers which she condemned as fraud and jugglery.'"

Kirpal Singh, 20th century spiritual master in Man! Know Thyself writes: "Master-Saints never show any miracles, except in very rare cases, to a disciple due to special circumstances. Miracles are in accordance with the laws of Nature but are nevertheless, terrible entangling webs detrimental to the higher ideals of man to approach the Almighty God. . .The miraculous powers achieved after lengthy periods are instrumental in doing both good and harm, and as they are utilized more to harm than anything else, are looked down upon by all truly spiritual persons. The Masters are in possession of Supreme Power but their mission is sacred. . .Those who are anxious to see miracles are not true seekers."

The aim of those following spiritual discipline is to become free from the desire to lord over material nature. Those seeking mystic perfections are motivated by their desire to control matter, subtle and gross. Those who are sincerely interested in spiritual life should try their best to become free from such material desires. I have seen many people who belong to lines that focus on siddhis. Some of the siddhis are amazing, some are just stupid. Everything from being able to pull chocolate out of the sand (the specialty of one particular sadhu) to being able to change the density of matter. Through various processes of meditation one's mind is expanded and the understandings of matter become much greater. All matter is based on sound, so through sound it can be manipulated. Furthermore, the physical realm of our experience exists and is based on the subtle mental realm. Those who have conscious access to that realm can know and do things that we would consider to be mystical or supernatural

True transcendentalists have no interest in mundane material life. As such, the rishis did not give much importance to material powers and perfections. They were not interested in acquiring wealth, power, fame, etc. Their aim was much higher.

We must imagine how great the spiritual experience of the rishis and yogis must be to turn away from absolute material power - control over the fundamental laws of nature - and sit alone in the forest absorbed in meditation. That is the brahmananda, paramananda, shivananda, yogananda spoken of in the scriptures - the spiritual bliss which is the constitutional nature of the self. Experiencing a higher taste of spiritual bliss, they are able to renounce all lower material sensual enjoyment - both subtle and physical."

There are certain siddhis that a guru can use, but only out of compassion for others:

"Supernatural powers used by a guru are not for self-gain or to gather a following, but are used to reduce suffering in order to bring people to their true identity. Jesus basically used his powers out of compassion and to heal. He often told the person that he healed to go and tell no one".

In chapter 18 of the Autobiography you will find someone who used his powers and was condemned for abusing them.

What powers did Yogananda use? In reading what the siddhis are in the above post, many will recall just which siddhis he used. In Durga or Kamala’s book he once made a salt shaker wobble and spin on a table in front of devotees. He read people’s minds. In front of large audiences, he would hold open his hand, show that nothing was there, close and open it again, and an object would appear. Often this object was then given to a person. At these same audiences he would hold out his hands, palms outwards, and light would flash from them.

Christ was said to have performed miracles, and whether he really performed them or not is debatable even among the 30 Jesus scholars who wrote “The Five Gospels.” Did he really turn water into wine or was that just another parable where he was really referring to himself as "good wine", or as the Jesus scholars said, "it was just added to the Bible and Christ had not said it at all.

It is true that many yogis in India use siddhis, but that doesn't mean that they are really high yogis. It just means that they have these powers, which are easy to obtain.

And if you notice from the list of siddhis, Yogananda didn't perform the highest siddis but mostly the lowest ones, those which you learn to perform by the time the kundalini reaches the 3rd chakra (from what I have read). Mind reading, for example, is not proof of being Self-realized; even psychics can read minds, foretell the future, etc. When you meditate and your consciousness expands, the siddhis come to you, a wise yogi ignores them. Yogananda used them to gather a following at large auditoriums where people came to be dazzled.

“The greater siddhis (such as levitation, bi-location and teleportation) rarely manifest except in the advanced stages of spiritual development. The lesser siddhis, however, can develop quite quickly”.

"Saint Ramalingam, who has discussed the siddhis in detail, refers to the attainment of siddhis as "pichu" or "childish play" (Pillai vilayattu). According to Patanjali siddhis are perfections in the waking state (vyutthana) but represent obstacles in the state of samadhi, and allows them no importance for the attainment of deliverance. Patanjali drew attention not only to the danger of exhibiting siddhis, but to the dangers that they present to the possessor; for the yogin is in danger of yielding to the temptation of magic, of being content to enjoy the siddhis instead of sticking to his spiritual task of obtaining final liberation. Pattinattar calls siddhi as "bitter sugarcane" (kasakkum karumbu) to indicate its dual nature. The desire for attracting popular notice through a display of siddhis shows immaturity. As Pambatticcittar says "those who have attained self realization will not exhibit it and those who have not attained self realization are those who exhibit it." But to the true Siddha, who is a genuine kundalini yogin, these siddhis are of immense value, for they indicate that he is in the process of deconditioning himself from the laws of nature and from karmic determinism forever and breaking down the structures of the profane sensibility. Siddhi expresses the quality of mystic experience attained by the Siddha. The real siddhi consists in inner conversion, an inner world of oneness, an entering into the stream of liberation. What is prohibited is not the attainment of the siddhis but their exhibition to others."

www.bvashram.org/articles...xperiences

"True transcendentalists have no interest in mundane material life. As such, the rishis did not give much importance to material powers and perfections. They were not interested in acquiring wealth, power, fame, etc. Their aim was much higher.

Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita:

vishaya vinivartanteniraharasya dehinahrasa-varjam raso 'py asyaparam drishtva nivartate

"The embodied soul may be restricted from senses enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness."

The Hellish Realms of Religion

2012-01-12T06:05:00.001-08:00

by GU:I have noticed in my life how many people who grew up in a religion seem very happy with it and remain in that religion for the rest of their life. I am not sure if they are better off than those that become disenchanted and leave? Are they even better off than atheists or those that turn to Hinduism and even Buddhism? I have no answer.

I was not raised in a religion. My parents christened me as a Lutheran when I was a baby, but they never took me nor sent me to church. When I was in my preteens my brother went with his friend to the Pentecostal church, and I tagged along. I also remember that as a result of this I put a hose down a gopher hole, turned on the water, hoping to put the fires of hell out. Then when I was in high school I began trying out different churches on my own. Little did I know then that my search for God would lead me to that hell and have joked about having been in the Hellish Realms of Religion.

I am not here to really talk about my journey as much as I am to warn others of the dangers of meditation and the guru/disciple relationship, but I will begin with a brief explanation of that crooked path.

I became a Baptist in high school but after graduating I left home, got married, and became an agnostic. One day my neighbor told me that I should ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses the questions that I had, and so I did. (A group of us had been playing with the Ouija Board and it worked. I thought that they were moving the pointer, but when I asked them to take their hands of it, I kept my eyes opened and knew that my finger tips were not on the cup that we were using for a pointer. I saw this cup move away from my hand, turn, and point at a letter. We were getting rather spooked.) So I asked the Jehovah’s Witnesses my questions and felt that their answers were wonderful—they knew the bible. They soon convinced me that there was a God. I joined. Perhaps some of it was also due to my being lonely after leaving home and getting married; I don’t know. They became my life for 5 years, and then I “sinned” and confessed. As a result I was thrown out and shunned. When they kicked me out one of the elders said that I was “dead in God’s eyes” and that they would “love to stone me to death if we were still under the Mosaic Law.”

I had become severely depressed over this and decided that there was no God. I began reading books on atheism and brainwashing. I then saw that the Jehovah’s Witnesses techniques on brainwashing were the same used in communism. At that point I also went to college and studied philosophy, psychology, humanity, etc.

It was years before I was ever interested in religion again. First I became interested in psychic readings and had a friend teach me how to read. I found then that you can go into an altered state of consciousness. I began doing readings, but after a year it didn’t seem right to be reading other people’s minds, so I quit. I also began reading New Age books, and one in particular, Seth Speaks, helped me the most when I read, “It is your thoughts that depress you, and not the other way around.” I sat and thought about my thoughts, and they were all depressing. I then decided to change each one of them by using positive affirmations and not allowing myself to think negative thoughts. By doing this I was able to get out of a 12 year depression in a matter of a few months.

Many years later I started reading Beat Generation material and became interested in Buddhism. I had moved with my new husband to Mississippi, and I could find no other Buddhist group except SGI. I joined to just see what it was about, but it didn’t feel like real Buddhism. The people were nice, but my husband kept telling me that you would not chant for material things. I began reading other religious books and found one of Ramana Maharishi’s books. In this book he said that you could experience God through meditation. I left SGI, and they said that the “Devil of Confusion” would come down on me if I left. And at that point they all walked away from me. I was used to that by now; it did not bother me.

A New Age friend sent me a CD from Siddha Yoga. I found that by chanting along with it I could go into an altered state, and one day while chanting I felt a great love for all of mankind.

Another friend wrote and said that the Autobiography of a Yogi was the best book she had ever read. I read it and joined Self Realization Fellowship. SRF was not a friendly group. I would go up and say hello to others, and they would smile, say hello, and walk away. The idea was to just meditate and keep your peace by not talking much. I stayed because I loved Yogananda and his teachings. But as I received each lesson I became more bored as there was not much substance to them.

Then I began hearing gossip around the temple in Encinitas where my husband had moved us. (He always supported me in every religion I was in; even making me an altar in SGI, being that he was a carpenter.) Anyway, I didn’t know what to believe, so I began a 3 year investigation of SRF, even calling everyone that had been a direct disciple when Yogananda was alive, and learned that it was all true.

I left SRF and went to the Vedanta Society. The books were more to my liking and I enjoyed my first year there and was initiated by a guru. At first the gurus and swamis seemed very kind, but then after a year it felt like I had just jumped out of the frying pan of Self-Realization into the fire of Vedanta.

Anyone that has been in any eastern religions and had guru will tell you that you have to obey them, and that they scold their disciples. I was told to learn “to roll with the punches.” I rebelled when I was scolded, and I didn’t like seeing this happening to others; nor did I believe that they should be shunned in order to keep them in line. I can’t stand to see others get hurt; I know what it feels like. To make a long story short; I left Vedanta and went back to Buddhism. And after leaving Zen Buddhism due to moving away, I became a Tibetan Buddhist. How did I ever let myself do this? I ask myself now.

Why I Left Self Realization Fellowship

2012-01-12T04:34:00.001-08:00

by Grainne

After leaving SGI a Berkeley friend sent me a CD from Siddhi Yoga. I found that by chanting along with it I could go easily into an altered state, and one day while chanting I felt love for all of mankind. Then another Berkeley friend wrote and said that the Autobiography of a Yogi written by Paramahansa Yogananda was the best book she had ever read. I read it and agreed with her. I called Self Realization Fellowship and questioned them about many things because I did not want to be in another religion that shunned people. Later, I realized that this religion does shun, but not in the same sense as the Jehovah's Witnesses. What I mean by this is, the members are not openly taught to shun, but loyalty to their guru causes them to back away from those that leave the organization or question it.

After reading the Autobiography of a Yogi I wanted to live in Encinitas so that I could be with Yogananda's disciples and walk where Yogananda had walked, but this took a while. I had tried to go to the temple in Helotes, Tx, but the people were clickish. We soon moved to Laredo, Tx., and I only found one member there, but she was a very wealthy aristrocrat, who after seeing where I lived wanted no more to do with me. Next we moved to Corpus Christi where I found one member,and we would have group meetings. When I told him about how the Helote members were, he told me that they were friendlier in Encinitas. So that is when we moved. (My husband has always supported me in whatever religion I had joined. So he supported me now.) But agin, I was disappointed because they were not a friendly group. Their beliefs were to just meditate and keep your peace by not talking much with other members. I stayed because I loved the teachings and because I believed I could adjust to this.

After a year of lessons I found they didn't contain enough substance for me; I was becoming more bored with each lesson. And I was also told that I should not read other books by other gurus, and while this sent up a red flag, I stayed.

Then I began hearing gossip around the temple in Encinitas--gossip that was not flattering to the organization. The couple that were telling me these things were actually insiders and had their own disillusionment with SRF, but they stayed out of loyalty to Yogananda. I didn't know what to believe, and it was very hard to listen to them. They were in a position where memebers would come to them in tears, telling them of things that had happened to them. I found a book by Kamala and had asked them about it, and this was when I was first taken into their confidence. That was my first introduction to the inside workings of SRF, of how they treated Kamala for publishing the book.

More info. on Kamala by being that this is an Ananda website, it is their word against SRF's:

http://www.yoganandarediscovered.org/jaitruth/Kamala.html

Then I found a book titled, The Second Coming of Christ by Amrita Foundation. I asked an SRF member about it, and she said, "We don't go there. That is bad karma." I didn't know what she meant, but I knew that we were not to read any books not published by SRF. I felt the hush-hush to be a little cultish, but I didn't ask any other members about it, I knew better. I then called Amrita Foundation and began learning more things about SRF that didn't make me all too happy. So I began investigating all of these allegations, even calling everyone that had known Yogananda personally, which means his direct disciples.

Also, after hearing all of these things, I left the organization for a few months but came back out of loyalty to Yogananda. It was not easy because I felt like a self-divided, not in the real psychological meaning, but my own definition of the term, which was that I felt the need to stay due to loyalty to Yogananda, but on the other I felt that I had my own integrity. I knew I could never accept an organization that was abusive, kept secrets, and lied. So shortly thereafter, when I was satisfied that most of the gossip was true, I left SRF.

After leaving I learned certain things about Yogananda that disturbed me. So I left the idea of him behind, but it wasn't easy, and I felt heartbroken.

One thing I learned I learned when I went to have an interview with a swami at the Vedanta Society, and that was this, it isn't ture that leaving your guru would cause you to be lost for many lifetimes, and you do not have to be loyal to any guru. I also learned that the very moment you think of God, God is there, but I learned this from someone else in Vedanta.

Backing up:

I was In SRF for a year before reading a book written by Kamala and by this time I had taken Kriya.

In my search for the truth, I had called The Cross and the Lotus, an organization ran by Mother Hamilton, another direct disciple of Yogananda's. I learned that Mother Hamilton was blackballed from SRF after Yogananda’s passing because she had a large following and she didn't like the changes that SRF was making to his teachings. Mother Hamilton was very distressed over their treatment of her after Yogananda's passing.

I also called Ananda Church of Self Realization, and I began hearing more negative things about SRF from them. I wrote to Swami Kriyananda (a direct disciple of Yogananda who was kicked out some time after Yogananda's passing) and he sent me a 20 page letter he had written that listed all of the things that SRF has done that was harmful. I didn't know what to believe, and I still don't.

I had also read the court documents of Kriyananda vs a few women who had accused him of sexual harrassment, so I did not wish to go to his organization. To this day I believe that the women had embellished their testimony because I had met a women in SRF during my time of distress, and she said that she used to travel with him, and that one day he wanted her to message her while he was nude. She complied, but then he asked her if she would undress because her clothing was scratching him. She didn't, and he didn't push it. Yet, in the trial the women have him forcing himself on them. Am I to believe that he sometimes had control and other times not?

One day Swami Kriyananda (Donald Walters) called to talk with me. He was very charming and I could feel the pull towards him due to this charm. I cannot really explain that charm as I had never experienced before or since. Part of it was that it felt like he really cared about what was happening to me in regards to SRF, but that was a very small part. It was magnetic. I decided then that I did not wish to talk to him again, but I did write to him again about his affairs with women, and he did admit to “having problems with women,” and I was thankful for his honesty. But in later years an exAnanda member told me that while living in Italy, he still called his organization in California and asked for women to be sent to him.

I continued to visit with this SRF couple while in SRF and yet at times I would not wish to talk with this woman’s husband because the things I was learning were upsetting to me. Most of what I was learning was things that were happening at the temple. But they were the only friendly members I had to talk with, outside of my temple sitting and visiting with the woman in the book room when no one else was in the temple.

The woman that worked in the book room left SRF soon after I did, but I do not know why she left other than she joined another group and said that "SRF was not following Yogananda’s teachings." She believed as we were taught in SRF, to never put down the organization, so she was vague. But with her new meditation technique, Ramana Maharishi's, she was able to quiet her mind and have an experience of the presence of God; something that years of meditation in SRF could not do. As a result of leaving SRF, her SRF friends of 20 years wanted nothing more to do with her. She felt that the idea was to become realized, and so why should she be shunned? Instead, she felt that they should be happy for her.

I also remember talking to a woman that took the nuns training. She told me that a certain nun was really nice to her before taking the training, but during the training she was harsh, and this caused her to go to bed crying at night. As a result of this she began feeling worthless. But she believed it was done to destroy her ego, so she accepted it. (I learned in Buddhism that you cannot destroy the ego. The analogy is, "Can a knife cut a knife?"

This same woman also told me that a monk once said to her, “You would not believe the things that go on here,” but he would not explain just what went on. She was still with SRF when I left, and althught she knew that these negative things happened and were happening in SRF. She stayed out of loyalty to Yogananda, a loyalty that has been drilled into us all by Yogananda and SRF.

The husband of this same SRF couple that I knew said that one day a woman came to talk to him. She had a lot of letters written by Yogananda that SRF now claimed belonged to them, and therefore, had demanded. She would not give them up. He told that she sat there crying and was in fear of SRF because after not giving up the letters, she noticed that a car with two men in suits began parking across the street from her house. She believed they were SRF members and that SRF was trying to intimidate her into giving up these letters. Now, I don’t know if those in the car were from SRF or not, but I do believe that they demanded those letters, and I do believe that she had good reason to not have them published. (Since writing this many years ago, I have talked with this woman, and she verified that she was that woman who talked to the man. The letters were written between Yogananda and Rjarsi. They were given to Durga Ma, and Durga Ma had given them to her. The contents I cannot reveal, but maybe someday I will be able to do so. But I can see now why SRF wants them.)

Speaking of her fears of SRF, I can understand it, because they have threatened to take her to court to get the letters but never have, and they call her every now and then to harrass her. And if you want to know what it is like to be harrassed by SRF, well, Anil Nerode has dealt with it over the years:

His father was in the organization, came here to help out, so he was not his disciple. He left due to Yogananda's affairs with women. He has a lot of letters and other documents from the organization, things his father had. One letter is from a woman that left SRF due to Yogananda wanting to have sex with her. Well, he had this information on his website, not sure about the letter, and SRF' lawyer told him to take it down or they would sue him. Rather than go to the expense of suing, he took the information down.

I also learned that Sri Nerode, Anil's father and Swami Dhirananda both left because Dhirananada had come home from India early to find Yogananda living with a woman. This letter is also being read by a few SRF members who are also disgrunted with SRF. A copy was given to someone, who in turn gave it to someone else, and my friend who is still in SRF read it and didn't know what to believe. I, in turn, read it, and I was shocked.)

Another thing that bothered me was when I learned about an elderly Indian couple that had to leave their home in a hurry and spent what they had for bus or taxi fare. They left their home because the people that they were living with had became violent towards them. This elderly Indian couple were SRF members and so came to the retreat office in the early evening to see if they could get a place to spend the night. The woman at the retreat office told them that she couldn’t help them and suggested that they go to a certain shop in town because the people that owned it may be able to help them.

They went to the store, but it was late; the shop was closed. So they stood outside all night at the back door in the cold shivering. In the morning, when the shop owners showed up they called they called the Hari Krishnas, and the Krishnas drove them to LA and found them a place to stay. Then the owners of the store found someone, not an SRF member)to give them free plane tickets back to India. (Now it is true that a Brother, when hearing this, was upset over what had happened and probably talked with the person running the retreat, but the idea that she offered no help is beyond me. Just another case of a person following orders and not thinking for themselves or not caring. Then this Brother asked the store owners to not speak about this to anyone. So what kind of charity does SRF teach when they won’t even help another member who is homeless? Why not even call some Brothers and ask them what to do? How about getting them a room for the night and dealing with it in the morning? And why keep this a secret from other members?)

Then there was a woman that I knew that was dying from cancer. Her SRF husband left her for another woman, and would say to her, “You should be happy that I found my soul mate.” Members would tell her that she wanted to die or she would be cured of her cancer. She was made to believe it was all her fault. She was staying with a couple of SRF members, and one day she came home and her cat, her clothes and food had been thrown out on the lawn--clothes and food mixed together. Can you imagine being ill and coming home to see that you had been thrown out of the house? Can you imagine an SRF member doing this?

Perhaps, incidents like this should not be blamed on SRF's Mother Center. But Mother Center also lacks charity. How about Donald Walters coming home from India and finding his bags on the steps at SRF headquarters? They didn’t even allow him to enter his own room to get his own stuff or allow him the time to find a place to stay before leaving? And I learned from talking with monks that had left that they have to find a place to live before they ever telling Mother Center that they are leaving, because they don't desire to be dumped out on the street as some monastics have been.

Then I learned about woman in a wheel chair wanting SRF to put in access to a temple so she could wheel herself inside; SRF refused. So she complained to the city, and then the members shunned her for doing so, calling her a traitor, and so she left SRF. Then there is a woman that got hurt on the grounds during her own volunteer work and SRF knew that a certain area was a problem that needed to be fixed, but SRF wouldn’t pay her medical bill until she sued. She was shunned by other members and found another SRF temple. Many of these people that have told me these things I now know personally because I met them after leaving SRF. I always found it so interesting how I made so few friends in SRF but personally know many ex members.

Am I being fair in regard to SRF? I don’t know in these few cases that I mentioned, but I had heard so much that I couldn’t stay, and the things I learned were so hurtful that I could not forget them, but I chose to forget much of what I had learned.

I know that 40 monks and nuns left SRF in one year due to how they were being treated and because they claimed that SRF did not follow Yogananda’s teachings. Some of those that left had been monks and nuns for 30 years or so. I had called Mother Center and talked with a nun, and all she would say is, “Yes a lot of monks and nuns left.” She wouldn’t say how many, and so I asked how many they had before they left, and I figured that 1/3 had left. Those that I was able to talk with were depressed due to their years of monastic life. They now needed help.

I also learned from SRF members that those monks and nuns that leave have to stay away from the temples for a certain period of time. I am not sure how that works. While some may not wish to attend; there could be others that may, and I think it is wrong to prevent them from doing this. It is as if they were bad, and so God didn't want them at his temple, and neither did Yogananda.

What I learned in Vedanta about Yogananda was far more damaging than what I learned about the organization. I learned things about him from both lay members and monks. I will elaborate on this later.

One day when listening to a lecture at Vedanta on False Gurus I knew then that Yogananda was a false guru. I actually just sat and listened to this lecture in shock. I did not like what I was hearing. Then I came home and got on the internet and did research on false gurus. This is what I found on the Gita Society's webpage:

What are the signs of a false guru?

http://www.gita-society.com/guru4.htm

1. “A real guru is the giver. He never asks any money or a fee from a disciple, because he depends on God only. A real guru would not ask anything from a disciple for personal or even for organizational gain. The Vedas prohibit the sale of God in any form. It says: O mighty Lord of countless wealth, I will not sell thee for any price.”

Is not SRF selling writings asking for money? Then I remembered reading Joan Wright's book, a book that SRF didn't want published because it was Durga Mata's diary and titled, A Paramhansa Yogananda Trilogy of Divine Love Anyway, when reading it I thought I understood why they didn’t want it published, because it upset me to learn that Yogananda used to ask her to ask James Lynn for more money. So what if he asked Lynn indirectly? That is like a man giving another person money to kill someone. The one giving the money is still guilty. I also recall being bothered by how Durga Mata was on the beach with James Lynn, and when she left she didn't pick up his towel, so he complained to Yogananda about it. As a woman in this day and age you can imagine what I felt about James Lynn at that moment.

2. “A guru, who gives you his pictures to worship daily, is a false guru.” And they all do this. Most gurus do this.

“In USA there are many phony gurus and saints who work for money, name, and fame to satisfy their worldly material desires. Many of these false gurus do not understand the Vedic scriptures, and start their own brand of Hinduism to the extent that they declare themselves as Bhagavaan (God) or some other name.”

http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/glossary.html

3. “An abusive guru or abusive spiritual master is always (always!) a false guru or master, never a genuinely enlightened teacher. This is because one of the signs of a true guru is that they never justify their abusive behaviour in terms of "breaking down the ego.”

http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/knowledge/article/how-to-recognise-a-fake-or-an-unauthorised-guru.html

4. “One who is desirous of fame.”7. “Those having attachment to money and women

He gives masterly discourses on non-duality, but has intense attachment for sense objects. Nothing shall be accomplished from such Gurus.- Shri Dasbodh 5.2.31”

It took a lot to get people to talk to me about Yogananda in Vedanta, because they wanted to know that I would not spread the information, and so I had to be there for a while. So it as there that I learned that two men from SRF left Yogananda and came to Vedanta complaining that he (Yogananda) was demanding money from them, and they didn't have that much to give.

I also learned that Yogananda came to Vedanta once and was in a room with another swami. He went up to that swami and shook his hand, and then sent a current up his arm. Another swami walked into the room at that moment and said, "We don't do that here!" The idea was that you should never show your powers to others, and Yogananda used to have large audiences in which he would display his powers. One lay member said that he used to have light bounce from his hands. Vedanta believes that Yogananda had a lot of powers, which are easy to obtain, but that he was not realized.

What I found with SRF members, even myself, is that when a person begins hearing the stories or even talks to those that have been hurt by them, that person tends to not believe it at first, which is why it took years for me to come around. But because I was upset by the gossip I wanted to prove it wrong, and so my research. Facts after facts just kept piling up until I had no choice.

One thing I learned was that Yogananda was supposed to have had a son, but SRF denied it. This was known about long before it ever came out in the papers. SRF denied that he was Yogananda’s and even did DNA work to disprove it. What was worse for me in the beginning was that I had been sent a photo of him when he was 16 years old, and he looked just like Yogananda. This shocked me. When I met Ben in person I saw how much he looked like Yogananda. Still, I didn’t wish to believe.

Then I met a man that was going through the same things as me, and he was searching for the truth too and was looking only for the facts. He had gone to visit Cross and Lotus--the group whose guru was practicing Yogananda's teachings and considered him their guru. Mother Hamilton said that Yogananda really liked his women in a sexual way. Knowing that Mother Hamilton still loved Yogananda in spite of this,I accepted that I had learned the truth, that Yogananda did have affairs. But this is only my own opinion. Others can decide for themselves. by GU

Swami Yogananda Sought in Damage Suit

2012-01-12T04:32:00.001-08:00

Determined that he shall not become a vanishing Hindu, process servers were conducting a far-flung search yesterday for Swami Yogananda, Indian cultist accused in a sensational $500,000 damage suit, of amazing goings on with feminine followers.

Aiding in the search was the plaintiff, Nirad Ranjan Chowdbury, also known as Sir Nerode, former associate of Yogananda, who maintains a palatial abode on Mount Washington and also boasts a high class hideaway at Encinitas.

Chowdbury's charges took on a spice not generally associated with the spiritual repose of Yogism as the swami was sought by minions of the plaintiffs attorneys, Harold E. Krowech and Theodorn E. Bowen.

PEACHES HE IS GOD

After pointing out that Yogananda teaches that he is God, or Paramahansa, Chowdbury, Calcutta-born, Harvard educated student of East Indian religious philosophy, alleged that the swami has been “for the past year trying to break up the marriage between the plaintiff and his wife,” and that Yogananda “prevented the plaintiff's wife from having proper care during the pregnancy of her child.”

Moreover, Chowdbury alleges that the swami teaches that:

“The members of the congregation must not get married because their first love must be to God through Swami Yogananda and that if they should be married that their first loyalties are to Swami Yogananda and not to their spouse.”

IRREGULAR PRACTICES

Picturing highly irregular practices in the cult quarters on Mount Washington, the plaintiff declared that the swami “has young girls in the immediate vicinity of his room going in and out all hours of the night.”

The younger girls are kept segregated from older women, Chowdbury charges, adding:

“Young girls have free access to the rooms of said Swami Yognanda and that said Swami Yogananda forbids said young girls who attend him from going out with other men and forbids them to go out at all except with him.”

At his Encinitas palace, Chowdbury charges, Yogananda maintains caves and rooms for meditation “that are not in keeping with the standard of religious meditation...” and that “the places of mediation are too secretive and ornate of construction to be used for the purpose of spiritual mediation, all of which is contrary to spiritual practices, contrary to Hindu philosophy and contrary to the purposes and objectives of the partnership.”

ROMANTIC TO MERCENARY

Changing from the romantic to the mercenary tack, Chowdbury declared that the swami has used contributions from his cultists to “foster his ambitious and private ends.”

The plaintiff accused the swami of “using the teachings of Yogoda and Hindu Philosophy for the sole purpose of creating a personalized interpretation of defendant Swami Yogananda as a divinity...so as to force upon the members of the congregation and others the interpretations that God talks only through Swami Yogananda.”

Chowdbury said yesterday that while a graduate student at Harvard he met Yogananda, who then was lecturing in the East, became interested in the swami's teachings, and was made a partner with the swami in the cult only to be “frozen out” last January, after the long-haired cult leader had transferred his interests from the East to Los Angeles, where he is said to have attracted as followers scores of Los Angeles women and girls.

PURELY COMMERCIAL

After the freeze out, Chowdbury said he became convinced that “Swami Yogananda was engaged at all times in a purely commercial venture for the purpose of his own personal gain, and that his activities had no connection with the true Hindu Self-realization philosophy.”

At the cult headquarters, a crisp young woman attache reported that the swami is due back today. He lectured in San Diego Monday night, she said.

Should I Take Kriya?

2012-01-12T04:27:00.001-08:00

"Hello.I've been taking the lessons for a while and enjoying my Hong Sau and Om techniques. Now I'm considering taking Kriya.

But before I take the big step on this path I'd like some advice about what I'm getting into.

Thanks. Jai Guru,

Yogi"

If I were you I would call the Vedanta Society in Hollywood and ask to speak to Swami Sarvadevananda, and ask him if it is harmful to practice pranayana, which is what Kriya is. You will find his answer surprising, that is, if he feels comfortable in talking to you about it. I will just tell you what I learned about it in Vedanta, and you can still call if you want: Controlled breathing techiniques can cause lung damage, and in some cases it can cause insanity. Many people who have left SRF and have gone to Vedanta went there complaining about how kriya makes them feel nervous and emotionally unstable. I would not say that kriya harms everyone, because I know of several people who have practiced it for years with no ill effects, but I also know that these people learned from the older kriya instructors in SRF and elsewhere. Newer monks and nuns, to my understanding, are not teaching it correctly, and this news came from an older monk, whose name remains anon.

P.S. Don't mention SRF if you call the Vedanta Society as they seem to have a policy of not putting down SRF unless you are really upset with the organization, and even then it is like pulling teeth, which is why I mentioned just asking about pranayana.

You may find this website very useful. I just copied a small amount of information:

http://www.ayurvedacollege.com/articles/drhalpern/Pranayama_Yoga_Ayurveda

Many great yogis have known of the dangers of pranayama when performed incorrectly: “. . . faulty practice puts undue stress on the lungs and diaphragm. The respiratory system suffers and the nervous system is adversely affected. The very foundation of a healthy body and a sound mind is shaken by faulty practice of Pranayama.”3

Imbalances caused by the improper practice of pranayama have been observed by both yogis and Ayurvedic practitioners alike. When a person begins to practice prematurely, before diet and lifestyle have been properly regulated, a person is in danger of heightening the prana while the energy channels (nadis) are still obstructed. This results in the prana charging recklessly through the body causing both physical and psychological imbalances.4

A common cause of imbalance is attempting to progress too quickly. By aggressively practicing pranayama without the proper preparation, the well-being of the student is at great risk—even death is possible.5 Hence, gradual, slow progress is recommended.

Some of the dangers of pranayama lie in the bandhas and kumbhakas, which, if performed improperly, cause pranic disturbances. Bandha means “bondage” or “holding,” referring to the contraction and holding of a body part. This is the method by which yogis control and channel the flow of prana, ultimately guiding it into the central canal, sushumna-nadi. Kumbhaka is the restraint of the breath. Both of these practices powerfully interact with the pranic energy and when performed improperly can lead to catastrophic consequences. The three major bandhas are:

(1) Jalandhara-bandha: Here the chin is brought down to the notch at the top of the sternum. This regulates pranic flow to the brain, lungs, and heart. It is performed at the end of inhalation and during retention. This pushes prana-vayu downward toward the chest.

(2) Uddiyana-bandha: Here the abdomen is contracted and drawn in, which lifts the diaphragm up into the chest. It is performed at the end of exhalation, during bahya-kumbhaka (retention following exhalation).6 (Brahmananda’s commentary on the Hatha-Yoga-Pradipika states that this is the natural experience of exhalation and does not have to be consciously practiced.7 )

(3) Mula-bandha: Here the perineum is contracted. This increases the upward flow of udana-vayu and decreases apana-vayu.

With proper practice and combination of these three bandhas, the energy of apana-vayu moves upward to unite with prana-vayu in the chest, which has been forced downward. Their unification pushes the fused energies into the sushumna-nadi where the ultimate benefits of pranayama are realized.

Human Wreckage Self Realization Fellowship

2012-01-12T04:24:00.001-08:00

From a post on a forum I used to manage that has been closed:

You do not need to apologize for suggesting that some of us who have left the ashram setting need mental assistance. You are 100% correct. I found that after leaving that debilitating environment, I had no self confidence, no self esteem, questioned my ability to make decisions without someone telling me what to say or how to think, paranoia; a feeling of being watched all the time, an emptiness left by the betrayal of people I had trusted, an emptiness left by the reality of what SRF was all about and questions as to how I could have given my life to such a cause. I was told not to talk to any "outsiders" (alias enemies; alias devotees; alias another human being) about my life in the ashram for fear of being sued by the church going, high priced lawyers.

Because of my mental and emotional state, I had to talk with someone or go deeper into depression. Those few friends that I had known for decades and felt I could confide in were polite but time has shown that they didn't want to hear anything negative about SRF since they had devoted their lives to it and didn't have the courage to see what it was all about. It would have been too inconvenient for them to have to start all over again since their lives, their friends, their belief system were at stake. I couldn't help but think that within SRF, you have the blind (management) leading the blind (those devotees who do not think for themselves).

Some people have tried to make a difference within the ashram. The couple that had been in the Encinitas Retreat were an example of that. They went all the way to the top and confronted the board and the management committee, as well as both the monk and nun spiritual life committees with what they saw, experienced and questioned. I admired their courage and thought now some changes will be made. That didn't happen and they were driven out by lies, rumors, shunning, slow down - you know the rest.

Several of us monastics left the ashram after that fiasco. Including members of those committees. The truth of the matter is that SRF will not change for several generations. The women in charge now have trained others to follow in their footsteps.

I am happy that their are folks who are willing to help the monastics make the transition to the real world. One of the surprising things I learned after leaving is that their is more love on the outside of the ashram than on the inside. That people treat each other with kindness. That you can smile at someone and they will smile back at you.

God bless anyone who is willing to help those brave souls who have been so wounded emotionally, mentally and financially and are refusing to remain a part of the sickness that is SRF by leaving and starting all over again with little or nothing with which to begin a new life.

PLEASE BE CAREFUL: I must caution anyone who is thinking of sending money or offering help in any way to the web site listed above. We do not know who is behind that site. It could be SRF and once you have identified yourself, you may expect a knock on your door and a high priced lawyer will greet you with a law suit.

Gays Discriminated Against in Self Realization Fellowship

2012-01-12T04:23:00.001-08:00

This concerns a named Libby who is lesbian, who was at their SRF center in Kalamazoo, Michigan.Libby has been leading a celibate life for the last couple of years and is still not being allowed to serve in an official capacity. She had served in such capacities for 16 years prior to letting the SRF administration know that she was a lesbian.A few months ago a Brahmachari conducting a satsang mentioned that SRF ministers were also concerned about the prevailing policy regarding gay and lesbian devotees and service.In November of 2005, a gay devotee at the New York Center, who had just learned about Libby’s situation in Kalamazoo, called Brother Keshavananda and was advised that the Board was currently considering the matter of gay and lesbian devotees and that it was important that devotees write in to express their views and concerns. Brother Keshavananda also shared that one of Guruji's devotees was openly gay and that Master took him under his wing and loved him unconditionally the way he loved all of his disciples. Brother said that he had been working with many gay disciples in California for many years and that their sexuality had never been an issue for him.With this in mind, I would encourage you all to share any concerns you have on the matter with Sri Daya Mata, the Board of Directors and Center Department and to encourage other devotees who are not aware of the situation to do the same. You are welcome to share this post.In addition, devotees of the Rainbow Hearts group have been chanting, affirming and praying for the elimination of all discrimination from Master’s work.

Many devotees feel that since there are so many gays and lesbians both serving at SRF temples and centers and employed by SRF to conduct SRF business, that the administration does not have any discrimination toward gay and lesbian devotees. This is not the case. Those who are serving and working in official capacities were not openly “out” to the administration when they applied for those positions. If they had been, it is very likely that they would have had a similar experience to Libby.

You might have also thought that no such policy is in place having read the letter from Daya Mata to a gay devotee that was posted here:

Dear One,

I have read your heartfelt letter and deeply feel for those who havesuffered misunderstanding or abuse because of their sexual orientation. Godloves all souls equally, and it is not right to judge someone for this orany other karmic tendency. Gurudeva and all great souls have taughtcompassion and understanding toward our fellow human beings, and treatingothers as we ourselves would want to be treated.

To our knowledge Guruji did not comment specifically on homosexuality. It ispart of his teachings that God created two sexes for a divine purpose, sothat through their union other souls might gain incarnation. However, forkarmic reasons, some people are drawn instead to their own gender. We do notbelieve one should blame oneself or others for having this tendency, and itdoes not affect one's relationship with God or ability to progress on thespiritual path. What He asks of all seekers, whatever their sexualorientation, is that they follow the moral laws that lead to a happy andharmonious life. These include loyalty to one partner and moderation in theuse of all the senses. In any relationship, the most important factor isgenuine love and friendship, expressed through mutual consideration,loyalty, and unselfishness. What is to be avoided is promiscuity and livingtoo much on the level of the senses, as this ultimately brings physical andmental suffering.

We encourage each individual to accept himself as he is and to strive tolive a God-centered life according to the moral principles mentioned above.Each one of us is a soul- a child of God- and the soul is neither male norfemale, as you have said. That is only the outer garb the soul wears in aparticular lifetime. The ultimate goal is the same for us all: To rise abovebody-identification and to be reunited with God. Far more important thanone's sexual orientation is the inner effort one is making to love God andto express His goodness in one's life.

You are fortunate in having a loving and understanding family, and i knowyour heart goes out to others who may not have been as fortunate. Throughyour prayers, your example, and your sincere caring you can help others tosee that it is not a person's sexual orientation but the soul qualities hecultivates that matter most. The soul is our true Self, which outlasts thisphysical form.

Thank you for the photographs you have shared and the poem you have writtenexpressing your love for God and Guru. May they bless you always in yourefforts on the spiritual path.

God bless you

Sri Daya Mata

Considering the understanding nature of this letter one would think that there would be no incidents of discrimination. However, there is a key part of this letter which is being used specifically as the rationalization for exclusion of gays and lesbians serving in official capacities:

“It is part of his teachings that God created two sexes for a divine purpose, so that through their union other souls might gain incarnation.”

This is the exact reason that Libby has been given in the past for not being allowed to serve in an “official capacity.”

So, the essential core of this "guidance" is that if you are married and procreating (or are at the very least inclined toward someone of the same sex, so that you are capable of procreating) then you should be officially representing Master and his organization.

The thesis is that Master's writings about creation has something to do with officially representing SRF.

This line of thinking does not take into account the following:

1. Those souls who are heterosexual and not procreating are serving in official capacities.

2. Monastics who are not procreating are serving in official capacities.

3. Many gays and lesbians are now procreating or adopting children and are, therefore, helping to either bring in souls to incarnate on this planet or shepherding those who are already here. In fact, if they come together with another man or woman only to create children, they are doing so usually without lust, so, their procreation could even be considered "purer" in its actual motive for procreation.

4. When counseling a married couple, lifetime SRF Board member, Durga Mata, reported that Master said, "There are enough children already in this world, we do not need more.

5. All animals procreate. Is procreation really a sound basis for who should be able to represent Master's work in an "official capacity?" What about sincerity, devotion, loyalty, wisdom, compassion? Wouldn't these be the qualities one would want to represent Master's teaching?

6. Master teaches that advanced souls did not use sex to procreate, they were able to create children directly through spiritual power without having to use the genitalia. So, why make the use of sex to create children as a basis for representing Master's work?

7. Libby alerted Center Department that she was leading a celibate lifestyle and they still would not let her serve. Does that mean that celibate people also should not be representing Master's work in an "official capacity?" If so, why isn't the organization being run by married, householder, heterosexual devotees with children?

8. If Master thought it was so important to have children, why didn't he have children? Why didn't James Lynn?

9. Master taught that relationships were a way of learning how to balance reason and feeling, but one can also do this without relationships. This happens in all relationships, not just heterosexual ones. Procreation is not necessarily a part of this aspect of relationships.

These are a few of the questions and points that come into my mind regarding the "guidance" that the current administration has been using not only to keep Libby from serving, but that they have been using to not allow gays and lesbians to become monastics, to not perform gay and lesbian marriage or commitment ceremonies, etc.

I understand that Daya Mata comes from a Mormon background that emphasizes procreation and many other of the monastics come from Catholic backgrounds and past lives that also emphasizes procreation. I do not, however, really find a strong emphasis in Master’s teachings on procreation.

I am not sure when the current SRF wedding vows were created that include the current language encouraging procreation.

Here is text from a wedding ceremony Master conducted in Los Angeles, January 23, 1931:

Aum, Aum, Aum

The Divine law requires the unity of your bodies, minds and aspirations and souls for the pursuance of one common goal of final spiritual liberation. Remember, greater than man-made laws and ceremonies is the sacred ceremony of your spontaneous determination to keep your heart and souls united to a common great purpose.

Thus understanding your high spiritual purpose in seeking a spiritual union, I do here by bless and unite the spirit of your souls. Thus, also recognizing your desire to seek a proper companion who can assist you in the spirit of the super art of living of the message of Yogoda, I do hereby unite you in Spirit of God.

Bride Groom’s Vows:

I, Brahmachari Nirod, a vowed disciple of Yogoda do hereby make a spontaneous solemn determination according to the ancient custom of India before you and Spirit that I take Agnes Spencer as my spiritual co-partner in the path of Yogoda to which I dedicate my life.

Bride’s Vows:

I, Agnes Spencer, as a loyal student of Yogoda do also make a solemn determination before you and spirit that I take Brahmachari Nirod as my spiritual co-partner in the path of Yogoda to which I dedicate my life.

Both:

We take a solemn vow before the holy fire symbolized as the divine fire. In that sacred flame we melt our unreasonable differences, determination and aspiration so that we could make ornaments of golden experiences to decorate our Souls.

In the fragrance of the incense we bathe our Souls and cleanse our minds of all fogs and doubts. We make a solemn vow to respect our reasonable differences and obey the following rules:

# We will work together and help one another for high spiritual salvation. # We will be loyal to one another in every way to the best of our abilities. # We offer ourselves our untied bodies, minds and souls to the service of all humanity through Yogoda. # Whether in this life or beyond we as united souls bear good will for each other and humanity until final liberation is attained.

Prayer:

Heavenly Father, give us our daily bread, food, health prosperity for the body, efficiency for the mind, Thy wisdom and Thy love for our Souls. We pray that on the greater altar of our united hearts may God’s love, wisdom and bliss reign forever and forever.Bride and Groom to the Guru:

With the strength of our perpetual good will we seek your blessings

Guru’s Blessings:

With the strength of my perpetual goodwill before the altar of God’s omnipresent light I unite your souls forever and forever in Christ, in the spirit of the master’s of India and my Guru preceptor. Aum, Amen, Aum.

Notice that no where in this ceremony, nor in the bride and groom’s vows does Master emphasize the Divine importance of procreation.

At the 2005 Convocation, in an effort to resolve this matter, members of the Kalamazoo center (including Libby) met with Brs. Paul and Lynn of Center Department. These are the minutes from that meeting:

Meeting with Br. Paul and Br. Lynn from Center Department – Convocation 2005

This meeting was requested by the co-coordinator of the Kalamazoo Meditation Group of SRF and took place during the 2005 Convocation. The meeting was to discuss the continued concerns of most of the group members over Mother Center’s refusal to approve Libby Slocum as a Service Reader or Sunday School aide due to her being a lesbian, even though the group elected her to both positions. The reason given for the disapproval was that “the subject of gay devotees serving in official capacities is still being reviewed”.

Libby served on the managing council and as a service reader of the Kalamazoo Group for approximately 16 years before she shared with Daya Mata and the Center Department that she was going through a divorce because she was a lesbian. After she shared this (spring, 1996), she was told she would no longer be able to serve in an official capacity because she was gay.

In the past year Libby has been single and celibate and had written to the Board of Directors and Daya Mata to let them know of these changes in her life. Despite this Mother Center again refused to approve Libby to serve in an official capacity. Several of the Kalamazoo SRF devotees were extremely upset by this, so much so that they were considering having the group vote to respectfully decline to go along with Mother Center’s policy. The Kalamazoo Group is known for its devout loyalty to Mother Center, so this suggestion was indicative of how unfair the devotees felt the double standard of approval was (meaning heterosexual single, celibate devotees are allowed to serve, why aren’t gay devotees living the same lifestyle allowed to serve?).

The meeting was held on Tuesday August 9th 2005 during Convocation in the Center Department Suite at the Bonaventure Hotel. Present were Steve Townsend, the Kalamazoo Meditation Group coordinator, Libby Slocum, Carol Buck (a 30 year SRF member), and Paul Krause (another 30 year SRF member from a nearby meditation group), Br. Paul (head of Center Department), and Br. Lynn (who oversees the Kalamazoo Meditation Group).

Br. Paul began the meeting by saying that he couldn’t speak for the Board and that he couldn’t do anything to change the situation, but he wanted to meet to give us a chance to talk. He went on to say that Center Dept. is the liaison between the Board of Directors and the Kalamazoo Group devotees, but that only the Board of Directors has the power to make or change policies. He said that if the Kalamazoo group voted to disobey Mother Center’s request to not allow Libby to serve he felt it would be viewed as being very serious, and in his opinion, could potentially result in the Group being closed or shut down by the Board of Directors.

Br. Lynn and Br. Paul said that while we are waiting for clarification from the Board on how to respond to gay/lesbian issues indeed it is temporarily, de facto, a “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” and that they were unhappy with it as well. They admitted twice that they have handled the issue “clumsily”. They wanted us to know that the issue is indeed being addressed, and is not just being swept under the carpet. They also told us that the reason Libby was again not approved despite the fact that her status has changed is that the Board of Directors has asked them to keep everything status quo, meaning no changes until some definite guidance has been decided upon. They were concerned that if they approved Libby at this time, it could be seen as official policy, which they were not ready to make. Br. Lynn said that there was nothing wrong with disagreeing with Mother Center’s policies and with voicing that disagreement. It was not disloyal to do so respectfully.

Carol Buck said that this is not an issue that just affects the gay members of SRF, it affects many other members. For example just in our group alone two of our members have gay siblings, two are psychologists who have gay clients, and many others have gay friends in addition to Libby. Carol pointed out that there is no “gay lifestyle” anymore than there is an African-American lifestyle.

Libby said that she hopes this issue can be resolved without embarrassment to the church, but that it wouldn’t be possible to keep this issue quiet forever. She said that SRF is her church, and that Master is her guru, and she does not want the church to be adversely affected by being seen as “anti-gay”.

Br. Paul then said “I think the church will take a hit whichever way it decides on this issue.” Meaning, he felt SRF will probably be criticized no matter what position it eventually takes from people on either side of this issue. Libby said that he may not realize that most SRF members already think that the church is inclusive on this issue, and that this is not a rightwing fundamentalist Christian church. She said that devotees’ feel Master is loving and accepting of all, and they are shocked to find out how Mother Center has handled this issue.

Steve Townsend said he was concerned about what the effect on the group would be if the group had a vote on this issue. Libby said that, given the consequences that would happen if the group voted to allow her to serve despite Mother Center’s policy, there would be no vote.

Carol said that she might resign from serving because she felt that if Libby wasn’t eligible to serve then she didn’t feel eligible. Br. Paul said that would be an individual decision, but that each person has the right to make such a decision.

After the meeting Libby and Carol stopped by to ask Br. Lynn if it would be a positive step to encourage devotees to write to the Board of Directors about this issue. He said emphatically, “Yes,” that the Board did not interface regularly with the devotees and it would be helpful to them to know how the devotees felt on this issue.

The next day, at the 2005 Convocation, representatives of Rainbow Hearts, a group of Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgendered (glbt) devotees were able to have a meeting with Brother Vishwananda.

We had sent a letter to SRF prior to Convocation, along with a letter from Arun Gandhi. One of our requests in that letters was to have a meeting at Convocation with a member of the Board.

We did not ever get a response to that letter (see below), but circumstances did unfold to create a meeting nonetheless.

These are notes compiled by Paul, Leah and Drew regarding that meeting:

One of our members, Paul, attempted to reach Brother Vishwananda by phone to follow-up on our request by mail And arrange a meeting with him and members of the Rainbow Hearts Executive Committee. Through an incident of “good fortune,” Paul happened to see Brother in the halls at the Bonaventure and Brother was free to meet with us on Thursday evening.

Paul, Leah and Drew met with Brother in the hopes of re-establishing dialogue between the administration and the RH group, since we have had no response to our repeated letters and no direct dialogue with monastics since our early meetings with Brothers Satayananda and Jayananda.

Early on in the meeting Brother made it clear early on that he did not want to discuss specifics, nor did he really seem to feel any future meeting about specifics was necessary. He said that the matter was being “researched” [which is what they have been telling Libby and the Kalamazoo Center members for many years].

Paul had offered our members as resources for their research. Brother thanked him but said that the policy would have to come from Master and several monastics had already done research into Master's teachings about the subject. [Daya Mata had already written to gay and lesbian devotees that Master never wrote on the subject, so, we are not sure what needs researching at this point.]

Brother said that Daya Mata was concerned about it, and that she was very "hands on" about such matters, but, unfortunately, they only have access to her one hour every two weeks. Brother mentioned that Ma had written letters about the subject to devotees before. [The last we know of is the letter above that was written in 2000. She has not responded to any such correspondence since.]

Brother asserted that the matter was not being neglected. He said he would have been happy if a policy had been established 2, 5 or even 10 years ago and so would a lot of others.

Both Paul and Leah emphasized that we were hoping to open up the lines of communication with Brother and that it was due to the lack of communication that things were misconstrued. That when no response is received that people fill in the blanks with their own explanations. [Many efforts at communication have been completely ignored by the administration in recent years. (see copies of the correspondence below).]

Brother said that Brother Satyananda was originally assigned to this task (who they felt did a good job in that role), but that he had health problems and was sent to Phoenix. Brother said he was now assigning the role of liaison with us to Brahmachari Paul of Center Department. [more recent communication has it that Brother Vishwananda would like us to also communicate with Brother Naradananda].

Leah and Paul let Brother know that they thought this was a positive development.

Brother wanted to know who should be the contact person for the RH group and Leah suggested Paul, since Brother already knew Paul. Paul agreed to this. (Leah then left to take care of safety issues at Convocation.)

Brother said that a lot of times that things got done because someone did what Paul did, just catching him in the halls and pulling him into a meeting about something.

Brother asked if everyone was okay with the meeting and he got Paul's assent. Drew said he was not so easily satisfied. Drew said that he felt like a mother and was concerned about the suffering of the others. Brother said they were concerned also and made reference to himself as working to balance with more feeling. He said during Convocation it was important to him to focus on God as he was meeting with many people and needed to be in that place.

I would like to offer some of the history of our efforts to address some of these matters. Libby’s situation became apparent to us later and was a stark example of the vital need for these matters to be addressed.

The history of Rainbow Hearts began in the summer of 2000, when Andi andLeah were working on the Convocation and came up with the impromptu idea oftrying to get as many glbt folk as possible at that Convocation to get together in the patio area. It was the first time it had been done and it was the beginning of an important shift.

Right after the Convocation, Andi took advantage of the development of yahoo groups to create a way for all of us to stay in touch and to create a forum and support network for Master's gay and lesbian devotees. He created the Rainbow Hearts group.

In March of 2001, Andi asked us all, "What do we want?" and that started aconversation where many of us began to really define what parts of ourspiritual organization needed help in regard to institutional homophobia, etc.

In planning for our next meeting at the 2001 Convocation, the consensus wasto see if we could meet with one of the monastics, preferably BrotherVishwananda, who was managing SRF at the time. Cadell actually called him a few times, but he did not return his calls. Eventually, Cadell got a hold of his assistant and Brother Vishwananda communicated through him that we should put together an agenda.

We put together the following agenda and it was sent to Brother:

List of concerns of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and transsexual (glbt) members of Self-Realization Fellowship.

1. There is no official policy (internal or external) on the issue of homosexuality or transgenderedness in SRF. Postulants are not given any guidance on this subject and are therefore not trained to give educated counseling to glbt members. Glbt devotees who seek counseling encounter a wide array of responses which depend on which monastic they approach. Some of the counseling given is very supportive and loving, but for the most part we have found that monastic counseling in this area betrays a lot of misinformation and ignorance.

2. Although SRF claims that they do not take stands on “social” issues, the silence surrounding homosexuality is perceived as a stand and unwittingly sends a negative message regarding this issue. Some glbt devotees have been told privately by Ma and other monastics that we are fully accepted as part of Master’s family. We need a public statement to this effect, either in writing in one of Ma’s public letters or magazine articles, or verbally at Convocation.

3. Whenever the subject of love relationships is broached in lectures or classes it is only in terms of heterosexual relationships. Guidance that is specific to same-sex relationships needs to be included in recognition that such relationships are fully valid. We firmly believe that same-sex couples experience and share the same supportive, loving, and sacred commitment to each other as heterosexual couples do. We support SRF ministers' being allowed to perform commitment ceremonies and, when same-sex marriage is legalized in the US, marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

4. Homosexuality is referred to as a “karmic tendency” or “karmic condition”. This gives the impression that SRF sees homosexuality as an unfortunate circumstance. No one ever refers to heterosexuality as a karmic condition or karmic tendency, which, like everything else, it also is.

5. Homosexuality is referred to as a lifestyle. Saying this implies that all homosexuals live the same lifestyle, which is no more true than that all heterosexuals live the same lifestyle. Then there is the question of choice: one generally chooses a lifestyle. Most glbt people feel they were born with their sexual orientation.

6. Glbt members are not allowed into the monastic order because of their sexual orientation, even if amply qualified in all other aspects.

7. Homosexual men are not allowed to do retreats at Hidden Valley for longer than two (2) weeks.

Regarding points no.6 and no.7 above, we feel that the devotees applying for monastic training or for extended retreats should be considered on an individual basis and not rubber-stamped as persona non grata based on sexual orientation. If SRF is unwilling to consider this, we feel they should openly state these policies and explain why they are in place whenever devotees are invited to become monastics or to extended stays at Hidden Valley.

Brother Vishwananda did not meet with us that summer and never attempted to contact us regarding the meeting we had requested.

Oddly, when he gave a talk at Convocation that year he emphasized the great diversity of the devotees attending and he listed all the different kinds of people that were there.

The glbt devotees, knowing he had received our concerns and agenda, thought he would mention the glbt devotees as part of that diversity. He did not.

Brother never responded to our agenda and the matter was apparently referred to a couple of nuns who had either glbt family or experience with the issues. They offered to "counsel" us, but, were unable to help when we asked for the items on our agenda to be addressed.

A few months later we finally heard from Brother Satyananda and arranged for a meeting with him in March 2, 2002. He brought Brother Jayananda along. Andi, Cadell and Drew met with them again on June 29 and October 26, 2002. Brother Satyananda said at that time that Daya Mata was interested in addressing matters that Master never wrote or commented upon before her passing, including the issues concerning glbt devotees. He seemed to be optimistic that the Board would deal with this matter soon.

They never did. (I would be happy to post minutes of these meetings, per request.)

During 2002, the meditation circle in Santa Fe applied to Mother Center to become a center, so they could be listed on the SRF website. The founder and one of the leaders of that group is Donald, a gay devotee. Their application was rejected. When the group pressed for reasons why they were rejected, they learned it was because Donald was gay! The Santa Fe Circle sent a letter to Mother Center signed by about 21 devotees. Here is a copy of that letter:

June 30, 2002

Sri Daya MataBrother VishwanandaBoard of DirectorsSelf-Realization Fellowship3880 San Rafael AvenueLos Angles, California 90065-3298

Dear Daya Mata, Brother Vishwananda and Members of the Board:

Our Meditation Circle experienced an incident with Center Departmentabout four months ago that shocked and distressed us. The incidentraised an issue that we feel we must bring to your attention.

Although we are a meditation circle not a group, we have twenty totwenty-five core members with a mailing list of close to ninetypeople. We began over fifteen years ago by meeting in the home oftwo of our founding members – a gay couple named Randy Harvey andDonald Stout. Randy died in 1993 from AIDS complications, but Donaldremains as both an officer and a service leader/harmonium player. In1995 we rented a small office for our services. Three years later,we moved to a much larger space where we remain today. Late lastyear we discovered that our circle was not listed on the SRFwebsite. Through happenstance we learned that some individualslooking for a Santa Fe meditation group had thought that none existeddue to the missing information on the website. One of our memberscontacted Center Department to correct the error and was told thatonly meditation groups can be listed, not meditation circles. Thisinformation prompted a discussion at our annual business meeting inJanuary. The members decided to ask for a change in status fromcircle to group in order to gain a listing on the website.

The minutes of our annual meeting were submitted to Center Department, and Toni Rivera, our coordinator, spoke with Brahmachari Dewa about our request. She was told that he would have to discuss it with his supervisor. Brahmachari Dewa later called Viola Montoya, our secretary, to inform her that the decision had been made to deny our request. At first he claimed that the reason for the denial was insufficient attendance. However, after further discussion he disclosed that the real reason for denial was due to Donald Stout's sexual orientation as a gay man. He stated that meditation groupscannot have gay service leaders or officers.

We were shocked and dismayed by this reasoning. Such a policy seemsthe antithesis of Master's teachings that are inclusive of allpeople. With the full support of the other officers, Donald Stoutdecided that the decision could not be passively accepted. Hecontacted Brother Satyananda who is serving as a liaison to gay andlesbian devotees. Brother Satyananda listened to Donald's story withcompassion and dismay. He intervened for us by contactingBrahmachari Paul of Center Department. In a phone call with Donald,Brahmachari Paul eventually admitted that there is confusion anddisagreement in the organization over how to deal with gay andlesbian devotees and that the Board of Directors has not set a clearpolicy on the issue. Although Brahmachari Paul personallyapologized to Donald and agreed to list our circle on the website,the larger issue remains.

We are writing to ask you to implement a policy for Self-RealizationFellowship that prohibits discrimination of any kind due to sexualorientation or gender identity. We believe that such discriminationis contrary to the teachings of our guru and is a violation of basichuman rights. Furthermore, we ask that the Board become a leader andan example for its devotees on this issue. We ask that you institutesensitivity training for all monastics, employees, and temple andashram volunteers on this issue. We ask that you consult with yourown gay, lesbian and transgender devotees as well as outside expertsin the field to develop such a training program. We ask that youmake it clear in your guidelines to temples, centers, groups, andcircles that discrimination due to sexual orientation or genderidentity is not acceptable practice.

Finally, we ask that you open your hearts and minds to Master's gay,lesbian and transgender devotees. Think of the consequences to manyindividuals and to Master's work if you do not. The incident weexperienced was extremely hurtful to Donald Stout, very disturbing tothe rest of us, and potentially harmful to the continued vitality ofour group. In this case, Donald is a long-time devotee, confident inhis own relationship with Master and the teachings, and assertive inthe exercise of his human rights. He also had the full support ofhis fellow circle officers and members. What would happen to a gaydevotee who is newer to the path or not as self-confident? Whatwould happen to the gay, lesbian or transgender devotee whose groupis not as supportive? What would happen to the gay devotee who isdenied the opportunity to be a leader by his own group or templemembers? What happens to the gay teenager or young lesbian adult whoseeks counsel from the minister of his or her temple or the monasticat an ashram retreat and is told that there is something wrong withbeing gay? How many times have these scenarios happened already? Howmuch hurt and anguish has been caused to people by the organizationthat is supposed to be their spiritual home? How many devotees havebeen turned away from Master's path because of such incidents?

Many of us who are now Master's devotees fled the Christian churchesof our childhoods because of the incongruity between the dogma andpolicies of the churches and what we perceived as the true message ofChrist. Now we are seeing that same incongruity arising in SRF onlyfifty years after Master's passing. We are Master's children just asyou are. SRF belongs to all of us. It is our spiritual home. Weask that you open the door wide and welcome all of us inside.

In divine friendship,

The undersigned members of Santa Fe Meditation Circle

They never got a response to their letter.

Donald called Brother Vishwananda regarding the matter and he never got a response to his phone calls either. After several months of getting no response, Donald sent a follow-up letter asking why they had received no response from SRF, even though it had been months. Br. Satyananda finally spoke with Donald and he was told that the Santa Fe Meditation Circle could be listed on the SRF website, without becoming a full center, and that this kind of thing would not be repeated (rejection because of someone’s sexuality).

Meanwhile, a similar situation did repeat itself at the Kalamazoo Center in Michigan where Libby Slocum was told she could no longer serve in an official capacity because she was a lesbian. The Kalamazoo group repeatedly voted to have Libby, an exemplary devotee, serve at their center. Libby had served in official capacities for 16 years, prior to telling SRF she was a lesbian. Center Department has rejected Libby’s election to service and continues to do so based on instructions from the Board.

This matter has not been resolved to date. Brother Satyananda eventually moved to Phoenix and Brother Jayananda was transferred to Postulant Training and they stopped meeting with us. They never wrote or called the Andi, Cadell or Drew to follow-up or to explain the sudden change.

A group of SRF glbt devotees wrote a letter in January of 2004 to the Board of Directors again entreating them to address the issues of our original agenda and offering them the opportunity to have one of our members, Ken, do training of monastics on glbt issues. Ken has done this professionally for years and has offered to make the trip to L.A. from New York at his own expense to conduct this training. Below is a copy of this letter:

February, 2004

To: Sri Daya Mata, SRF Board, Brother Satyananda and Brother Jayananda From: Members of the "Rainbow Hearts," a group of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered devotees

Re: Unresolved Issues

As the year 2003 passes and 2004 dawns upon us, we are given to reflection upon our first missive sent so earnestly in the summer of 2001 (to Brother Vishwananda via Brahmachari Joshua) regarding issues faced by lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered (lgbt) devotees of our Guru.

You might recall at that time that we outlined a number of initial concerns (see attached).

The SRF administration was slow to respond at all to our missive in that summer of 2001 and the matter was juggled by different monastics, who were willing to "counsel" us, but, not address or resolve the hurtful policies themselves.

Much later, we were finally contacted by Brother Satyananda and began meeting with him and Brother Jayananda at the Mother Center in 2002 to begin a dialogue regarding the issues stated. During the time of those discussions it became clear that were additional issues including lgbt devotees being allowed to serve.

Brother Satyananda assured us in those meetings that Sri Daya Mata was also concerned with the matter and wanted, during her lifetime, to establish clear policies on such key issues that Master had not directly addressed.

In the fall of 2002, Brother was hopeful that the Board would be able to focus on the matter and offer a clear response and policy by the end of that year. That did not happen.

Instead the issues were only amplified by continued demonstrations of discrimination. The Santa Fe group was initially turned down to become a center, because the devotee who had founded it and was active in its operation was a gay man. This devotee's attempts to discuss the matter with Brother Vishwananda were largely ignored by him. He was assured, however, by Center Department, that this would not happen again. However, soon thereafter, longtime devotees at a center in Michigan, who are lesbian, were (and are) repeatedly denied positions of service due to their sexuality alone. This despite the fact that they have been faithful, loyal devotees leading exemplary lives and have the full support of the devotees at their center. Upon learning of this, other gay devotees who wrote passionately to the Mother Center about their pain and disenchantment with the organization's discriminatory policies were ignored. Feeling abandoned by their spiritual organization, bereft of solace, they have left, feeling unheard and rejected. lgbt youth over the years have similarly faced ostracism by their SRF parents, primarily because some SRF monastics demonstrate so much discomfort with the subject matter that it is interpreted by parents as something shameful. These painful occurrences, happening during a period of direct dialogue on the issues, should highlight just how pervasive the problems still are within the organization toward lgbt devotees.

LGBT devotees at various centers, groups and temples, who may have not discussed their sexuality, have served admirably for many years. Clearly, they are examples as to just how misdirected these discriminatory policies are and have been. So, why continue them?

Devotees who have been courageous enough to be open in the expression of their sexuality, however, have at times been barred from similar service, demonstrating a shallow "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

We ask that you look to the counsel of Sri Yukteswar where he lists "clearing the mind from all prejudices and dogmas which make one narrow" as one of the factors that help one attain firmness of moral courage.

Much ado seems to be made by the administration in its concentration on the sex lives of its devotees and how this should be a barometer for the privilege of serving. Why? Service is of benefit to all and should not be the purview of only "the prudent and the wise," who would sit in judgment of others, yet cast a blind eye to their own hard-heartedness.

Sex is merely an aspect of Nature and has its healthy expression. As our paramguru, Swami Sri Yukteswar so beautifully writes in THE HOLY SCIENCE, "The practical teachings of sexual health are not taught because the public regards the subject as unclean and indecent. Thus blinded, mankind presumes to clothe nature in a veil because she seems to them impure, forgetting that she is always clean and that everything impure and improper lies in man's ideas, and not in nature herself."

Is it not through meditation and service to others that one gradually evolves naturally beyond the need for this physical expression, rather than through unhealthy suppression?

While the administration of SRF goes through its own growing pains and transformations, we pray that your focus revolve on Master's teachings and the teachings of all Great Souls that demonstrate loving acceptance of all God's children.

If this matter is to be addressed during Sri Daya Mata's lifetime, then, clearly time is of the essence. We request that the Board address this matter immediately and help lift the organization out of archaic policies that continue to inflict pain on loving and earnest souls. We ask this as fellow devotees of our Beloved Master.

We look forward to your kind attention and response to this vitally important matter.

Sincerely,

Rainbow Hearts

They did not respond to this letter.

Five months later, Arun Gandhi, of the Center for Non-Violence, Mahatma Gandhi's grandson (SRF had published an article written by Arun Gandhi in the SRF magazine, so they are familiar with him and respect his work), also wrote a letter to SRF in July of 2004 [Letters were sent individually to each of the Board Members]:

July 7, 2004

Self-Realization Fellowship 3880 San Rafael Avenue, Dept 9W Los Angeles, CA 90065-3298

Respected Seeker of Truth,

As a humble seeker of the Truth I make bold to write to you on amatter that is of great concern to all of us - the treatment of gayand lesbian brothers and sisters who are ostracized by society andsometimes by us.

Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Paramahansa Yoganandji, according to myhumble understanding, sacrificed their lives to teach us to love andrespect God's creatures. They evolved and practiced a philosophybased on acceptance and inclusiveness and even accepted into theirfold hardened criminals because they believed in eliminating the eviland not the evildoer. In the case of the gay and lesbian communitythere is no evil involved and yet, out of our ignorance, we condemnthem outright. Yoganandaji and Gandhiji did not follow the dictatesof society; they gave leadership to the people. We are entrusted withthe mission to spread the philosophy of love, respect, understandingand acceptance. We must do it with love in our hearts anddetermination in our minds.

I am sure you will agree that the Culture of Violence that pervadeshumanity today has insidiously divided and driven us to mindlessviolence, conflict and hate. The mission of both Gandhiji andYoganandji was to replace this eroding Culture of Violence with amore positive and benevolent Culture of Nonviolence.

I write today in all humility, as a fellow seeker of the Truth, withan appeal that we keep an open mind filled with love and respect forall of God's wonderful creatures and dedicate ourselves to turningthis tide of violence to a wave of nonviolence, peace and harmony.

With a fervent prayer for enlightenment, courage and wisdom, I remain,

Yours sincerely,

Arun GandhiM.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence

Arun Gandhi never even received the courtesy of a response!

A year later, Rainbow Hearts sent another letter, along with a follow-up letterfrom Arun Gandhi, again requesting they accept our offer to educate the monastics on these issues (at the very least).

July 18, 2005

Dear Sri Daya Mataji,

It is now more than a year that I wrote to you and members of your Boardexpressing my concern at the hate and prejudice in society towards the GLBTcommunity which is beginning to reflect in the work done by the SRF. It isunfortunate my letter evoked no response. Perhaps, you feel it is not mybusiness to interfere in the internal affairs of your organization.However, as one who holds Swami Yoganandji in the same high esteem as mygrandfather, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, I feel compelled to express myopinion especially as I find nothing objectionable in the recommendationsmade by the Rainbow Hearts Executive Committee. As you are well aware theonly way we can reach understanding and enlightenment is through dialogue,not through silence.

As I emphasized in my last letter to you both Gandhiji and Yoganandjidevoted their lives to transform this world by transforming the culture ofviolence to a culture of nonviolence. They showed us that humanrelationships must be based on love, respect, understanding and acceptanceand not hate prejudice and discrimination. They both left us a proud legacyof love, the very foundation on which human civilization must be based.Hate and prejudice have proliferated in this world and the result is thegrowing and senseless violence that is inexorably destroying our humanity.If we, ourselves, become victims of the same ignorance and prejudice that istearing apart the human fabric then we are failing in our duty.

I hope my unsolicited advise will be accepted in the spirit it is given.Let us work diligently to further the cause for which both Yoganandji andGandhiji sacrificed their lives. With my respects and good wishes, Iremain,

Yours respectfully,

Arun Gandhi

July 2005

Dear Sri Daya Mata and Members of the Board of Self-Realization Fellowship:

This letter represents yet another heartfelt attempt to reach out to youaround a matter of deep importance to a large number of devotees around the world: the issue of equality in the policies of SRF. We have reached out lovingly many times, and in fact even Arun Gandhi has written to you, but no one from SRF has answered his letter or ours. We pray that this letter from the Rainbow Hearts Executive Committee and from Arun Gandhi will receive a timely response.

We would like confirmation that you share our desire to make SRF anemotionally and spiritually safe home for its Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender members.

Our deep and unending commitment, one we pray you share, is to support SRF in finding a way to refine it's policies around GLBT issues to truly reflect Master's compassion, wisdom, and spirit of inclusion.

We first contacted Mother Center about a list of key concerns in 2001. In the last four years no progress has been made in ameliorating these issues. In fact, it appears matters have only deteriorated. This year, with SRF ignoring our communication, members have witnessed a number of situations that have caused us startling concern.

Ms. Libby Slocum, a longtime devotee and former officer and service reader of the Kalamazoo, Michigan Center has consistently had the support of the majority of the members of her center in being elected to serve in official capacities. Yet, Center Department has consistently denied her this right.

At first it was thought that this was due to the fact that Libby was co-habitating in a unmarried relationship (even though marriage is a right denied gay and lesbian couples). Now, however, Ms. Slocum has reported that she alerted Mother Center that she was both single and celibate for over a year, yet, her appointment was denied with the following statement:

"However, we are not able to confirm their appointment to serve in any official capacity at the Group as the subject of gay devotees serving in official positions is still being reviewed."

Since Center Dept. has previously stated to officers of SRF groups and Centers that there was no policy regarding gays and lesbians serving and that no one would be denied such a right based on their sexuality (confirmed by officers of both the Seattle and Santa Fe group), it appears that this recent communication reflects a clear policy of exclusion.

This is of particular concern to the large number of gay and lesbian devotees who have been serving throughout Master's ashrams, temples, centers and groups worldwide and is of great concern to their heterosexual devotee peers who find this policy unacceptable, divisive and not reflective of the teachingsof the Guru. Since there are, in fact, so many gay and lesbian devotees who have been faithfully serving in official capacities for many years, how is that the administration can deny the same right to Ms. Slocum? Isn't the purpose of service (karma yoga) to help devotees expand beyond the ego and to be in a positive environment of like-minded souls? Why shouldn't service be available to all of Master's devotees to further their progression towards realization?

Another incident that is further emblematic of SRF's increasing practice of discrimination is the recent decision by the administration to not announce to their employees that they are now required by California law to provide benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. In this case, SRF purposely chose to withhold this important information that would provide health care to the loved ones of its employees.

Wouldn't Master want to extend health care to all? Would the Guru really withhold such information?

Finally, one of the ministers, in answering a satsanga question about "acceptance of others" at the Encinitas retreat, actually ascribed homosexual behavior as contributing to such major natural disasters as the recent tsunami. This is the kind of statement we would expect from an extreme fundamentalist religious organization not from the church that disseminates our beloved Guru's message of loving acceptance of all.

In light of these progressive incidents of discrimination, we feel that it is more important now than ever that the administration of SRF truly "review the subject," not just as a phrase to put off the matter and avoid it, but out of a true concern of wanting to embrace all of Master's disciples equally. We are only asking that we be treated the same as any of Master's devotees. Denying gay and lesbian devotees the opportunity to serve, withholding information from gay and lesbian employees about their expanded health care benefits, and having ministers proclaim from the pulpit that homosexual behavior contributes to natural disasters does not demonstrate that we are being treated the same.

In an effort to begin resolving this matter, we want to offer some very concrete requests:

We would ask that during this Convocation that at least one member of the Board meet with some of the members of the Rainbow Hearts Executive Committee, along with Kalamazoo Center members Libby Slocum, Carol Buck andtheir Center Coordinator to discuss these issues.

We would also like you to accept our offer to provide the Board, the monastics and the Sunday School teachers with a workshop on the special issues and needs of LGBT people, specifically around issues of spirituality, self-esteem andthe nature and growth of glbt families.

Ken Page, CSW, a practicing Kriyaban since 1991 (and a devotee since 1974), is an expert in these issues, and has led numerous trainings and retreats around issues of spirituality for GLBT people. He has also trained and supervised therapists and counselors around special issues and needs of this group of people. Ken lives in New York, but is willing to come to California at his own expense to help lead this workshop.

We await your response. If Mother Center chooses again to not respond to Mr. Gandhi's and our letter during the next month, we will sadly be forced to assume that SRF is closing the door to dialogue around these issues.

We fervently hope that this is not the case. We are deeply committed to seeing Master's family whole and treated with equal consideration.

Sincerely,

The Rainbow Hearts Executive Committee

We never did receive any response to these letters.

We know that the administration is considering the matter and that the ministers are encouraging the devotees to write to them about the subject.

I hope you will all consider writing to Mother Center about this matter and joining us in affirming, praying and chanting for the elimination of all such discrimination.

Tsunami caused by gays and lesbians

"The experiences of gay and lesbian devotees in regard tocounseling by monastics demonstrates a vast array ofextremes from complete acceptance to complete rejection. Hence, the request by devotees that the monastics receive some kind of education on the topic.

SRF is composed of many lay disciples and monastics, allare a part of this work. The administration has a greaterinfluence due to their position in the church. Within thatbody if discrimination occurs, it has a greater effect and(Wendy) it does indeed occur. It is occurring.

For example, as recently as last year we had a minister saying at a satsanga that homosexuality leads to major disasterslike the recent Tsunami! What a wonderful messageto be sending out to the public and for young gay andlesbian devotees to hear. So, this is not a "social" or"political" issue outside of the world of our church.

The Board is currently reviewing the matter and consideringthe opinions of the devotees, thus, my request that devoteeswrite in. The ministers, similarly, are encouraging the same,so, this is not just something that a single group is concernedwith."

Abusive Gurus

2012-01-12T04:15:00.001-08:00

from:http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/glossary.html

Abusive Guru - an abusive guru or abusive spiritual master is always (always!) a false guru or master, never a genuinely enlightened teacher. This is because one of the signs of a true guru is that they never justify their abusive behaviour in terms of "breaking down the ego". Abusive gurus are almost always highly charismatic narcissistic, emotionally immature and parasitic sociopaths with a tendency to sadomasochistic co-dependency with their disciples and devotees. Many are inspired by (and stuck in) the intermediate zone, and hence are deluded enough to genuinely believe their own claims. Some may be puppeted by adverse entities. Abusive gurus are highly dangerous individuals who destroy the lives of many of their devotees. However it is also the case that some devotees are not harmed by, and even benefit from, their relation with their abusive guru. This is due to the highly ambiguous nature of the intermediate zone. The organization of an abusive guru is called a cult.

"Real Masters never charge for their services, nor do they accept payment in any form or any sort of material benefits for their instructions. This is a universal law among Masters, and yet it is an amazing fact that thousands of eager seekers in America and elsewhere, go on paying large sums of money for "spiritual instruction.". Masters are always self-sustaining. They are never supported by their students or by public charity." --Julian P. Johnson, The Path of the Masters (original url)

The Abusive Guru is an all too common phenomenon in the "spiritual supermarket". Abusive gurus are almost always highly charismatic, emotionally immature and parasitic sociopaths suffering from Narcissistic personality disorder, and having a tendency to sadomasochistic co-dependency with their disciples and devotees. They justify their abusive treatment by in terms of pseudo-spiritual psychobbabble like "crazy wisdom" and "breaking down the ego".

Many abusive gurus with genuine experiences and powers actually derive those experiences and powers from the intermediate zone where they trapped. For the same reason, they genuinely believe their own claims, and may even think they are helping people.

Abusive gurus always behave in a cultic fashion, and their followers (many of which may suffer from excessive naivity or low self-esteem) tend to have an uncritical attitude of rationalisation towards the ill-treatemnet handed out at them.

All abusive gurus are also False Gurus, although the inverse is not necessarily the case (e.g. you can still have a false guru who is not abusive to their devotees). In other words, no True Guru is ever abusive, ever. There is no exception to this rule, because abusiveness is a result of narcissism and ego, nothing else, and the primary definition of a true guru is they no longer possess ego. Thus any (and I mean any!) abusive behavior of the sort described here immediately and absolutely defines that so-called teacher or so-called master as false.

Summing up, it is suggested that abusive gurus can be recognized by at least several of the following characteristics:

Sexually abusive behaviour

Demanding or requesting large "donations" (to fund an unnecessarily opulent or wealthy lifestyle)

Acting or teaching one way in public and another in private (e.g. celibate gurus justifying sex with female disciples as "Tantric Initiation")

Narcissistic behaviour

Using insulting words or other abusive behaviour to "break down your ego".

Physical abuse, usually by telling devotees to assault other devotees

Taking advantage of the disciples trust; controlling or forcing them to do something they don't want to Emotionally sadistic (and in extreme cases physically sadistic)

Vindictive attitude towards ex-devotees

Responding to critics with anger, bitterness, hatred, or mockery rather than love

An ExSRF Monk Speaks Out

2012-01-12T04:13:00.000-08:00

This was posted in reply to an SRF member who was putting him down:

"Where do you get your statistics from? Did you make them up? Is this how one adheres to Truth? I lived in Master's ashram for about 5 years. I was inside of meetings with high level monks and nuns. Not everything inside of SRF was on the up and up. I would die for my Guru right now... but I'm not so sure about SRF anymore.

How dare you discount your brothers suffering and healing process! Where is your heart? Have you lived for an extended period in one of Master's ashrams? (Years not days.) I think not. So you're probably speaking from your preconceptions about how you hope/think things are. When I was in the ashram I spoke up about things. The items I brought up jeopardized the organization from the outside in. But the people who I reported to were more concerned with the power and positions they'd built up over the years. It saddened me to see my brothers constantly put down, it hurt me to see them in pain. Isn't God in all of us? How can I let my brother suffer and turn a blind eye? I felt others pain. I saw others pain. It has been a tremendously difficult transition leaving. I've only wanted to take minimum wage jobs because, as a humble devotee of God, I needed to make myself the least, right? Wrong. God put us here on earth to be successful. Not wimps.

I've read the anandainfo.com site and that site saddens me, too. Because from where I have been, it is like the pot calling the kettle black. Bro. (name removed)used to say that SRF was a squeaky clean organization. I used to wonder if he were referring to the same organization I had lived in for 5 years. I don't think so. I used to wonder when I saw decisions being made, which of the SRF Aims and Ideals were used in the decision making. I pray that SRF sees the light. But above this I pray the we all see and enter the light. All of us. Osama bin Laden, Mr. Walters, you, me, everyone because only then will the suffering and stupidity stop." (Name withheld)

You Must Never Leave Your Guru

2012-01-12T04:08:00.000-08:00

by Grainne

"There is only one guru uniquely the devotee's own. But if you turn away from the emissary of God, He silently asks: 'What is wrong with you . . .?' . . . He who cannot learn through the wisdom and love of his God-ordained guru will not find God in this life. Several incarnations at least must pass before he will have another such opportunity."

- Paramahansa Yogananda, SRF magazine, spring 1974, p 6. From a talk at Mother Centre, 8/17/39

This has kept many people from leaving Self Realization Fellowship, and if not, they left with much guilt. I know I did, and I know others that have. Comments like this are often used by gurus to keep their disciples. At least the Vedanta Society never used these ploys; they used others. My suggestion is that anyone that has these fears should read: The Guru Papers—Masks of Authoritarian Power.

Loyalty to Yogananda has the same consequences. Guilt. It also causes one to not question and to not have any negative thoughts about the guru, especially not reading anything that is negative. I remember reading Satyeswarananda’s book, Kriya: Finding the True Path, and being upset with things I learned about Yogananda, just to feel guilty and call Mother Center (headquarters of SRF) and being told, “Stick a knife though the book, and then throw it in the garbage.” I threw it in the garbage.

But Yogananda wasn’t even loyal to his own guru:

“In the case filed by Anne-Marie Bertolucci against the Ananda Church of Self Realization and Kriyananda in San Mateo County, California, Case No. 390 230, filed January 9, 1996, it is recorded in a deposition that Yogananda’s organization, Self Realization Fellowship Church, has a rule that to be a renunciate, one has to take “final” vows, such as:

1. poverty, 2. chastity, 3. loyalty, and 4. obedience.

His organization requires one to sign a “pledge” for absolute loyalty to Yogananda to join their organization. Let us see how Yogananda was loyal to his Guru, Sriyukteswar.

“Not sensing Sri Yutkteswar’s reluctance to have me leave him, I went on, “Once you beheld the blessed sight of Babaji at an Allahavad Kumbha. Perhaps this time I shall be fortunate enough to see him.”

“I [Sriyukteswar] do not think you will meet him [Mahamuni Babaji] there.” Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda, page 461, Eleventh edition, paperback Sriyukteswar tried his best to prevent Yogananda from going, but seeing Mahamuni Babaji at least once in his lifetime was so intense in Yogananda’s mind that Sriyukteswar’s attempts to stop him failed. In spite of Sriyukteswar’s unequivocal, explicit advice not to go to Kumbhamela, Yogananda attended just to learn from Brahmachari Kesavananda (disciple of Lahiri Mahasay) that Babaji had not attended Kumbhamela that year as Sriyukteswar had told him before. He could not afford to lose the unique opportunity of a lifetime to have Babaji’s darsan.”

http://www.sanskritclassics.com/yogananda.htm

When I went to the Vedanta Society I was never asked to be loyal to any guru or organization, nor was I told that I would be lost for many lifetimes.

I don’t believe that anyone should ever demand loyalty. Loyalty is something that has to grow, and it grows when you love and trust someone, but it can just as easily be broken if you find out that they are not what you thought they were.

Great Wedsites and Books

2011-12-14T07:54:00.000-08:00

Books

Hinduism

The Serpent Rising--Mary Garden

A Woman's story of her experience with a guru in India.

Karma Cola--Gita Metha

She is an Indian writer that exposes gurus and meditation dangers. It is also a fun read.

The Guru Papers, Mask of Authoritarian Power--Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad

Great eyeopening book on Gurus and their relationship to their disciples. I recommend this to everyone.

Buddhism

The Feeling Buddha and The New Buddhism by David Brazier

I enjoyed the above books because they teach a Buddha that I could believe in if it could be proved that Buddha was like the Buddha that Brazier protrays him to be.

Travelers in Space by June Campbell

Speaks of her own experience with her famous lama and the treats to her and others to keep quiet about their sexual relationsip.

Stripping the Gurus by Geoffrey D. Falk

A free online book from here:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4722690526319268449&postID=3369559544395547046

Websites:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jul/01/lama-sex-abuse-sogyal-rinpoche-buddhist

http://brontebaxter.wordpress.com/blowing-the-whistle-on-enlightenment-confessions-of-a-new-age-heretic/#comment-5627

A blog on Blowing the Whistle on Enlightenment

Cult Information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsz2I4b8SLI&NR=1

Manipulaton Series (How Cults and People Use Manipulation)

http://berkeleypsychiccult.blogspot.com/

http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/caldwell.sarah.pdf

This link also shows how tantric sex is taught by gurus of Hinduism

What is a Cult? – Differences Between Cults and Religions

2011-11-29T04:00:00.000-08:00

Aug 11, 2010
Aimee Larsen Stoddard

: Cults are Usually Considered to be Dangerous - Kevin Dooley

What are cults? Are they all dangerous? How is a cult different from a religion? The definition of the word "cult" varies depending on the context.

Many ideas surrounding the definition of a cult are shaped by the media. When most people think of cults, religious groups that engage in dangerous, criminal, unethical, and devious practices pop into their mind.

Groups typically considered cults, including the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), Church of Scientology, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple, Manson Family, Solar Temple, and Heaven’s Gate, have received or are still receiving a lot attention on TV, in newspapers, and on the internet.

Neutral and Negative Meanings of the Word “Cult”

In the neutral sense of the term, a cult is simply a religious group. The word “cult” can designate a new and small group of people devoted to particular religious doctrine, ideas, and principles. A cult may grow into a religion. For instance, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints started out as a cult in the 1800s, when it was founded by Joseph Smith, but has since developed into a religion with nearly 14 million members.

For a comparison of the fundamentalist and mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, see LDS and FLDS beliefs about polygamy.

Some religions label other religions as cults. For example, some Evangelical Christians and Fundamentalist Christians consider religions that teach Christian doctrine that deviates from their own beliefs to be cults. Some view Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses as cults. However, the opposite is also true – members of alternative Christian sects sometimes view other Christian denominations as cults.

In its original sense, the word “cult” is not pejorative. The designation, however, has come to encompass many negative connotations. The negative conception of a cult implies a religious group that has so-called strange, weird, or bizarre beliefs, is highly controlling, and engages in criminal practices.

The following is a list of characteristics frequently attributed to cults:

Cults have a charismatic and controlling leader, who purportedly knows what God wants and demands.
Cults brainwash and indoctrinate their members.
Cults control members by making them dependent on the cult and instilling in them a sense of shame, guilt, and fear.
Cults do not allow questioning of their beliefs or practices.
Cults claim to be the only true way to live and path to salvation.
Cults have apocalyptic beliefs about the imminent end of the world.
Cults severely limit or completely cut off members’ access to and interaction with the outside world.
Cults retaliate against people who leave the group by punishing them with excommunication and/or ostracizing, physically harming, or taking legal action against them.
Cults engage in criminal behavior, such as rape or statutory rape, suicide, murder, abduction, and weapons stockpiling.
Cults exploit members financially.

Difference Between a Cult and a Religion

In his article “The Difference Between Cults and Religions,” Rabbi Brad Hirschfield remarks, “The fact that pretty much every religion has done all of these things [typically ascribed to cults] at some point in history of the group means the line between cults and religions ... is not fixed or static.” The rabbi references the Hebrew Bible story of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac to God as evidence of cultish threads that run through religions.

The rabbi notes, “Most religions can and do slip into cult-like behavior from time to time.” For instance, many religions claim to be the only true church, use fear of damnation to dissuade members from questioning or leaving the organization, and shun members who do leave.

The line between religions and cults can indeed be blurry at times, so how is it possible to tell the difference between the two? The main difference is the degree to which a religious group or organization engages in negative cult-like practices. The second major difference between cults and religions is that, generally speaking, religions are accepted by mainstream society, while cults are not. Religions typically have many followers, while cults have relatively few.

Dangerous Cults

The term "cult" means different things in different contexts, but in its usual and popular sense, it refers to a manipulative and fringe religious group. Religious groups deemed dangerous cults hold powerful sway over their members. Cults engage in subversive, deceitful, and back-handed practices to control adherents by claiming to have a monopoly on answers to all of life’s questions and problems and by teaching that salvation is only attainable by following the cult’s particular path.

Sources:

Cults, Sects and Denominations, ReligiousTolerance.org. Retrieved August 11, 2010.

The Difference Between Cults and Religions, Newsweek.WashingtonPost.com. Retrieved August 11, 2010.

Evaluating Religions as Dangerous Cults, AltReligion.About.com. Retrieved August 11, 2010.

Buddhist Monks Walk Away from Sex-abuse Cases

2011-11-27T11:13:00.000-08:00

It seems like what the Catholic church got away with for years and maybe still does, is also going on in Buddhism. But what is new? Abuse occurs in all religions, and it seems like they are immune from everything that goes on unless enough people take it to court. The article under this photo just goes to show how much a monastery can get away with sex abuse:

July 24, 2011|By Megan Twohey, Tribune reporter

Across the U.S., temples frustrate investigators by insisting they have no control over monks' actions, whereabouts

A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by a monk at a Theravada Buddhist temple in Chicago holds her 11-year-old daughter, who was conceived, according to her mother, during the assaults.

The meeting took place at Wat Dhammaram, a cavernous Theravada Buddhist temple on the southwest edge of Chicago. A tearful 12-year-old told three monks how another monk had turned off the lights during a tutoring session, lifted her shirt and kissed and fondled her breasts while pressing against her, according to a lawsuit.

Shortly after that meeting, one of the monks sent a letter to the girl's family, saying the temple's monastic community had resolved the matter, the lawsuit says.

The "wrong doer had accepted what he had done," wrote P. Boonshoo Sriburin, and within days would "leave the temple permanently" by flying back to Thailand.

"We have done our best to restore the order," the letter said.

But 11 years later, the monk, Camnong Boa-Ubol, serves at a temple in California, where he says he interacts with children even as he faces a second claim, supported by DNA, that he impregnated a girl in the Chicago area.

Sriburin acknowledges that restoring order did not involve stopping Boa-Ubol from making the move to California. And it did not involve issuing a warning to the temple there. Wat Dhammaram didn't even tell its own board of directors what happened with the monk, he said.

"We have no authority to do anything. … He has his own choice to live anywhere," Sriburin said.

To continue reading go here:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-24/news/ct-met-monk-sex-cases-20110724_1_thai-monks-buddhist-monks-paul-numrich

Letter from Roshi Joan regarding Eido Shimano by Joan Halifax

2011-11-23T12:25:00.000-08:00

on Friday, December 31, 2010 at 7:31 am

"I am Founding Abbot of Upaya Zen Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico, a woman, a Zen practitioner since 1965, and someone who was sexually assaulted by one of her Buddhist teachers years ago. I have been following the discussion on the AZTA listserv for many months about the Eido Shimano "case". I use the term "case" not to mean koan, but in a legalistic sense. For just as the former Israeli president has just been convicted in a court of law of rape and sexual harassment, so also is Eido Shimano vulnerable to such an indictment.

For many years, I have heard about the sexual behavior of Eido Shimano toward his female students; there has long been talk about many of the Buddhist teachers who have violated sexual boundaries with their students. Sadly, the list of Buddhist teachers who have had intercourse with their students is not short. We have also been aware of not only of teachers having sex in the dokusan room but of teachers engaging in sexual violence toward their students as well.

For those of us who are not only teachers but women, the misogyny that we have encountered when we have brought these violations to the attention of others has been often concerning. For like many rape victims, we have been seen as somehow culpable, have been ignored, criticized, or shunned.

I want to say that I am grateful and am relieved that Eido Shimano has resigned from his abbacy and the Zen Center Board, and that you have identified good, strong leaders to take over your center. We live in a time when there should be zero tolerance of the violation of professional boundaries, and most particularly sexual abuse on the part of leaders, whether they be a president of a country, a prime minister, or a minister, whether psychologist or social worker, whether monk or manager."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Many of us have experienced being under the spell of a teacher or person of authority. Some of us have seen our own students caught in the trance of positive projections. But our practice is about waking up and ending suffering, being real and being courageous in dealing with mara, and actualizing compassion, even a compassion that might seem ruthless. We have to realize that the three-fold training is clear on the matter of sex and ethics, physical abuse and sangha relationships, and the role of wisdom and compassion in relation to the three jewels. And we have to see our teachers in a totally realistic light, including their feet of clay.

I also want to say that it is not that Eido Shimano is a scapegoat for all other spiritual teachers who have violated sexual boundaries and engaging in sexually abusive (and probably addictive) behavior. I hope that by bringing this situation to the world's attention through Aitken's now-public archive, the NYTimes article, and the increasing storm of emails, blogposts, and communiques (including facebook), the sexual abuse of women by Buddhist teachers will diminish, if not end, through strong negative sanctions of those who have engaged in activities such as this."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The sexual abuse of women is no small matter globally. It takes profound commitment to deal with this issue. Humbly, i feel that we as Buddhists need to clean up the scene in our own backyard, and clean it up now. We all share this karma, and we must share the correction process as well. Compassion tells us that, and we have to not only listen but as well to act. Thus these letters you are currently receiving....... Please heed them, and heed them well.

I do feel deeply about this issue since so many women have passed through my zendo diminished and damaged as a result of having been subjected to sexual boundary violations by their teachers; some have been physically abused; others have been psychologically intimidated and then forced into sex. Some women were plainly deluded and hungry for acknowledgment, and in some way, power; others were coerced, shamed, and some were threatened; others were entranced and tricked. In the end, after all is said and done, most have wanted to abandon their Buddhist practice, finding Buddhism too passive and uncaring, if not dangerous.

As a result of what I have borne witness to in others and myself, as well as bearing witness to women who have been raped in the context of war or extreme family abuse, I would suggest here that we need to actualize a compassion that is more skillful and much braver at this time. I hope you will consider that standing aside might not be the best route in terms of this situation with Eido Shimano. I hope you will be courageous and forthright and not take the road of compromise. For it has been compromise, I believe, and lack of ethical resolve that has given rise to our collective suffering in this situation, the individual suffering of the women who have been subjected to this abuse, and to the deep suffering in your sangha."

Joan Halifax
Founding Abbot
Upaya Zen Center

Here is an excerpt from another letter by Halifax Roshi about misogyny in Buddhism and religion in general.

"Why Buddhism? Violations of Trust In The Sexual Sphere"

"We all know that rape as a weapon of war has been used against women and nations for thousands of years. Rape, forcible seduction, seduction through trickery, power and domination, [...] have also been part of most, if not all religions. ... If you want to deepen the shadow of any religion, turn wisdom and compassion into hypocrisy, and stand by, conflict-averse, as its male clergy disrespects women, has sex with female congregants, dominates women, abuses women, degrades or rapes them.

But as a Zen priest, as a woman, I have to ask: why my religion? Why Buddhism? This is not what the Buddha taught. But for too long in the West, and I'm sure in the East, gross misogyny has existed in the Buddhist world, a misogyny so deep that it has allowed the abuse of women and nuns in our own time, not only [historically] or in Asia. The misogyny is well-expressed through mistreatment of women, through sexual boundary violations of women and the psychological abuse of women."

We can post on the internet, write letters, and discuss all we want, but the question is, what can be done on a practical level to stop this scourge? How do we cut through the denial of the seriousness of this problem on the part of practitioners, to start with. And how can we demand that ethical standards be adhered to? Sanghas must draw up ethics contracts for their teachers to sign. Breach of contract should result in expulsion. What else can we do to liberate Buddhism from this blight? A global effort is needed, so that women can feel safe and secure in their chosen sangha, wherever it may be, and whatever the tradition they choose.

It is said that Mara made the Buddha cry by telling him that the day will come when the enemies of the Dharma will dress as monks, and act to destroy the Dharma. It looks like that time is upon us.

--Dharma Protector.

The Scandal of the Zen Teacher and Where it Takes Me

2011-11-23T04:13:00.000-08:00

I've had a brief exchange of notes with someone concerned about the large number of scandals related to Zen teachers. He suggested the ratio is almost one to one. A bit of an exaggeration, but a real question. He also puffed me up a bit suggesting that Barry Magid and I were among the few sane teachers he was aware of, so he was addressing this burning question to me. Flattered at being thought one of the sane ones, but also knowing I better fess up quickly, here's my response, slightly modified and with a couple of expansions here and there that I realized I needed to add after I sent the note off...

Dear one,

Thank you for the kind words and clearly articulated concern.

But fair warning, I do not claim to be a "sane" Zen teacher.

Like you I had to work my way through the mythic structures of Zen.

At first I was aware the rhetoric around the Zen master was different than the rhetoric around gurus. It was one of the two reasons I did not pursue Vedanta the first spiritual tradition to attract me after my rejection of my childhood Christian fundamentalism. In the Hindu vedantic model the guru is perfect, in fact God. My brief experience of Hindu teachers in the Bay Area did not support the story. The other, which no doubt, turns closely on the same issue, was an intuition that the natural world had to be where I would find what I needed. And assertions of some sort of purity to which one should aspire, a transmutation of matter, didn't resonate for me.

I heard many things about Shunryu Suzuki, some included miracle stories, but mostly that he was some sort of "Zen master," and that he taught a very simple form of meditation. I was attracted to the meditation. But from the beginning I found the miracle stories unlikely, and was relieved when I began to sit with a branch of his organization that no one actually there told such stories.

I was very young when I began. I had one thing going for me and against me: a critical nature.

I quickly saw that zazen was good.

I also quickly learned that teachers were problematic creatures. From my perspective, the person who was my first real teacher, in the sense of my having a formal relationship, Jiyu Kennett, did see herself as a guru.

After not quite three years I left her. I had learned how to sit in the Zen style. I also carried a number of scars and one open wound. That wound which haunted me for many, many years was having been given her Dharma transmission.

I tried to find a way within Western culture. I loved the Episcopalians but couldn't embrace that single metaphor upon which the Christian story is built, and particularly the assertion it was literally true. I tried a looser organization, what I would call ecclesiastical gnostics, trying to reinvent the whole thing. But too many, just about all of the leadership were just playing games. By my best read, anyway. I then tried a universalist school of Sufism. I learned much but ultimately knew that with my character, I needed a prajna school more than a bhakti one. That's when I found what seemed to work for me for the long haul, a combination of Unitarian Universalism and Zen practice.

The teacher I picked after a bit of weighing and fretting was John Tarrant. He never pretended to be a guru, or any kind of perfect master, and over the years he proved that was true. He once observed to me that a friend will help you move, but a real friend will help you move a body. Says a lot about him, of course not all good, I hope you notice. He remains my real friend, and I his... But also I feel a need to work as a teacher in a different way than he does.

My take away.

I believe there is such a thing as awakening. I have experienced it. It is the direct insight into the fact we are two things at once. We are creatures woven out of a constantly moving dynamic of relationships, including genes and our experiences. And we are one. Or, I do like the Buddhist metaphor for this, we are empty. We lack any abiding essence. But that "essencelessness" is actually an openness. My experience of this is that this knowing, or again, the Zen metaphor better describes, there is a not knowing that is permanently a part of who I am. But, but both things are happening at once, the constrained and the open. In fact there is no way to unravel the temporal and conditioned from the boundless and free.

So, the basic way we're made is always, always there.

I am fond of that little pseudo psychological model based in the observation we're created out of three demons: greed, hatred and ignorance. I see these as the constellation of grasping, the constellation of aversion, and after much reflection, the constellation of certanties.

So, I am aware of who I am, at least in all the big strokes and many of the smaller ones. And I can tell you, I am a greed type. I want. I have always wanted. And I have to report I know I shall always want. My chances of becoming one of the scandals is always there. I am aware of it.

I don't know Barry well, although I admire him very, very much. And I can assure you as a creature woven out of these three demons, there is always a chance of fucking up. True for Barry. True for me. True for all Zen teachers, just like it is true for everyone...

So, my assessment of the Zen scene.

I think Zen masters are useful. They have walked the way a long time and someone who has also walked the way a long time has endorsed them. They have no magical powers. Their shit stinks. And, if they don't bind themselves to rule and direction they are liable to moral drift, as is true of anyone. And even if they do bind themselves, they're liable to various abuses of themselves and others. Like all of us. I would be wary of teachers who do not have some form of continuing checking of themselves, either with teachers or peers.

But teachers remain important. My sense about this is simple.

I think we need to be able to bow, to be able to take instruction. And we need to never put someone else's head on top of ours.

A difficult enterprise, no doubt.

But I haven't seen a way around it.

The people I've seen who are completely independent, who do not put themselves under rule of some sort, seem even more prone to mistakes, to missing the mark, and mostly confuse the rumblings of ego with wisdom.

I think Zen has a great deal to offer. And I think it needs reformation. Like everything else, it is a work in progress.

The parts that work for me are the disciplines of shikantaza and koan introspection. I also think conscious adherence to the Bodhisattva precepts, as formulated in the Japanese-derived Zen schools are critical. I constantly think of the first five of the grave precepts, the same as lay precepts in world Buddhism. I bind myself to them and watch my constant failures with them. And I think spiritual directors are critical and I think Zen teachers are, on balance, among the better one may choose. So, I am committed to practice within the school, to bow to something larger than me in a real and tangible way, my sangha, and my co-teachers. To teach and to learn. And to try to not screw up, at least too much... And when I do, to wake up to it as soon as possible, and try to clean up after myself in appropriate ways.

If you'll forgive a self-reference, I point you to my talk to our Boundless Way annual meeting a couple of weeks ago. it spells out a lot of what I've been thinking on the subject.

http://monkeymindonline.blogspot.com/2009/06/waking-up-in-west-reflection-on.html

I hope this is helpful.

Yrs,

James

http://monkeymindonline.blogspot.com/2009/06/scandal-of-zen-teacher-and-where-it.html

Child Abuse by Buddhist Clergy

2011-11-20T09:47:00.000-08:00

The Time Has Come To End Child Monk Sex Slavery - Pedophilia Among The Buddhist Clergy

Professor Gananath Obeysekara's views on buddhist child monks and sexual abuse within monastery

In a recent article Dr. Obeysekere was quoted regarding his views on child monks. The article stated:

" ... But one major reason Obeyesekere opposes child recruitment is that the very young are vulnerable to sexual abuse, which he says is ''notoriously associated'' will all forms of institutionalized monasticism.

The possibility of child abuse in Buddhist monasteries ''must be faced honestly and squarely,'' he stressed.

Unlike adult monks, children have little chance of resisting sexual advances, the professor added.

''Even the presence of guardians or sponsors is not protection. How does the guardian inquire into such possibilities when the mere talk of homoerotic practices is taboo?,'' Obeyesekere asked.

He also asked why those promoting the campaign have not set an example by being ordained themselves or having their own children or grandchildren ordained.

The prime minister's office, however, reacted hotly to the criticism.

One of Wickramanayake's personal assistants said any opposition to the project ''was affiliated to a conspiracy to wipe Buddhism from the country.''

Pedophilia is no longer a forbidden delicacy limited to the Catholic Priests - Let's be sincere and open about what happens inside Buddhist Temples in Sri Lanka. Let's also question the responsibility and effectiveness of our National Child Protection Authority!

NCPA must take action to propose changes to legislation to ban all ordinations under the age of 18. Children's rights must be on the top priorities of a progressive nation, and the well being of its children and their rights for safety and protection reflects the values and ethics of the entire society.

Sexual abuse of children inside the Buddhist monastery has been so widespread but it has become a crime that is very difficult to bring to justice. What happens behind the doors remain a secret in most occasions, and only in an extremely rare occasion those actual charges get filed in a court. Even when it does arrive at the courts, the judges find it difficult to address the grievances of the abused child due to lack of hard evidence. A conviction for a serious crime cannot be made on vague evidence and statements, and the accused gets the legal advantage or the benefit of doubt.
________________________________________

I wanted to raise an issue that I am inclined to believe to be extremely important for a free and ethical society in Sri Lanka, yet nobody has gone in depth (as far as I know) in collecting data to present a scientific case study. This is however not directly connected to 'Secularism in Sri Lanka' but I am sure you will be interested in the topic as a problem rising out of the existence of a Buddhist theocracy. This is just an introduction to a massive problem of injustice that plagues Sri Lanka, sometime in the near future I would like to research more on this topic, and hopefully reveal a more in-depth report validated by collected data.

While reading the news articles on 'Child molestation cases against Catholic monks' over the last several years, and Pope Benedict's coverup efforts, I started to think: is this kind of sex abuse absent in the Buddhist Monastery of Sri Lanka? If pedophilia is present in the buddhist temples and monasteries, is it at the same statistical levels as non-monk (gihi janathawa) population? Is it higher, if so, how high and how serious is it? Based on recent research in USA and Europe I read in news recently, Catholic monks have a higher pedophilia rate than the outside of the church Catholic population. Abuse has been in ultra large scale compared to what usually happens outside the church. These numbers are available on the web, and I will not discuss Catholic issue here. The important finding from the study to take is that an average Catholic monk has a higher statistical chance of committing pedophilia than an average citizen. My initial suspicion regarding Buddhist monks is that it is highly unlikely that Buddhist monks behave any 'better' than the 'celibate' Catholic monks knowing the human nature, social power and authority Buddhist monks carry and their biological composition. And, whenever such a child abuse accusation comes out, the public generally reacts negatively towards the innocent victim of abuse and rally behind the 'venerables' and the 'sacred' institutions. Knowing the culture and customs of Sinhalese Buddhist population, those child victims tend to shy away and move on with their lives quietly suffering from those scars and injustices throughout their lives. Children are most vulnerable because they do not have a direct voice in protecting themselves as the parents want to keep things quiet as going public can harm their child further. Even if the parents seek legal help, it is very difficult to provide evidence in seeking a conviction.

Two years ago a close relative in my family mentioned about a male school teacher making 'unwanted' physical advances towards her son of 11 years of age and she immediately stopped sending her son to that teacher's tuition class. Luckily for her, she had good communication with her child and the son reported the issue to the mother. She never wanted to raise the issue in public or with police because that leads to further difficulties to the child. While I agreed with her keeping the issue in silence after rationalizing validity of her arguments, it made me think how this silence allows the predators to continue such crime with other innocent children. This particular case is of course not connected to a Buddhist monk but a school teacher. However, when a Buddhist monk is involved, the victim is more vulnerable and become more quiet. Child protection becomes very difficult, in fact impossible in a monastic life setting when children are forced to live in 'jail' like conditions away from family and loved ones. Their interests and well-being can be neglected and become exploited very easily by the adult strangers and monks that surround them over the years. When we understand our conservative culture, prevailing monastery conditions and its authoritative power, lack of reliability of police and legal system, it seems very hard to prosecute the accused and collect required evidence to present to a court towards needed justice. A major part of the solution involves reforms to the Buddhist monastery regarding their practice of celibacy, child recruitment in to the monastery, so that children are less likely to become victims of sexually deprived monks.

Do I have evidence for this accusation against these "venerable monks" of Sri Lanka'? Yes, but amount of evidence out there is very little at the moment like a tip of an iceberg due to reasons described above, and lots of reasons to believe it is an epidemic in Buddhist monastic life right next door to our homes and across the entire nation in very large scales. There are few cases of child molestation that became public. I don't think the problem ends at those cases, and we should not consider these as rare and isolated cases of anomaly. A good analogy for this: when you see one rat in your house and manages to catch it, you should not come to the wrong conclusion that there was only one and the problem is now over. We need to address this issue towards a permanent and long lasting solution through preventive action along with deterrent punishments in a judicial setting.

My suggested solution: I think there should be a legal ban on recruiting children under 18 years of age as Buddhist monks, and also influence the monastery to reform and relax its practice of celibacy and promote reforms to adopt practices of liberal Buddhism (Japan, Korea) where monks are allowed to have sexual partners. One good article regarding this: www.american-buddha.com/child.monks.htm . I am not against adult monks having straight or homosexual relationships with other consenting adults, but pedophilia should have zero tolerance in our society through strict law enforcement. We would need more robust social and legal reforms in child protection regulations to bring required protection and develop a progressive environment that addresses preventive measures.

Buddhist monastery is not a 'pure' and 'sacred' institution that they portray to the general public. Sexual relationships among buddhist monks and with outsiders are no secret. I have heard in many occasions where Buddhist monks have had several children, having mistresses, homosexual relationships with other adult monks, graffiti in temple toilets accusing adult monks having sexual relationship with child monks (samanera) and child workers of the temple (ebbittiya). These are indications that require further study and collection of more strong data about this social issue. I have witnessed during my visits to neighborhood temples how youth monks abuse alcohol and cigarettes to extremes in their dormitories during my rare visits to temples. The problem is not that they behave this way, it is because they have to do these things in secrecy away from the public eye that leads to further serious crimes by the monks. I am not against these physical indulgences by the monks in anyway; it is just we need to understand their human nature and provide freedom in their monasteries for what is legally permissible. I am inclined to think when the monks are given enough freedom to express their sexual needs with other consenting adults, and a legal ban on underage monks in monastery, the pedophilia problem will be solved in the long term. Without such reforms we may only hide a problem that nobody wants to discuss in public.

Above article came from: http://www.secularsrilanka.com/discussions/hemantha-s-rants/pedophila-among-the-clergy

SRI LANKA: Children abused and sexually harassed by the teacher for two years

April 1, 2004

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAM

2 April 2004

---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-32-2004: SRI LANKA: Children abused and sexually harassed by the teacher for two years

SRI LANKA: Child Abuse; Sexual harassment on Children; Torture
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that a primary school teacher Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala (Buddhist monk) has allegedly harassed children physically and mentally including in sexual ways, and consistently denied their religious freedom for last two years.

According to our source who followed up the case, child abuse by Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala is explained in 20 odd ways. Also, it is reported that he had been transferred from the previous school in Monarangala Vidiyalaya for charges on child abuse. More seriously, it is alleged that Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala assaulted the two his fellow teachers physically and mentally several times. One of the two teachers made a complaint to the police station but there has been no serious action taken by the police yet. Even though parents of the children have made several written and oral complaints to the principal, nothing happened to correct this matter. Now the children's parents fear that their children would soon become victims of rape or torture if this matter is not settled immediately.

Please send a letter to the local authorities to suspend Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala's service at school and to conduct impartial inquiries into this matter.

Urgent Appeals Desk
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
-----------------------------------------------------

DETAILED INFORMATION:

Name of victims: 1. Students of age 06 to 13 (year 01-08) at the primary school attached to the Ampitiya Berawattes College, 2. Ms. X, 24, a fellow teacher, 3, Ms. Y, A catholic nun and volunteer teacher of the school (Names were withheld for victims' security)
Alleged perpetrator: Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala, 45, a Buddhist monk and teacher of the primary school attached to the Ampitiya Berawattes College
Place of abuse: the primary school attached to the Ampitiya Berawattes College
Period of abuse: Since in the end of 2002 until now

Case details:

Primary school teacher Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala has allegedly been accused of harassing children and denying their religious freedom at the primary school attached to the Ampitiya Berawattes College since the end of 2002. Moreover, there is allegation that he has sexually harassed the students continuously. Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala has a history of child abuse. (He was transferred from the previous school in Monarangala Vidiyalaya for charges of child abuse.)

The school was by founded by Fr Berawattes but the school administration was taken over by the Sri Lankan government when the catholic students became a minority in the school in 1962. 70 catholic students are currently studying in the school. In 2001, Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala (a Buddhist monk) was transferred to the school. According to the testimony of the students, his harassment of the children started in the end of 2002.

Denial of the children's freedom of religion and degrading treatment

Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala has harassed the catholic children in all forms. Below are just a few examples of them.

1. On 8 February 2004, Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala ordered the catholic students of year 06 to go out of classroom and draw a cross in the sand. He then made all the children jump across it and remarked that the catholic children paid no respect to the cross.

2. On 11 February 2004, Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala ordered some catholic children to draw a bible on the floor. Then, he ordered the catholic students of year 07 to walk on the bible while degradingly making a mockery out of it.

It is reported that he has told to the children that Christ is a terrorist, murderer and womaniser.

Molesting, harassment and abuse of children

Child abuse by Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala is explained in 20 odd ways including touching, removing clothes and using vulgar words. Below are a few examples of them.

1. On 22 January 2004, Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala has molested student A and B of year 7 (names were withheld) by touching the breasts inside of the classroom saying that they should have bigger breasts.

General description of the abuse on the children: The junior catholic children (both male and female) were manhandled, sexually abused and often tortured physically in public. Boys were naked and were caned in the classroom. The students were forded to leave the classroom if they did not denounce Christ. Some students who made a complaint about him were forced to leave the school. Even though the parents have made complains to the principal (an ex-Buddhist monk) and the director of the school several times, no serious action has yet been taken. Not even any inquiry was held. The fellow teachers and parents believe that Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala is mentally ill and not fit to be a teacher. Parents fear that their children would soon become victims of rape or torture if the matter is not settled immediately. The abused students have sent postcards complaining about the incidents to the school principal.

Assault and harassment of colleagues

Case 1: Assault and threat to Ms. X:

On 24 June 2003, the teacher Ms. X (24 years old) was physically assaulted by that Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala in front of students of year 07 in the classroom. She was organising a religious festival on the 10th anniversary of the religion classroom and she selected 4 Buddhist children for dancing during the event. The selected Buddhist children gladly came to participate in the dance but Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala was furious about this and scolded Ms. X in filth. When Ms. X requested him not to scold her in filth, he assaulted her in front of the students. He further threatened her not to come back to the school again saying that if she comes she would be raped. Ms. X went to the Kandy Police Station with her mother and made complaint about this incident but the police have not started any inquiry or investigation into this matter. (the police entry number: C.I.B no; 362/529 of 24-06-2003)

When Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala heard that Ms. X made a compliant against him to the police station, he went to her house and instructed the house owner to chase her family immediately. Ms. X family had to leave the house three days later. Further he threatened Ms. X saying that she would be kidnapped and raped because she made a complaint against him. It is reported that on several occasions, Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala beat Ms. X in the classroom and forced her to leave the school. Ms. X is living with her mother and the younger sister who has disability in speaking. Her father died when she was a small child.

Case 2: Abuse of Ms. Y, a teacher for the catholic religion class:

The Salvadorian catholic sister Ms. Y was teaching in the school from 1 March 2003 to 29 February 2004. Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala often abused her in filth with his friend Laxman who is an outsider but visits the school almost daily. They passed funny remarks about Christ in front of her.

On 12 February 2004, the catholic Sister Ms. Y, who was volunteering of teaching the students, ordered the children of year 7 to remove some flower plants from the flowerbed. When the children were doing so Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala came and started to beat the student C and D among them with a cane. He also lodged a complaint to the education office about removing plants and two officers came to the school twice to inquiry the case against the Sister. Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala also forced her to leave the school and finally she transferred to the Hindagala School from March 2004.

School authority's indifference and the police inaction

Parents of the children have made several written and oral complaints to the school principal, Mr. L.A.B Kularatne but he did not take any action to correct this matter.

According to our source, he commented, "It is difficult to summarise all the incidents that happened during last two years, as it then is more likely to become a book." It illustrates how seriously the children have been abused by Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala. Considering his unbelievable behaviour, parents and the fellow teachers think that Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala is mentally ill. They eager the police to start the investigation about their complaints immediately and bring him to justice by laws.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send a letter, fax or email to the addresses below and request them to suspend Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala's service immediately and conduct impartial inquiries into this matter.

1. Professor Harendra De Silva
Chairperson
National Child Protection Authority - Sri Lanka
NO 330, Thalawathugoda Road, Madiwela,
Sri Jayawardenapura,
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 778911 , 2778912 or 2778913
Fax: +94 11 2 778915
Email: info@childprotection.gov.lk

2. Ms. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga
President
Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Presidential Secretariat
Colombo-1, Sri Lanka
Fax: +94 11 2 333 703

3. Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy
Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
No. 36, Kynsey Road, Colombo 8
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 694 925 / 673 806
Fax: +94 11 2 694 924 / 696 470
E-mail: sechrc@sltnet.lk

4. Hon. Mr. K. C. Kamalasabesan
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436 421
Email: attorney@sri.lanka.net or counsel@sri.lanka.net

5. Mr. Ranjith Abeysuriya PC
Chairman National Police Commission
69-1 Ward Place, Colombo 7
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 669 128 / 691 926
Fax HOME: +94 11 2 674148

6. Mr. Theo C. van Boven
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
OHCHR-UNOG, 8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9016

Sample letter:

Dear

Re: Children abused and sexually harassed by the teacher for two years

Name of victims: 1. Students of age 06 to 13 (year 01-08) at the primary school attached to the Ampitiya Berawattes College, 2. Ms. X, 24, a fellow teacher, 3, Ms. Y, A catholic nun and volunteer teacher of the school (Names were withheld for victims' security)
Alleged perpetrator: Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala, 45, a Buddhist monk and teacher of the primary school attached to the Ampitiya Berawattes College
Place of abuse: the primary school attached to the Ampitiya Berawattes College
Period of abuse: Since in the end of 2002 until now

I am deeply concerning of the alleged physical, mental and sexual harassment on the catholic children by the shool teacher Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala (Buddhist monk) for last two years. It is also reported that he has consistently denied the children's religious freedom.

According to the information I have received, Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala has been allegedly accused of harassing children and denying their religious freedom at the primary school attached to the Ampitiya Berawattes College since the end of 2002. Moreover, there are several allegations that he has sexually harassed the students continuously. Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala has the history of child abuse. (He was transferred from the previous school in Monarangala Vidiyalaya for charges on child abuse.)

Furthermore, it is alleged that Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala assaulted the two his fellow teachers physically and mentally several times. One of the two teachers made a complaint to the Kandy Police Station (the police entry number: C.I.B no; 362/529 of 24-06-2003)but there has been no serious action taken by the police yet. Even though parents of the children have made several written and oral complaints to the principal, nothing happened to correct this matter. Now the children's parents fear that their children would soon become victims of rape or torture if this matter is not settled immediately.

Therefore, I strongly urge you to conduct an impartial and speedy inquiries into all the allegations about the child abuses and torture of the two fellow teachers by Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala and bring him to justice as soon as possible. I also request you to immediately suspend the service of Ven Harankahawe Chandrawimala at school while the investigation is going on. I further urge the government of Sri Lanka to provide compensation to the victims; both of the children and the two teachers.

Sincerely yours,

Above article came from : http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2004/648/

http://www.asiantribune.com/child-abuse-sri-lanka-buddhist-monks

Buddhist monk ingests poison in Sri Lanka

By Shimali Senanayake, Associated Press Writer, May 16, 2005

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka -- A monk drank poison and was rushed to a hospital Monday moments after becoming the first Buddhist clergyman to be convicted of the sexual abuse of a child in Sri Lanka, court officials and police said.

Monk Bellana Panniyaloka was found guilty of grave sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl in 2001 and was given the maximum 20-year penalty, court official N.K. Siripala said.

Soon after the sentence, Panniyaloka drank from a bottle he had concealed in his robes and collapsed, Siripala said. He was rushed to a hospital.

"The priest is in critical condition," said Hector Weerasinghe, director of the Colombo National Hospital. He said the 55-year-old monk had consumed insecticide.

The priest belongs to a temple in Nugegoda, just outside the capital Colombo, where the victim was a Sunday school student, Siripala said.

Monday's conviction came a day after a senior Buddhist monk was arrested on charges of sexually abusing a teenager in another Sri Lankan temple, officials said.

The monk, who heads a temple in the coastal town of Matara, 80 miles south of Colombo, allegedly abused a 15-year-old girl, said Dimutu Galappatti, spokesman for the National Child Protection Authority.

Reports of child abuse by Buddhist priests have increased in recent years, but Panniyaloka's trial is the first conviction of a monk on abuse charges.

About 70 percent of Sri Lanka's 19 million people are Buddhists, and monks hold a tremendous influence in this Buddhist-majority country. They play a major role in molding the island's political and social fabric.

Above article came from: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=43,1174,0,0,1,0

Sri Lanka 'child abuse' arrests



By Frances Harrison BBC correspondent in Colombo

Ten men, including two Buddhist monks, have been arrested in Sri Lanka in connection with allegations of sexual abuse of at least 11 boys in an orphanage in the capital, Colombo.

Two hundred and seventy boys and girls - many of them war orphans - are currently being questioned by police officers attached to the country's National Child Protection Agency.

The head of the agency, Harendra de Silva, said it was possible other alleged child victims would come forward as the 120 girls in the home had not been interviewed yet.

Those thought to have been abused were mostly Sinhalese but included one Muslim boy as well as three Tamils.

An official at the children's home said the two monks arrested were not from the orphanage itself but from a nearby Buddhist temple.

The same official alleged that a lady had come to the home and paid the children money to make false allegations against the monks.

The child protection agency says the 10 arrested men will be charged in court and under amendments to the law will face very tough penalties if found guilty.

Mr Silva said they had investigated about 15 cases in the past seven years where Buddhist monks were implicated in child abuse but he said the judicial process was slow.

Above article came from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3175846.stm

Monks arrested over sexual abuse of Sri Lankan war orphans

Monks arrested over sexual abuse of Sri Lankan war orphans

Wednesday, 08-Oct-2003 4:40AM PDT

Story from AFP
Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)

COLOMBO, Oct 8 (AFP) - Two Buddhist monks and eight men were arrested in Sri Lanka Wednesday for sexually abusing 11 war orphans between the ages of nine and 13, officials said. The National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) said it had investigated an orphange for victims of the island's drawn out Tamil Separatist conflict and carried out the arrest after reportsof systematic abuse of children there.The National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) said it had investigated an orphanage for victims of the island's drawn out Tamil separatist conflict and carried out the arrest after reports of systematic abuse of children there.

The NCPA said boys had been sexually abused by the two monks and eight men at the children's home located near the capital Colombo.

"Although children had complained to the authorities of the children's home, no action had been taken to stop the abuse of children," the NCPA said in a statement.

The home was established during the height of the fighting between government forces and Tamil Tiger rebels as a safe haven for children whose parents and close relatives were killed by either side.

Child abuse is a non-bailable offense in Sri Lanka.

The NCPA said it was hoping to take the 10 men, including the two monks, before a magistrate and seek their detention in custody pending further investigations.

Above from: http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bn/Qsrilanka-children-abuse.RHUz_DO8.html

BUDDHISM'S PEDOPHILE MONKS

by Uwe Siemon-Netto

UPI Religion Correspondent

July 2002

WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- Sex between clergymen and boys is by no means a uniquely Catholic phenomenon, a noted American scholar said Wednesday -- it's been going on in Buddhist monasteries in Asia for centuries.

"Of course, this is against the Buddhist canon," Leonard Zwilling of the University of Wisconsin in Madison told United Press International, "but it has been common in Tibet, China, Japan and elsewhere."

"In fact, when the Jesuits arrived in China and Japan in the 16th century, they were horrified by the formalized relationships between Buddhist monks and novices who were still children. These relationships clearly broke the celibacy rule," said Zwilling, who has written extensively about this topic for more than three decades, and was one of the first to do so.

Zwilling, who holds a doctoral degree in Buddhist studies said in a telephone interview this practice continued until well into 20th century.

Although the Buddha clearly proscribed sex of any kind in monasteries, "we know of incidents where members of the Bob-Dob, an order enforcing discipline among Tibetan monks, fought each other over boys," continued Zwilling.

"They clobbered each other with huge keys that were the tools of their trade. We also know that generations of Dalai Lamas had their 'favorites,' although we have no proof that these relationships were sexual."

Other studies show that Buddhist monks in Japan practiced a non-sexual form of "pedophilia" as long ago as the 10th century, according to Minnesota-based Ralph Underwager, a pastor, psychologist and one of the world's leading experts on child abuse.

In an interview with Paidika, a scholarly journal specializing in the phenomenon, Underwager and his associate Hollida Wakefield pointed out that "the concept of Platonic love as an asexual affection is describing pedophilia."

Underwager and Wakefield explained that the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, the playwright Aristophanes and the statesman-soldier Alcibiades "all claimed that love motivated pedophilia."

But if they did, it wasn't in the sense of sex.

According to Zwilling, monks having engaged in "sex with penetration and ejaculation" face expulsion from the Sangha, the monastic order that along with the Buddha and the Dharma (teaching) is part of Buddhism's three-fold refuge.

"This is true whether a monk has broken his vow of chastity with a woman, a man or a child," Zwilling said. "The punishment will be less severe if there were no penetration or ejaculation."

In that case, the offender would only be disciplined, perhaps demoted in rank, but not evicted from the monastery, the scholar explained.

"Actually, pedophilia is hardly mentioned in Buddhism's canonical writings," he went on. "I have only come across one passage describing the fate of a man who loved boys. He went to hell and came to a river filled with acid -- and boys swimming it. They were in agony.

"Out of his love for the children, the man jumped in -- and had to suffer their pain."

Peter A. Jackson, a renowned Australian researcher on Buddhism, has pointed out that in this faith all forms of sexuality and desire must be transcended in order to attain the religious goal of the extinction of suffering.

Citing the Vinaya, Theravada Buddhism's monastic code of conduct, Jackson wrote, "Whichever monk has sexual intercourse is ... a defeated one, and will not find communion (in the Sangha)."

The Vinaya is very explicit in condemning sexual misconduct, including auto-sodomy (one of its chapters is titled,

"The Case of the Monk with a Long Penis"). It does not single out homosexuality, though, which is treated as a third gender in ancient Buddhist writings, said Zwilling.

However, the Vinaya does relate that already some 2,500 years ago, the outrageous behavior of one "pandaka" (homosexual, in Pali, the sacred language of Theravada Buddhism), has prompted the Buddha to ban the ordination of such men.

The story reads thus:

"The pandaka had been ordained in a residence of monks. He went to the young monks and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault me.'

"The monks spoke aggressively, 'Pandaka, you will surely be ... spiritually destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?" ...

He went to some large, stout novices and encouraged them thus, 'Come all of you and assault me.'

The novices spoke, 'Pandaka, you will surely be destroyed. Of what benefit will it be?'

"The pandaka then went to men who tend elephants and horses and spoke to them thus. 'Come all of you and assault me.' The men who tend elephants and horses assaulted him.

"The Blessed One then ordered the monks, 'Behold monks, a pandaka is one who is not to be ordained, ... and (pandakas) who have already been ordained must be made to disrobe.'"

According to Zwilling, homosexual behavior may not land a Buddhist layman in hell. That kind of fate is reserved for adulterers and rapists. On the other hand, a homosexual orientation is an extended form of punishment for those who in a previous life have committed such sins.

Prasok, a celebrated Thai newspaper columnist writing on Buddhism, related that this was the fate of the Buddha's personal attendant, Phra Ananda.

Wrote Prasok, "The reason he was born a kathoey (Thai for homosexual) was because in a previous life he had committed the sin of adultery. This led him to stew in hell for tens of thousands of years.

"After he was freed from hell, a portion of his old karma still remained and led him to being reborn as kathoey for many hundreds of lives."

While this may sound a rather severe punishment for a sexual transgression, Buddhism may have something even worse in store for an unfaithful husband, Zwilling told UPI: "He could be reborn as a woman."

Return to Table of Contents

Above article from: www.american-buddha.com/pedophile.monks.htm

PRINCETON PROF. SAYS NO TO SRI LANKA CHILD MONKS

by Kyodo News

COLOMBO -- A campaign by Sri Lanka's prime minister to recruit 2,000 children into Buddhist monastic orders to cope with a shortage of monks has met criticism from a scholar who says child ordination is against Buddhist doctrine.

Gananath Obeyesekere, an anthropology professor at Princeton University, says the campaign targets children as young as 5 years even though Theravada Buddhism doctrine states that a boy must be at least 15 years of age to become a monk.

The Buddha himself ordained at just 5 years his only son Rahula, but this was regarded an exception rather than a rule, Obeyesekere said.

After being rebuked for the act by his own father, the Buddha specified that one must not only have parental consent to ordain a child, but that the child must be 15 years of age. If not, the youth must have the ''physical maturity'' of a 15-year-old.

Sri Lanka's project to mass-recruit children into Buddhist orders disregards these considerations, says Obeyesekere, himself a Sri Lankan Buddhist.

Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, who is also minister for Buddhist affairs, is the father of the campaign and is encouraging public donations for the endeavor.

The project includes sponsors for each novice monk and a monthly allowance drawn from a fund of contributions.

Reportedly, more than 1,000 people have already applied, although the final figure was not immediately known, nor was the breakdown of their ages.

The prime minister told reporters recently that he conceived the plan after receiving thousands of letters from senior Buddhist monks complaining, among other things, that fewer people were joining the clergy. This, he said, had even led to the closure of many temples around the country.

''I found there was a problem and this is the solution,'' he asserted.

He believes his plan will strengthen Buddhism in the country and bolster the ranks of a clergy that was in danger of dying out.

But Obeyesekere, in his remarks published in the Colombo newspapers Sunday Island and the Daily News, says if more monks are needed for the orders, older people should be recruited as they are increasingly given to meditation and usually have a good knowledge of the Buddha teachings.

Most have meager pensions, so free monastic board and lodging would be added incentives, the scholar, who has written extensively on Buddhism, suggested.

But one major reason Obeyesekere opposes child recruitment is that the very young are vulnerable to sexual abuse, which he says is ''notoriously associated'' will all forms of institutionalized monasticism.

The possibility of child abuse in Buddhist monasteries ''must be faced honestly and squarely,'' he stressed.

Unlike adult monks, children have little chance of resisting sexual advances, the professor added.

''Even the presence of guardians, or sponsors is not protection. How does the guardian inquire into such possibilities when the mere talk of homoerotic practices is taboo?,'' Obeyesekere asked.

He also asked why those promoting the campaign have not set an example by being ordained themselves or having their own children or grandchildren ordained.

The prime minister's office, however, reacted hotly to the criticism.

One of Wickramanayake's personal assistants said any opposition to the project ''was affiliated to a conspiracy to wipe Buddhism from the country.''

The prime minister has only the best of intentions, he said, on condition of anonymity, noting ordinations take place only with the consent of parents and high priests of the temples concerned and the scheme provides children with food, lodging and educa

Above article from: www.american-buddha.com/child.monks.htm

Sonam Kazi Family Values
www.american-buddha.com/kazi.family.htm

Echoes of Nalinika: Monk in the Dock – Enid Adam
www.american-buddha.com/echoes.nalinika.htm

The Buddha Myth 2

2011-11-18T04:02:00.000-08:00

Pagan Christs, by John M. Robertson, [1911], at sacred-texts.com

p. 258

§ 13. The Buddha Myth.

In the introduction to M. Senart's Essai sur la légende de Buddha, the most comprehensive and scientific attempt of the kind yet made, the central problem is thus posited:—

"Either the historical data are the primary nucleus and as it were the central source, the legendary elements representing an ulterior action, in part accessory, without necessary cohesion; or, inversely, the mythological traits form a whole connected by a higher and anterior unity with the personage on whom they are here grafted, the historical data, if there are really any, being associated with them only in virtue of a secondary adaptation. It is at the first point of view that the inquiry has stood up to the present time. There has been drawn the practical conclusion that it suffices to suppress all the incredible details, what is left being taken for accredited history. I seek to show that for this first point of view we ought decidedly to substitute the second." 1

The conclusion to which the present argument points is exactly this, adhered to, however, more strictly than is the case in M. Senart's admirably learned treatise. For while he thus seems to imply that the supernatural element is the beginning of Buddhism as such, he finally assumes that there actually was a "founder." Certainly he sufficiently attenuates his conception:—

"A sect has a founder, Buddhism like every other. I do not pretend to demonstrate that Sakyamuni never existed. The question is perfectly distinct from the object of this treatise, It follows, certainly, from the foregoing researches that hitherto the sacred personage has been given too much historical consistence, that the tissue of fables grouped around his name has been too facilely transformed, by arbitrary piecings, into a species of more or less unplausible history. Scepticism acquires from our analyses, in some regards, a greater precision: still, it does not follow that we should indefinitely extend its limits. In this epic and dogmatic biography, indeed, there remain very few elements which sustain a close examination; but to say this is not to say that among them there has not entered some authentic reminiscence. The distinction is certainly very difficult. Where we are not in a position to show for a tradition its exact counterpart in other cycles, a decision is an extremely delicate process. All that is suspicious ought not necessarily to be eliminated: it is right that whatever is rigorously admissible ought to be retained. There is no alleged deity—not Vishnu, or Krishna, or Herakles—for whom we might not

p. 259

construct a sufficiently reasonable biography by proceeding as has hitherto been done in regard to the legend of Buddha.

"Under these reserves, I willingly recognise that there remain a certain number of elements which we have no absolute reason for thinking apocryphal: they may represent real historical reminiscences: to that, for my part, I have no objection. It is possible that the founder of Buddhism may have come from a tribe of Sakyas, though the pretended history of that race is certainly quite fictitious. It is possible that he may have come of a royal line, that he may have been born in a city called Kapilavastu, though this name arouses grave suspicions, opening the door to either mythological or allegorical interpretations, and the existence of such a town is very feebly certified. The name Gotama is certainly historic and well-known, but it is a borrowed name which tells us little. Much trouble has been taken to explain how this strictly Brahmanic patronymic might have passed to a family of Kshatriyas [the warrior caste] . Apart from Buddha, it is above all closely associated with his supposed aunt, the legendary Prajápati......I do not speak of his genealogy: it has certainly no value, being borrowed whole from epic heroes, in particular from Rama. On the other hand, it may well be that the teacher of the Buddhists entered on his religious career at the age of thirty-nine 1......"

[paragraph continues] And so on. Let us pause at the last clause to remember how the Jesus of the gospels "began to be about thirty years of age" when he began his teaching career, and to ask on what rational ground we can suppose such a detail to have been biographically preserved when the surrounding narrative yields no sign of biography whatever? There is in fact no single detail in the legend that has any claim to critical acceptance; and the position of the latest conservatives, as Oldenberg, is finally only a general petitio principii. India, admits that candid scholar, always was, as it is, "a land of types," wherein the lack of freedom stunts the free growth of individuality; and in the portraits of the Buddha and all his leading disciples we have simply the same type repeated. Yet, he contends, "a figure such as his certainly has not been fundamentally misconceived (fundamental missverstanden worden ist eine Gestalt wie die seine gewiss nicht)." 2 Critical logic will not permit such an A, priori reinstatement of a conception in which every element has given way before analysis. It is but an unconscious resort to the old fallacy of meeting the indictment of a spurious document with the formula, "Who else could have written it?" 3

p. 260

We recur to the old issue—the thesis that "every sect must have had a founder." Such was the unhesitating assumption of Minayeff, who did so much to bring historic clearness into early Buddhist history. "It is beyond doubt that at the origin of great historic movements always and everywhere appear important and historic personalities. It was so, certainly, in the history of Buddhism, and its development unquestionably commenced in the work of the founder." 1 Here we have something more than the proposition of M. Senart—we have a doctrine which would ascribe to definite founders the cults of Herakles and Dionysos and Aphroditê, the worship of fire, and the institution of human sacrifice. Dismissing such a generalisation as the extravagance of a scholar without sociology, 2 we bring the issue to a point in the formula of M. Senart. Plainly that is significant in the sense only that someone must have begun the formation of any given group. It is clearly not true in the sense that every sect originates in the new teaching of a remarkable personage. And we have seen reason to infer that there was a group of heretical or deviating Brahmanists, for whom "a Buddha" was "an enlightened one," one of many, before the quasi-historical Buddha had even so far emerged into personality as the slain Jesus of the Pauline epistles. Brahmanic doctrine, Brahmanic asceticism and vows, and Brahmanic mendicancy—these are the foundations of the Order: the personal giver of that rule and teaching, the Teaching God, comes later, even as the Jesus who institutes the Holy Supper comes after the eucharist is an established rite. Every critical scholar, without exception, admits that a vast amount of doctrine ascribed to Buddha was concocted long after his alleged period. It cannot then be proved that any part of the doctrine is not a fictitious ascription; and there is not a single tenable test whereby any can be discriminated as genuine. In the words of Kuenen, "we are not free to explain Buddhism from the person of the founder." 3 Nor is there any more psychological difficulty in supposing the whole to be doctrinal myth than in conceiving how the later Brahmanists could put their discourses in the mouth of Krishna.

The recent attempts to establish the historicity of Gotama Buddha by excavated tomb-remains 4—a kind of evidence which obviously could prove nothing as to the achievements or teaching

p. 261

of the person interred—have broken down on their merits. Dr. Fleet's claim to date an inscribed vase before Asoka's time on the strength of its letter-forms is peremptorily rejected; 1 and Professor Davids’ theory that the remains found under one stupa are those of Buddha has to compete with the theory of Dr. Fleet that they are those of massacred Buddhana Sakiya = "kinsmen of Buddha," which in turn is rejected by M. Barth as an impossible interpretation. On such lines there can be no establishment of any relevant historic facts; and we are left to the decision that "No extant inscription, either in the north or south, can be referred with confidence to a date earlier than that of Asoka. 2

Professor Kern, coming to conclusions substantially identical with those of M. Senart, posits for us finally an ancient Order of monks, absorbing an ancient popular religion, and developing for people of the middle and lower classes the ideals of a spiritual life current in the schools of the Brahmans and the ascetics. "It is very possible," he goes on, "that the Order had been founded—whatever be the precise sense which we attach to that word—by a single man peculiarly gifted, even as, for example, it is possible that Freemasonry may have been so founded. We may even, by an effort of imagination, adorn this founder with all sorts of good qualities; but we have no right to say that the amiability of the Buddha of the legend has any other origin than the antique belief according to which the Buddha, in his quality of cherishing sun, is manno miltisto" 3—the kindest of men, in the words applied by an old German prayer-chant to the deity.

This is the warranted attitude of scientific criticism; and the mere "may-be" as to the possible Founder is exclusive of any Evemeristic solution. M. Senart's necessary founder, and Professor Kern's possible founder, are wholly remote from the Buddha alike of the Buddhist and of the rationalising scholar, bent on saving a personality out of a myth. On the face of the case, there is a presumption that, while there may easily have been, "about 500 B.C., a man who by his wisdom and his devotion to the spiritual interests of his kind made such an impression that contemporaries compared him to a pre-existing ideal of wisdom and goodness, and that posterity completely identified him with this ideal," 4 the Order was not founded by any such person. No Buddha made the Buddhists—the Buddhists made the Buddha. 5

p. 262

An obviously sufficient conceptual nucleus for "the" Buddha lay in the admittedly general Brahmanic notion of "Buddhas." There is even a tradition that at the time when Sakyamuni came many men ran through the world saying "I am Buddha! I am Buddha!" 1 This may be either a Buddhist way of putting aside the claims of other Buddhas or a simple avowal of their commonness. But a real Buddha would be a much less likely "founder" than one found solely in tradition. Any fabulous Buddha as such could figure for any group as its founder to begin with: to him would be ascribed the common ethical code and rules of the group: the clothing of the phantom with the mythic history of Vishnu-Purusha or Krishna, the "Bhagavat" of earlier creeds, followed as a matter of course, on the usual lines. M. Senart "holds it for established that the legend as a whole was fixed as early as the time of Asoka." 2 Some of the latest surveys of the problem end in an inference that the oldest elements in the legend consist of fragments of an ancient poem or poems embedded in the Pitakas. 3 The quasi-biographical colour further given to mythical details is on all fours with that of the legends of Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and Jesus, all late products of secondary mythology, in periods which systematically reduced God-legends to the biographic level. As we have seen, the fabrication of narrative-frames for the teachings ascribed to the Buddha was early an established Buddhist exercise. And this accumulation of quasi-biographical detail, as we have also seen, goes on long after the whole cycle of prior supernaturalist myth has been embodied. It is after Jesus has been deified that he is provided with a mother and a putative father and brothers; and it is in the latest gospel of all that we have some of the most circumstantial details of his life and deportment. There is even a case for the thesis that some of the characteristics of the Buddha are derived from sculptures which followed Greek models. 4

On these grounds, then, it is here submitted that the traditional figure of the Buddha, in its most plausibly rationalised form, is as unhistoric as the figure of the Gospel Jesus has been separately shown to be. Each figure simply stands for the mythopœic action of the religious mind in a period in which Primary-God-making had given way to Secondary-God-making, and in particular to the craving for a Teaching God who should originate religious and moral ideas

p. 263

as the other Gods had been held to originate agriculture, art, medicine, normal law, and civilisation. And if by many the thought be still found disenchanting, they might do well to reflect that there is a side to the conception that is not devoid of comfort.

Buddhism, like Christianity, is from the point of view of its traditional origins a "failure." Buddhism, indeed, notably in the case of Burmah, has done more to mould the life of a whole people towards its ostensibly highest ethic than Christianity ever did; but Buddhism, being at best a gospel of monasticism, quietism, and mechanical routine, collapsed utterly in India, the land of its rise; and its normal practice savours little of moral or intellectual superiority to any of the creeds around it. 1 Brahmanism, which seems to have ultimately wrought its overthrow, set up in its place a revived and developed popular polytheism, on the plane of the most ignorant demotic life. Christianity, in turn, professedly the religion of peace and love, is as a system utterly without influence in suppressing war, or inter-racial malignity, or even social division. The vital curative forces as against those evils are visibly independent of Christianity. And here emerges the element of comfort.

On our Naturalistic view of the rise of the religions of the Secondary or Teaching Gods, it is sheer human aspiration that has shaped all the Christs and all their doctrines; and one of the very causes of the total miscarriage is just that persistence in crediting the human aspiration to Gods and Demigods, and representing as superhuman oracles the words of human reason. Unobtrusive men took that course hoping for the best, seeking a short cut to moral influence; but they erred grievously. So to disguise and denaturalise wise thoughts and humane principles was to keep undeveloped the very reasoning faculty which could best appreciate them. Men taught to bow ethically to a Divine Teacher are not taught ethically to think: any aspiration so evoked in them is factitious, vestural, verbal, or at best emotionally superinduced, not reached by authentic thought and experience. When, haply, the nameless thinkers who in all ages have realised and distilled the wisdom or unwisdom given out as divine are recognised in their work for what they were, and their successors succeed in persuading the many to realise for them- selves the humanness of all doctrine, the nations may perchance become capable of working out for themselves better gospels than the best of those which turned to naught in their hands while they held them as revelations from the skies.

Footnotes

258:1 É. Senart, Essai sur la légende de Buddha, 2e édit. 1882, pp. xi-xii.

259:1 Id. pp. 441-3.

259:2 Der Buddha, 3te Aufl. pp. 159-160, 180.

259:3 Cp. Baur's answer to Rückert, Paulus, Kap. iv, note 2 (p. 417). And now Baur's own assumptions as to Paul are rejected by the school of van Manen.

260:1 I. p. Minayeff, Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, trad. fr. 1894, p. 2.

260:2 Cp. Oldenberg's strictures on Minayeff, "Buddhistische Studien," in Z. D. M. G.. vol. lii, 1898.

260:3 Hib. Lect. p. 264.

260:4 Davids, Early Buddhism, 1908, pp. 29, 49; Buddhist India, p. 17; H. Hackmann, Buddhism as a Religion, 1909; Dr. Fleet, Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc., 1906.

261:1 By M. Barth in the Journ. des Savants, October, 1906.

261:2 Vincent Smith, Early History of India, 1908, p. 14.

261:3 Histoire du Bouddhisme dans l’Inde, 1901, i, 263-4; cp. p. 241.

261:4 Kern, i, 264.

261:5 Cp. I. p. Minayeff, Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, trad. fr. 1894, pp. 157-180.

262:1 Senart, Essai, p. 448.

262:2 Essai, Introd. pp. xxii-xxiii and p. 451.

262:3 Bishop Copleston, Buddhism Primitive and Present, ed. 1905, p. 53; Geiger, Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa, 1905, p. 11.

262:4 Bloch, "Einfluss der altbuddhistischen Kunst auf die Buddha-Legende." in Z. D. M. G., 1908, Heft 2, pp. 370-1.

263:1 Cp. Koeppen, Die Religion des Buddha, i, 565; Davids, Buddhism, pp. 210, 246-250.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch58.htm

How to spot a Buddhist cult

2011-11-17T12:06:00.000-08:00

By Upasaka HL Wai, The Buddhist Channel, July 2, 2007

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -- Like any other major religions in the world, Buddhism also has its fair share of cults. Whether the leader is called Guru Rinpoche, Sifu or Bhante, as long as there is tendency to use and abuse the Dharma for personal gain, such as in getting followers to feed on the leader's ego or eccentricity, cultist will always exist. Cults will also thrive as long as there are followers who willingly or have been unwittingly misled.

A cult is defined by the Free Dictionary as, (1) A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader, (2) A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease and (3) Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

Here are some key signs where cultists can be spotted.

The leader is always right

Charismatic leadership demonstrates itself very strongly in a cult situation. The maxim is that "the leader is always right". More often than not, his "holiness" is self anointed and various honorific titles are produced without any clear evidence of certification. When questioned in particular about their ordination, specifically about where, how and when it took place, their replies are usually evasive, or at best a rambling list of obscure meanings (such as "a lineage of no school").

The leader will claim supreme knowledge in a body of information (vinaya, suttas or liturgy), and may use certain verses to justify their thoughts and actions. With this mind set, he feels he has the divine authority to instruct people how to live and how to behave (like the saying goes, the one eyed leads in the kingdom of the blind).

No questioning

Cult followers are wont to quote their leaders without ever questioning them. To question the leader of a cult may result in sanction or abandonment by other members and the leader. Even the "Kalama Sutta" can be twisted to suit their interpretation. One of the favorite verses is the selective application that only "... when you yourselves know: "These things (actions) are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them."

The problem with this is that followers are time and again told that they are "Dharma learners", that due to their "ignorance", they need to practice more diligently before they can decide for themselves. As such, it is imperative to form "spiritual friendship" kalyana mitra), the special bonding between "teacher and the apprentice". Unfortunately, cultist tends to exploit this relationship for their own purpose, which eventually leads to a perpetuation of a parasitic system or continuous dependency. This is anti-thesis to the symbiotic relationships that exist between the Sangha and lay followers as established in mainstream schools.

Cult followers will display an unquestionable zeal for their leader and will refuse to accept that their leader is ever wrong. The more extreme cases will even resort to violence to protect their teacher.

The whole world is against us

Public criticism and admonishment by those who are seen to be more knowledgeable or popular usually drive cult leaders to assume the "underdog" situation. Followers are constantly reminded that they are being bullied by "unseen" hands, by people in authority and by those who are "jealous" of their unorthodox ways. Their only way to counter such forces is to "band together".

No one else is right

Cult leaders believe they hold the monopoly of truth in their method of teachings and the way of practice. Anyone wishing to attend or visit another Dharma group or center is shunned by the rest of the congregation and considered to be a backslider. There was a case in Malaysia where a cult teacher grossly abused the Puggala Pannatti (the book of Classification of Four Types of Individuals) to brand those who did not follow prescribed rituals and modes of behavior as "padaparama" - individuals who cannot obtain release from worldly ills during this life-time even though he or she puts forth the best effort the Dhamma practice. To move up the scale, all one has to do is to strictly follow the prescribe methods and listen to the teacher's instructions.

Financial Exploitation

Cult is usually preoccupied with raising money, either for charitable purposes or to build their center. One of their favorite methods is to emphasize on the teachings of "non-self", "egolessness", "greed" and "emptiness" and then relating it to how one's personal wealth had less "merit" compared to those who shares it with the community to spread the Dharma. Cult groups teach that sacrificing for the better good of the organization is far better than putting one's money elsewhere.

Using fear and intimidation

Cult religions rely on private and public intimidation to keep their members in line. In Buddhism particularly, where the emphasis of mind training through meditation is integral to the practice, weak individuals or those facing personal problems are especially susceptible to such treatment. Through their charisma, cult leaders are adept at "empathizing" with those facing personal problems.

When the leader gets angry and uses harsh words, they explain it away as an expression of "love and compassion". Some justify this by labeling the aggressive response as "fierce friendship". And when the targeted member is also subjected to peer pressure to "modify his or her behavior", the intimidation becomes complete. This is what "mob psychology" is all about.

As a result, members of the cult group continuously face intra-group battles to maintain their desire to be accepted and their status may change depending on what's going on in their life. In this way religious cult leaders are able to keep a steady stream of members obligated and bound to their organization.

Brainwashing

Almost all Buddhist cults use some form of mind altering techniques such as meditation, fear of the teacher, fear of "bad karma" and emotional manipulation to brainwash the members of the congregation to stay.

Such leaders are also adept at pricking on guilt conscience, often playing with the mind of the confused, giving personal counseling about "observations of mental formations" after a round of sitting.

Rather than leading the student to strengthen personal resolve to face their internal demons, the cultist would instead cultivate ideas of deliverance through community support, thereby perpetuating dependency on external forces.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,4410,0,0,1,0

There is more information on this website after the article: see How to Handle a Cult Situation, and after that even more articles.

Why I Left Buddhism

2011-11-16T12:15:00.000-08:00

Finally, there's a life-denying aspect to the whole thing, no matter how much Western Buddhists try to deny this (I was one, I know). The Buddhist ideal is someone who is weary of the world, and turns his or her back on earthly pleasures. You're taught that to take pleasure in food or sex or even friendship will only ensnare you more deeply in suffering. The Buddha could have taught St. Paul a thing or two about celibacy and marriage, none of it good. Maybe this kind of attitude makes sense if the alternative is an infinite series of suffering-filled rebirths, but it doesn't make a lot of sense in a world view where you have a single life to live. I've even heard Buddhist monks say as much--if they didn't believe that they were liberating themselves from an endless cycle of suffering, they would NEVER try to aspire to extinguish their desires and forsake pleasure.

I wanted to start my own thread instead of creating confusion on another about someone who was interested in learning about some of the concepts.

I'm never going to be completely critical of the Buddhist religion, but I found that it wasn't for me.

When I was involved in Buddhism, I never was like the typical agnostic and/or atheistic, bitter, hostile, slightly antisocial Westerner who usually got involved with it. (Mainly hippies or hippie wannabes at that time.) I wasn't agnostic either because I believe in God and that God is really, really big and can't be contained in one creed or dogma. (i.e. God is Great, literally.)

I was first attracted by Buddhism's view of mental health as it relates to spirituality. Buddhism seemed almost crystal clear in its approach. I began to have some faith that it was the "middle way" between belief and disbelief--i.e. it encouraged one to think, to observe, and to experience for oneself. That was like a breath of autumn air to me from the heat of summer.

But the outright hostility to theism from some of the believers was something I couldn't swallow. It didn't turn me off to some of the methods (vipassana, as a prime example, or zazen) or to the moral message of Buddha, but it did seem to be somewhat "empty" for me. Since Buddha did not encourage metaphysics, there still remained questions about God that I wasn't getting an answer to by means of that religion.

On the other hand, it didn't appear that Buddha himself was a complete atheist. The story goes that after his enlightenment "Brahma" came to him and encouraged him to "teach the Dharma (religion) for the weal of the world." Some traditionalists have assumed that "Brahma" was the Hindu god of creation, while others (myself included) insist that "Brahma" is in fact the Supreme Brahman (the Godhead.) This visitation or inspiration by "Brahma" was said to awaken the Buddha's "heart of compassion" and begin his mission as the Fully Awakened One.

Moreover, there is the story in the Tevigga Sutta (of the Pali canon http://www.sacred-te...ob/dob-13in.htm ) that three brahmin (those of the "priestly caste" of Hinduism) came to Buddha with questions about this same "Brahma" (Brahman) and the way to Him. The gist of Buddha's answer was that no one could say what the way to Brahman was, unless they saw Brahman "face to face", as he did. And it is from this sutta, among others, that the famous "Four Divine Abodes" teaching of Buddha originated. In Pali, these were called "Brahmaviharas." English translation: "Abodes of God". These are: 1) loving-kindness or benevolence, 2) compassion, 3) sympathetic joy, and, 4) equanimity. The Buddhist teachings further suggests that a person doesn't have "enlightenment" (Bodhi) unless he is in full possession of these four "abodes."

A Hindu holy man of great renown in the 20th century, Sri Ramana Maharshi, provided about the best summary of Buddhism that you can get. Here is a quote from a book titled "The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" by Sir Arthur Osborne:

Q. "Buddha is said to have ignored questions about God."

Ramana Maharshi: "Yes, and for this he has been called an agnostic. In fact, Buddha was more concerned with leading the seeker to Bliss here and now, rather than with academic speculations about God and so forth."

Of course, I can't speak for everyone else, but it eventually dawned on me that I couldn't continue.I wasn't seeing anyone becoming "enlightened," as mentioned in the suttas, and, for as long as I was involved, I certainly never achieved it. (Of course, I'm speaking only from my own experience.)So I became disappointed and disillusioned with Buddhism because it just wasn't working for me.

And this is a brief summary of my experiences with Buddhism.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=129202

Lust for Enlightenment by John Stevens

2011-11-16T07:39:00.000-08:00

My Review:

John Stevens is a Zen scholar and Aikido instructor who has also written The Way of Harmony and Sacred Calligraphy of the East. He is also a Professor of Buddhist Studies in Tohoku Social Welfare University in Sendai, Japan.

This book was an eye-opener for me. For one thing, I had not read the monastic code in quite some time, and having it introduced again in a condensed version helped me to see things differently. For one thing it caused me to think of Buddha in a different manner, one of a person that expected way too much from his monks in the way of celibacy. Certainly not all men and women are able to be celibate, and hopefully, being asked to leave the monastery did not add more suffering to their already so-called “fallen state” in the way of shame or even shunning.

I also used to idolize the monastic life; I don't now. I am not sure how I even feel about Buddhism anymore.

I found this to be interesting:

“Although it may have been officially proscribed, homosexuality in fact flourished in Buddhist monasteries throughout the centuries: In China the character for hemorrhoids is ‘temple illness’: male love is said to not have existed in Japan until it was introduced by Buddhist monks in the ninth century; homosexuality was prevalent in Yellow Hat monasteries in Tibet and was regarded as a virtue, since it meant that a monk had completely conquered sexual attachment to women.”

All in all, the book gave me a complete different view of monastic life, leaving me with the belief that celibacy is out dated just as Stephen Batchelor had stated.

Rumors of vice rattle China's Shaolin monastery and the home of kung fu

2011-11-14T05:35:00.000-08:00

Shi Yongxin, abbot of China's Shaolin monastery, where kung fu and Zen Buddhism were born, has been attacked by Internet rumors alleging improper behavior. The abbot has long been a controversial figure in China.

By Peter Ford, Staff writer / October 14, 2011

Beijing

The abbot of Shaolin monastery, the home of kung fu, is in trouble again, beset by renewed online rumors that he lives a less than pure life.

The latest rumors spreading on China’s lively and not always reliable Internet accuse the abbot of maintaining a mistress and son in Germany, and of holding huge sums of money in foreign bank accounts.

The monastery issued a statement Thursday denying the stories as “vicious lies woven from nothing but causing great damage to the abbot Shi Yongxin and the Buddhist temple itself.” It gave an email address and phone number for the 1,500 year old monastery, “inviting anyone who has any evidence” of his eminence’s alleged misdeeds “to report directly.”

Only last May, abbot Shi was shaking off rumors that he had been caught visiting a prostitute during an anti-vice sweep by police in the province of Henan, where the Shaolin temple is located.

Shi, the 30^th abbot of the temple where Zen Buddhism was born, has attracted a good deal of criticism in China for the manner in which he has commercialized his shrine. Aside from sending teams of kung fu monks on international tours, Shi - who earned an MBA and is known as “the CEO monk” - has franchised a chain of Shaolin-run monasteries, licensed the Shaolin name to films and cartoon shows and gone into online sales.

He has brushed off criticism of such moves, once telling the official Xinhua news agency that “commercialization…is a path leading up to the truth of Zen.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/1014/Rumors-of-vice-rattle-China-s-Shaolin-monastery-and-the-home-of-kung-fu

Why I Ditched Buddhism

2011-11-13T10:49:00.000-08:00

Buddhist Retreat

Why I gave up on finding my religion.

By John Horgan
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003, at 3:54 PM ET

Buddha: a pragamatist focused on reducing suffering

For a 2,500-year-old religion, Buddhism seems remarkably compatible with our scientifically oriented culture, which may explain its surging popularity here in America. Over the last 15 years, the number of Buddhist centers in the United States has more than doubled, to well over 1,000. As many as 4 million Americans now practice Buddhism, surpassing the total of Episcopalians. Of these Buddhists, half have post-graduate degrees, according to one survey. Recently, convergences between science and Buddhism have been explored in a slew of books—including Zen and the Brain and The Psychology of Awakening—and scholarly meetings. Next fall Harvard will host a colloquium titled "Investigating the Mind," where leading cognitive scientists will swap theories with the Dalai Lama. Just the other week the New York Times hailed the "rapprochement between modern science and ancient [Buddhist] wisdom."

Four years ago, I joined a Buddhist meditation class and began talking to (and reading books by) intellectuals sympathetic to Buddhism. Eventually, and regretfully, I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than the Catholicism I lapsed from in my youth; Buddhism's moral and metaphysical worldview cannot easily be reconciled with science—or, more generally, with modern humanistic values.

For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human suffering. As the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman put it, Buddhism is an "inner science," an empirical discipline for fulfilling our minds' potential. The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenment—Buddhism's version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there.

The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.

The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does.

Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.

Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.

What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom.

But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.

Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an "agnostic" perspective in spite of his Buddhist training—not because of it. When I asked him why he didn't just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself.

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel. Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of spirituality can.

http://www.slate.com/id/2078486/

by Josey

Is Buddhism a Peaceful Religion?

2011-11-12T12:19:00.000-08:00

Buddha:

“All men tremble at punishment, all men fear death; remembering that thou are like unto them, do not strike or slay.
All men tremble at punishment, all men love life: remembering that thou are like unto them, do not strike or slay.” –The Dhammapada

“When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."- Buddha (Samyutta Nikiya XL11 Pali Canon)

And then the Dalai Lama:

"Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." –Dalai Lama

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence.” –Dalai Lama

“Theoretically speaking, in order to achieve great benefit for a greater number of people, you can use a violent method. This is true in Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhism and is one of the things that separate these schools from Theravada Buddhism.” –Dalai Lama

“There is a famous story about the five hundred merchants crossing the sea and the leader of the merchants realized that one of the wanted to kill all the people on the boat. So in order not only to save the people on the boat but also to save this man from committing the sin, the lead merchant took on the sin of killing the murderer before the action took place.” –Dalai Lama

“Yes. It’s a unique aspect of Mahayana Buddhism, even from ancient times. One reason that ancient Hinayana (Theravada) monks argued that Mahayana was not taught by Buddha was that in the Mahayana there are teachings that say that there could be occasions where even killing could be permitted.” –Dalai Lama from the book, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama by Thomas Laird

Why are the Buddha’s teachings so different from the Dalai Lamas? But, I need to say first, that this isn’t just about the Dalai Lama or Tibetan Buddhism, but it does show degeneration in Buddhism in the Tibetan Buddhist sects, but this degeneration also takes place in other forms of Buddhism.

According to a 7^th Century Chan text the, Treatise on Absolute Contemplation:

“Killing is evil only in the event that the killer fails to recognize his victim as empty and dream-like. On the contrary, if one no longer sees his opponent as a living being separate from emptiness, then he is free to kill him at will.”

These teachings came to be because Buddhism was actually hijacked by Confucianism and Taoism in ancient China. Dogen, a Japanese Zen Buddhist Master, observed this and said that Taoism and Confucianism were inferior to Buddhism. What few people know is that Lao-tzu instructed one of his would be students to “kill seven people, including the latter’s own mother and father.” Knowing this Dogen said:

“The Tathagate, for his part, based his teachings on the need for great compassion. Where, then, did Lao-tzu find the basis for his treacherous teachings?”

There is also the Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of “skillful/expedient means,” which allows teachers “to adapt their message to the needs and capacity of their audience.”

The story in the Lotus Sutra that is used as an example is that of the burning house, and of the child who would not come out, so the parents then lie to the child in order to get him to come out of the house as an act to save him. This was always meant to be used with compassion and wisdom, but this doctrine is not benign, because it has been used over the centuries by teachers to justify breaking the precepts, thereby causing harm to others. One example is how such teacher cut the finger off one of his disciples to teach him a lesson.

Then there in the book by the 5^th Dalai Lama, Song of the Queen of Spring: “while he does not explicitly employ the justification that particular acts of violence ought to be understood as beneficial and compassionate toward their target, he makes such arguments elsewhere in the text…Still, the main thrust of the language surrounding the khan is directed toward justifying his warfare by virtue of his identity as a righteous-warrior king, a man who is rhetorically connected to many of the post potent emblematic figures in the Indo-Tibetan symbolic universe.”

This above text is, “suggesting that highly advanced Buddhist yogins may be able to undertake acts of violence that serve salutary ends without themselves experiencing afflictive emotion.” This was never Buddha’s teaching, but throughout history some Buddhist teachers have learned to justify war, especially in Asian countries where the sangha has to serve aggressive leaders.

The Zen school has also been deeply influence by the Mahayana belief that there are two levels of truth, conventional and ultimate. By placing emphasis on the ultimate conventional truth they have devalued human life to the point that it became worthless. Yet, while the self is “ultimately empty:” One has to take into account the fact that the pain and suffering is real, which is the conventional truth. But Zen leaders collapsed these teachings into one teaching, which was never intended by the Buddha, who always taught that compassion was most important.

So, while Buddha taught peace, the incorporation of the Mahayana texts changed Buddhism. And while I would like to think that this did not affect the Theravada teachings, I learned this of the Theravada Thai Buddhist monks:

"Modern Thai and Sri Lankan monks rely on the Abhidhamma of the Pali Canon that emphasizes intention and claims that, if the killing is committed with the right state of mind (detachment or compassion), it entails no karmic consequence and therefore can be considered to be a wholesome act." (Buddhist Warfare page 214.)

So this makes killing a selfless act in that one is not killing out of hatred or anger but out of compassion for one’s fellow man. But I have a hard time believing that Buddha meant for “intention” to be used as a justification for killing others in battle, because, for one, he says to never slay another being. Then during his life, his actions were always consistent with what is stated in the Dhammapada. He always tried to prevent war, as in his successful action to prevent King Ajatasttu from attacking the Vajjians. Even when his own homeland was at stake, he did not mobilize his sangha to fight.

So is Buddhism peaceful? It certainly has that reputation. I believe the intentions of Buddha were peaceful and compassionate but since then the teachings have greatly taking a downward turn, and so now you have many teachers speaking about peace, but they are actually talking out of two sides of their mouths.

The Buddha Myth 2

2011-11-12T03:50:00.000-08:00

Pagan Christs, by John M. Robertson, [1911], at sacred-texts.com

p. 258

§ 13. The Buddha Myth.

In the introduction to M. Senart's Essai sur la légende de Buddha, the most comprehensive and scientific attempt of the kind yet made, the central problem is thus posited:—

p. 259

construct a sufficiently reasonable biography by proceeding as has hitherto been done in regard to the legend of Buddha.

p. 260

The recent attempts to establish the historicity of Gotama Buddha by excavated tomb-remains 4—a kind of evidence which obviously could prove nothing as to the achievements or teaching

p. 261

p. 262

p. 263

Footnotes

258:1 É. Senart, Essai sur la légende de Buddha, 2e édit. 1882, pp. xi-xii.

259:1 Id. pp. 441-3.

259:2 Der Buddha, 3te Aufl. pp. 159-160, 180.

259:3 Cp. Baur's answer to Rückert, Paulus, Kap. iv, note 2 (p. 417). And now Baur's own assumptions as to Paul are rejected by the school of van Manen.

260:1 I. p. Minayeff, Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, trad. fr. 1894, p. 2.

260:2 Cp. Oldenberg's strictures on Minayeff, "Buddhistische Studien," in Z. D. M. G.. vol. lii, 1898.

260:3 Hib. Lect. p. 264.

260:4 Davids, Early Buddhism, 1908, pp. 29, 49; Buddhist India, p. 17; H. Hackmann, Buddhism as a Religion, 1909; Dr. Fleet, Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc., 1906.

261:1 By M. Barth in the Journ. des Savants, October, 1906.

261:2 Vincent Smith, Early History of India, 1908, p. 14.

261:3 Histoire du Bouddhisme dans l’Inde, 1901, i, 263-4; cp. p. 241.

261:4 Kern, i, 264.

261:5 Cp. I. p. Minayeff, Recherches sur le Bouddhisme, trad. fr. 1894, pp. 157-180.

262:1 Senart, Essai, p. 448.

262:2 Essai, Introd. pp. xxii-xxiii and p. 451.

262:3 Bishop Copleston, Buddhism Primitive and Present, ed. 1905, p. 53; Geiger, Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa, 1905, p. 11.

262:4 Bloch, "Einfluss der altbuddhistischen Kunst auf die Buddha-Legende." in Z. D. M. G., 1908, Heft 2, pp. 370-1.

263:1 Cp. Koeppen, Die Religion des Buddha, i, 565; Davids, Buddhism, pp. 210, 246-250.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch58.htm

The Buddha Myth

2011-11-12T03:38:00.000-08:00

by JM Robertson

(Editor's Note: Athough it is widely believed that "the Buddha" was a real person who lived about 2600 years ago, it can be demonstrated that, as he is portrayed within orthodox Buddhism, Buddha is legendary and mythical. As concerns the supposed historicity of Buddha, the following are excerpts from the excellent book Pagan Christs by JM Robertson. Robertson was a true scholar, and he provided invaluable and sound research. More information regarding the mythical nature of Buddha and the solar origins of Buddhism can be found in Suns of God: Buddha, Krishna and Christ Unveiled.)

According to tradition, the founder of Buddhism was a Hindu named Siddhattha, son of the rajah of the Sakyan clan which dwelt in the foothills of the Himalayas. He is sometimes referred to as a Sakyamuni (muni meaning Sage), sometimes as Tathagata (literally "One who has come, or gone, This Far"), more usually as Gotama Buddha. The term Buddha is a title, not a personal name. Gotama is referred to as the Buddha after his Enlightenment, which is reputed to have occurred in 528 B.C. in Bihar. Thereafter he abandoned family life and promulgated his doctrine of deliverance from suffering and attainment of ultimate peace, Nirvana.

His teaching is called the Dhamma (Sanskrit Dharma), and is summed up in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path....

There were many sects and sages in India 2500 years ago, but their teachings were transmitted orally. The Buddhist Dhamma was not written down for centuries after it had been first enunciated. The various Sanskrit and Pali texts which purport to contain the original teachings are therefore the product of evolution, and it is impossible to say which of the divergent interpretations, if any, represents the pristine form. What is quite certain is that the underlying philosophy had a great deal in common with ideas prevalent at the time. It bears some resemblance to the contemporary Jainist movement.

The breakaway from Hindu ritualism was not a unique innovation; neither was there anything new in the founding of an order of monks. Various sects were already organized as mendicant monks, and it was an established custom for them to meet periodically and proclaim their teaching in public. The early Buddhists followed this familiar pattern. They made modifications, of course, and one feature was the rejection of the severe austerities which were practiced by some of the sects.

The Series of Buddha

Not only have we no six-century record of the rules of the Buddhist Sangha, as the order was called, but it did not claim to be a new teaching. The tradition holds that it had been promulgated many times before—that Gotama was only one of a long series of Buddhas who arise at intervals and who all teach the same doctrine. The names of twenty-four of such Buddhas who appeared before Gotama have been recorded. The number and names may well be late inventions, but there can be no question about the belief in their existence. It was held that after the death of each Buddha, his religion flourishes for a time and then decays. After it is forgotten, a new Buddha emerges and preaches the lost Dhamma, or Truth. In the fourth century A.D., a sect of Buddhists rejected Gotama and venerated instead the three previous Buddhas. They especially reverenced one of them, Kasyapa, and were actually joined in by the orthodox in worship as his tomb.

It seems quite probable in the light of these facts that any number of teachings attributed to "the Buddha" may have been in existence either before or at the time when Gotama was believed to have lived. They might all have been attributed to a sage with the title of "the Blessed One." They might include teachings that were ascribed later to Gotama.

The name Gotama is a common one; it is also full of mythological associations. There was admittedly another Gotama known to the early Buddhists, who founded an order. So what proof is there that the sayings and doings of different Gotamas may not have been ascribed to one person?...

The Documentary Evidence

...Looking then, for a foothold among the shifting sands of Buddhist tradition we note the following clashing records:

(1) The Buddha is represented in ostensibly early and late tradition as speaking of the Gods with full belief in their existence.

(2) He is represented on the one hand as discouraging sacrifices, and on the other as prescribing for a whole tribe a strict adherence to ancient rites.

(3) King Asoka, who figured as a good Buddhist in the early vigor of the movement, about 250 B.C., habitually called himself "the delight of the Gods" as did his contemporary, the pious Buddhist king of Ceylon.

(4) The Buddha is represented as throwing his Order open to all classes and at the same time making the name "Brahmin" a term of honor for his Arahats and saints. Brahmins were among the most distinguished disciples.

(5) On the principle that Buddha delivered the whole cannon, much teaching that certainly did not come from him is ascribed to him.

(6) Much of the philosophy set forth as his teaching is identical with the Sankhya system, germs of which are admittedly pre-Buddhistic.

What doctrines, it must now be asked, were special to Buddhism? Not Karma, that was common property which Buddhism shared. Not in asserting that a right mind was superior to sacrifice, that was a primary doctrine of the Jains, and pre-Buddhistic, both within and without the pale of Brahmanism. Not in seeking a way to salvation independently of the Vedas, that had been done by many teachers in various sects. Not in the doctrine that defilement comes not from unclean meats but from evil deeds and words and thoughts; Buddhist writers themselves say that is derived from previous Buddhas. Not in the search for peace through self-control and renunciation; that was the quest of a myriad recluses and all previous Buddhas. Not in the view that there is a higher wisdom than that attained by austerities; that, too, is pre-Buddhistic. Not in the doctrine that non-Brahmans could join an Order and attain religious blessedness; other orders were open to men of low social status and even to slaves. Indeed, the rigid separation of caste was not yet established in the early days of Buddhism. Brahmin claims were exorbitantly high, but many Brahmins waived them and they did not apply to ascetics. Early Buddhists, like the early Christians, did not admit runaway slaves to the Order.

The admission of women was not an innovation as it was practiced by the Jains, and even the tradition makes the Buddha accept it reluctantly in the twenty-fifth year of his preaching. There seems, in short, to be nothing on the face of the doctrine to account for the expansion of the Buddhist movement....

Buddha as a Secondary God

We can now make a critical assessment of Buddhist origins. The Teaching Buddha, considered as the wondrous sage who established a great Order in his lifetime, shrinks to vanishing point. The suspicion that Sakyamuni is an unreal being is finally justified. The Order probably originated among ascetic Brahmins who may have been led to rationalism as a result of renouncing the Vedas....

Objections Answered

It is reasonable to wonder why so many scholars, while admitting the tissue of fable and unplausible history surrounding the origins of Buddhism, nevertheless still believe that Sakyamuni actually existed. They usually justify their attitude by the argument that every sect must have had a founder. This assumption can be allowed if it is merely taken to mean that someone must have begun the formation of any given group. It is clearly not true in the sense that every sect originates in the new teaching of a remarkable personage.

As we have seen, there was in all probability a group of heretical Brahmanists for whom a Buddha signified "the enlightened one." Even so, there were many Buddhas before the quasi-historical Buddha had acquired a personality, like the slain Jesus of the Pauline Epistles....

A sufficient nucleus for the Buddha lay in the general Brahmanic concept of "Buddhas." There is even a tradition that at the time when Sakyamuni came, many men ran about saying "I am the Buddha."...

On these grounds it is submitted that the figure of the Buddha, in its most plausibly rationalized form, is as unhistorical as that of the gospel Jesus. Each figure shows how the religious mind manufactured a myth in a period in which the making of primary Gods had given way to the making of Secondary-gods. The mythopoeic process satisfied the craving for a Teacher-god who should originate religious and moral ideas as the earlier gods had been held to originate agriculture, art, medicine, law and civilization.

Buddhism, like Christianity, is a "failure" from the point of view of its traditional origins. In the case of Burma it admittedly did more to mold the life of the whole people towards its highest ethic than Christianity ever did; but in India, where it arose, it collapsed utterly. It was overthrown by Brahmanism which set up in its place a revived polytheism.

On our naturalistic view of the rise of the Teaching-gods, it is sheer human aspiration that has shaped all the Christs and their doctrines. One reason why the original teachings fail is that men persisted in crediting purely human aspiration to supernatural beings. Men who are taught to bow ethically to a divine Teacher are not taught ethically to think. Any aspiration so evoked is factitious, verbal, emotional, not reached by authentic thought and experience. When the wisdom or unwisdom of the nameless thinkers in all ages is recognized for what it is—as human and not divine—the nations may become capable of working out for themselves better gospels than the best of those which turned to naught in their hands while they held them as revelations from the skies.

For more information concerning the Buddha myth, please see "The Origins of Christianity" as well as The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled. Also, see "Is Buddhism All It's Cracked Up to Be?"

http://www.truthbeknown.com/buddha.htm

Who is Who in Reincarnation and the Power of Gurus

2011-11-11T12:03:00.000-08:00

Paramhansa Yogananda and Kriya Yoga: A Comparative Analysis

By Peter Holleran

"You must not let your life run in the ordinary way; do something that nobody else has done, something that will dazzle the world. Show that God's creative principle works in you."

Paramhansa Yogananda (1893-1952) was perhaps the equal of Swami Vivekananda in widely disseminating Indian yoga to the West. The Kriya Yoga path he taught was essentially an emanationist mystical path with similarities to both kundalini and shabd yoga. This essay will dissect its philosophy and practice and compare and contrast it with both shabd yoga and the path of jnana as espoused by sages such as Ramana Maharshi, Paul Brunton (PB), and others.

Yogananda was born Mukund Lal Ghosh into a devout Hindu family. His parents were disciples of Lahiri Mahasay, the modern exponent of Kriya Yoga. The young boy Mukunda used to meditate with his mother in front of a picture of their guru, and on many occasions the image of the photograph would take on living form and sit beside them. At the age of eight Mukunda was healed of cholera when, gazing upon Lahiri’s picture, he was enveloped in a blinding light which filled the entire room. His mother died when he was eleven, and she left a message for him saying that Lahiri had told her that one day Yogananda would carry many souls to freedom and that he had actually been spiritually initiated or baptised by him during infancy.

Yogananda was, like so many great souls, a very mischievious, fun-loving, and strong-willed youth. He was also possessed of numerous yogic abilities from a young age. Once, while walking along a road with his brother and a friend, Yogananda (known as "Medja" by his friends and siblings) decided to have some fun. The group was overwhelmed by the horrible smell of some rotting, maggot-ridden rice wafting in their direction. Yogananda boasted that since he realized that God was in everything he could therefore eat some of the rice without coming to any harm. His friend, Surenda, mocked him, saying that if Yogananda could eat the disgusting mess, then so could he! Whereupon Yogananda calmly picked up a handful of the putrid rice and ate it as if it were the most delicious of treats. His friend ran, fearing his upcoming fate, with Yogananda in hot pursuit, but he couldn't outrun the future saint. Yogananda shoved a handful of the rice in Surenda's mouth and the boy promptly vomited and nearly passed out. Yogananda rubbed his chest, smiling, and Surenda recovered and conceded his defeat.

Yogananda lived in a rich spiritual milieu and met many holy men before accepting kriya yoga initiation from Sri Yukteswar. He liked to go to the temple at Dakshineswar and engage in devotion to the Divine Mother and Ramakrishna. Here he said that the radiance of Divine Light from the image of the Mother's body filled his own body, mind, and soul. Later he spent time with brother disciples of that great saint. He also received instruction as a youth in shabd yoga techniques from the brother of his brother-in-law, Charu Chandra Basu, who was a Radhasoami initiate, and practiced meditation on inner light and sound for some time with rapid and spectacular results, although he later always considered it complementary to his devotion to the Kriya yoga as taught by Lahiri Mahasay, and which he considered a superior path.

One personage of particular importance to Yogananda was Master Mahasaya, or Mahendra Nath Gupta (otherwise known as "M”, the author of The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna), who blessed Yogananda with several breath-stopping mystical experiences, including his first experience of samadhi, similar in nature to the touch that Ramakrishna gave to Vivekananda:

"I experienced that the Center of the Supreme Heavenly Abode was actually a place deep within myself and that the place of experience within was spawned by the Same. It was as if the entire creation was emanating from my Being and the radiance of an incredibly beautiful Light was spreading through the Sahasrar. 'It is His river of nectar flowing through the world'. A flow of liquid nectar was rushing through body and mind - waves upon waves. I heard the Onkar Sound, the Sound of Brahman - the thunderous Pranava resonance - the First Pulse of the creation of the Universe. Suddenly, my breath came back into the lungs. Oh, if I could only express how my heart was filled with disappointment. I cannot tell you. That Great Being of mine was completely gone. Again I came back and was imprisoned by this insignificant and miniscule physical cage - this thing that cannot contain that Colossal Person of the Atman. Like the prodigal son described in the Bible, I left my Immense Abode of the Cosmos, and again entered this tiny 'pot' of the body." (Swami Satyananda Giri, A Collection of Biographies of 4 Kriya Yoga Gurus, Yoga Niketan, 2004, p. 255)

Yukteswar commissioned Yogananda to spread the teachings of Kriya Yoga to the West and in 1920 he sailed for America. Except for a brief period in the 1930's, Yogananda remained in America for thirty years, teaching and initiating over 100,000 people into Kriya Yoga, and establishing the Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) on the Mount Washington Estates in Los Angeles. One of the first Indian teachers along with Swami Vivekananda to come to America, Yogananda's intention was not, as he put it, to "Indianize" Westerners, but to awaken them to their own inherent spirituality. "Being a Westerner," he said, "is no excuse for not seeking God. It is vital to every man that he discover his soul and know his immortal nature."

A vital, energetic individual with a free spirit, Yogananda visited many famous people in search of spiritual influences and kindred souls. The Autobiography of a Yogi tells of his meetings with RabindranathTagore, Luther Burbank, Calvin Coolidge, Therese Neuman, and Ramana Maharshi. He also saw Anandamayi Ma, Mahatma Gandhi, and many other notable figures. While at the ashram of Ramana he met Paul Brunton and also an advanced disciple of the sage known as Yogi Ramiah. Yogananda considered Ramiah to be a fully enlightened soul. (1) Interestingly, it was to Maharshi that Yogananda sent a young inquisitive Robert Adams, when the latter questioned him on the limits of kriya yoga for attaining Self-Realization, and why he bothered to teach it. Yogananda’s response was, “I am doing very well, thank you, doing things the way I am,” but nevertheless recommended that Adams see Ramana.

Towards the end, Kriyananda recounts:

"During this last period of his life, he was very much withdrawn from outward consciousness. He hardly seemed even to have a personality. Truly, as he often told us, "I killed Yogananda long ago. No one dwells in this temple but God..I won my liberation many lifetimes ago." To the monks...he said, "When I see that God wants me to be born again in another body to help others, and when I see that I am to re-assume a personality, it seems at first a bit like donning an overcoat on a summer day; hot, and a bit itchy. Then," he concluded, "I get used to it." (2)

When Yogananda died his body remained in a state of perfect preservation for twenty days afterwards, when his casket was finally sealed. This example of yogic super-regeneration was evident in the case of a number of saints, such as St. Catherine of Sienna, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, as well as Sri Aurobindo.

His death itself was quite dramatic:

“Paramhansa Yogananda had often voiced this prediction: “I will not die in bed, but with my boots on, speaking of God and India.” On March 7, 1952, the prophecy was fulfilled. At a banquet in honor of the Ambassador of India, Binay R. Sen, Paramhansaji was a guest speaker. He delivered a soul-stirring address, concluding with these words from a poem he had written, “My India”: “Where Ganges, woods, Himalayan caves and men dream God - I am hallowed; my body touched that sod!” He lifted his eyes upward and entered mahasamadhi, an advanced yogi’s conscious earth-exit. He died as he lived, exhorting all to know God.“ (3)

Rajarski Janakananda (James "Saint" Lynn) succeeded Yogananda as president of SRF. Upon his death in 1951, Sri Daya Mata assumed the leadership, a position she still holds. Swami Kriyananda was forced to leave SRF in 1962 and he started his own community, the Ananda Fellowship in Nevada City, California, in the late 1960's. Roy Eugene Davis, ordained by Yogananda in 1951, started CSA, the Center for Spirtual Awareness, where he has blended Kriya yoga with a form of advaita in a refreshing manner different from the other ordained teachers of Yogananda. (His description of the stages of realization seems to differ somewhat from those of both Yogananda and his predecessors as well, as will be delineated later). As with many spiritual movement when the teacher dies, there were power struggles and controversies, none particularly earth-shaking, however, compared to other groups. Yogananda left no clearly agreed upon successor-guru, recognized no self-realized disciples, and, in fact, according to Sri Daya Mata, “before his passing on Paramahansaji said that it was God’s wish that he be the last of the YSS/SRF line of gurus.” This means that henceforth disciples would have to establish a relationship with him in their hearts as there would be no new master for a direct human guru-shisya relationship. Nevertheless it appears that Daya Mata, Kriyananda, Roy Eugene Davis, and others unmentioned were commissioned to teach Kriya yoga.

Swami Sivananda felt highly of Yogananda and issued this tribute: “A rare gem of inestimable value, the like of whom the world is yet to witness, Paramhansa Yogananda has been an ideal representative of the ancient sages and seers, the glory of India,” while His Holiness the Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram, revered spiritual leader of millions in South India, wrote of Paramhansaji: “A bright light shining in the midst of darkness, so comes on earth only rarely, where there is a real need among men. We are grateful to Yogananda for spreading Hindu philosophy in such a wonderful way in America and the West.” (4)

The Autobiography of a Yogi is a wonderfully human account of a great soul and a fascinating story of a spiritual oddysey. To have a complete picture of Yogananda's life it should, however, be supplemented with The Path: Autobiography of a Western Yogi (now retitled The Path: One Man’s Quest on the Only Path There Is, by Swami Kriyananda. In this book, imbued with devotion, are given many, many details of day by day life with the Master, whereas in Yogananda's book we are for the most part introduced to the various people he has met. Little is revealed therein of the specifics of the sadhana which Yogananda undertook nor of the realization he gained. Even so, Autobiography of A Yogi is one of the most influential spiritual chronicles of the twentieth century and with its writing the author did countless people an immense service. Kriyananda says that Yogananda was an avatar, who had attained liberation many lifetimes ago. Yogananda's most famous book is also somewhat short on a detailed description of the nature, methods, stages, and goal of the Kriya Yoga path, especially as it compares with others, although I will try to explain it as best I can based chiefly on the above-mentioned book by Kriyananda and The Essence of Self-Realization by Yogananda. The path as outlined by Yogananda appears to be different than that described by his guru, Sri Yukteswar, in the latter's book, The Holy Science, which sounds much more like shabd yoga. The specific details for actual kriya practice are given out in the lessons that members of the Self-Realization Fellowship subscribe to.

Kriya Yoga is a form of yoga practice employing breathing techniques and meditation to free consciousness from the physical, astral, and causal bodies. It is not absolutely clear, to my understanding, from Yogananda's writings, whether the goal is dis-identification with these bodies or actual dissociation from them. In his autobiography and early writings Yogananda suggests that God-Union or Liberation takes place when the soul or disembodied attention has actually separated from these three "coils" and, correspondingly, from the three worlds (physical, astral, and causal or mental). Thus divested, he calls this state of the soul "cosmic consciousness", and seems, as far as I can tell, to mean something like traditional Nirvikalpa samadhi. Yet he also describes two states before this. The first is to become "superconscious", attuned with Aum, the vibratory power of creation on all levels, and feel the universe as ones own body (which actually sounds more like "Cosmic Consciousness" as generally defined). The second is to achieve "Christ Consciousness," which is realization of the all-pervading, still consciousness, the Kutshtha Chaitanya, the reflection in all things of the consciousness of God the father beyond creation. The further achievement of Nirvikalpa beyond manifest creation, moreover, is defined in such a way that it automatically ushers in a state of sahaj, or "the samadhi-meditation state of oneness with God both beyond and within vibratory creation at the same time." (5) This does indeed seem like classically defined sahaj, but, still, inasmuch as it is equated with a meditative state of oneness, instead of just "the One," it appears that it might be a high form of yogic transformation, wherein the soul has attained Kevailya or Nirvikalpa on the inside, and feels a sense of oneness on the outside, but hasn't penetrated into the Nous or the Bodhi state as strictly defined by the sages. The SRF literature states that these three progressive states (Superconsciousness, Christ-Consciousness, and Cosmic Consciousness) unfold after one penetrates beyond the spiritual eye. There is no clear instruction as far as my research has been able to find on exactly how this happens. So we can only make assumptions in the absence of Paramhansa Yogananda to answer our questions and semantic difficulties. Perhaps he would be as impatient with us as he was with Robert Adams!

Part of the difficulty in understanding all this is that Yogananda appears to have used the word "nirbikalpa" where sages like Ramana Maharshi used the term "sahaj", and "sabikalpa" where others used "nirvikalpa." Yogananda states:

"There are two stages of samadhi. In the first, the conscousness merges into the Infinite during meditation. The yogi cannot preserve that state, however, once he comes out of his meditation. That state is known as sabikalpa samadhi."

"The next state is called nirbikalpa samadhi. In this state of consciousness you maintain your divine realization even while working or speaking or moving about in this world. Nirbikalpa is the highest realization. Once attaining that, there is no further possibility of falling back into delusion."

[The astute researcher of spiritual subjects will point out that this claim is adamantly denied by many sages, in particular Ramana Maharshi, if the traditional definition of Nirvikalpa is assumed. Our difficulty dissolves if we simply accept that Yogananda used an unconventional definition of both sabikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhis. Whether this acceptance is justified the reader will need to decide for himself.]

"I made this distinction in a chant I once wrote:

"In sabikalpa samadhi yoga
I will drown myself in my Self.
In nirbikalpa samadhi yoga
I will find myself in my Self."

(The Essence of Self-Realization, 1990, p. 196)

The aforementioned three stages of Self-realization (Superconsciousness, or attunement with the vibratory current of Om, Christ Consciousness, and Cosmic Consciousness), Yogananda equated with the Hindu version (AUM-TAT-SAT) of the Christian Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in reverse. Yogananda says that one is a Master when he attains Christ Consciousness. Yogananda states:

"In my perceptions, just as I feel my own consciousness in every part of my physical form, I feel you all to be a part of me. Everything that is living I feel within this body. I know the sensations of all. It is not imagination; it is Self-realization. This consciousness is far beyond telepathy. It is awareness of the perceptions of every being. That is the meaning of Christ Consciousness." (6)

In his poem Samadhi, from Songs for the Soul, he gives hints of his realization.

And further he writes:

"When he reidentifies with his soul as individualized ever-existing, ever-conscious, ever-new Bliss, he then merges with the all-pervading ever-existing, ever-conscious, ever-new Bliss of Spirit - even as a droplet returns to the sea. Still, that individuality is never lost; that portion of Spirit eternally retains its "memory" of that individualized existence." (7)

This latter paragraph is consistent with Shabd Yoga wherein the purified soul merges further, losing its identity in the absolute, and then returns to be soul, and the idea of a "memory" of the individualized life is consistent with PB's idea of an ever-spiralling spiritual evolution, even after sahaj is attained, or Sri Nisargadatta's assertion that in liberation every 'I am' is preserved and glorified.' Fortunately there is so much good in the devotional writings of Yogananda that in my opinion it makes up for any difficulty I have with his terminology, and I find a growing appreciation for his greatness the more I read his writings and stories about him. It makes me long for the presence of my own guru.

It would certainly, however, be interesting for a current teacher of Kriya yoga to debate with a master of the Radhasoami school as well as disciples of the Maharshi, for the former gurus attest to the existence of at least four more planes beyond the causal, which in each case is defined as the mental or ideational seed-realm, and thus still in the domain of the manamaya and vijnanamaya koshas, while the latter consider the causal realm as the transcendental root or source of attention and ego-self along with the anandamaya kosha in the right side of the heart. Both of these schools, moreover, generally argue for and aspire to cosmic, and not transcendental, realization, and therefore are especially difficult to compare with the understanding of sages such as Ramana, Paul Brunton, Shree Atmananda, Adyashanti, etc., who feel such soul-realization to be incomplete and shy of the mark. The truth of the cosmos, these sages say, can not be understood until the transcendental heart or Self which is "no-self" is realized, and one also realizes that all is Mind. When this no-self realization occurs, as contrasted with states of union, is not clear in either the Sant Mat or Kriya teachings.

Kriya yoga as popularly presented as the modern form of Raja Yoga, and is a mystical school advocating ascension of the soul to the realms of light above. It is therefore similar to gnosticism as well as Shabd Yoga. It does not appear to recognize nor is mention given as far as I have been able to determine of Jnana and Sahaj samadhis, in spite of the fact that Sri Yukteswar is referred to as "Jnanavatar" Sri Yukteswar. The problem, as discussed above, may or may not be one of terminology only. Paramhansa Yogananda, like Swami Muktananda, speaks with special praise in Autobiography of A Yogi of the causal or super causal realm, the "abode of the siddhas", but in that famous book didn’t mention or emphasize the merits of Nirvikalpa samadhi, which is the fulfilment of this ascending process [although elsewhere he certainly did, and his guru, Sri Yukteswar, certainly did so also], nor did he, as far as I can tell, speak of advaita vedanta or realization in terms of awakening (bodhi) from the dream of unenlightenment in the precise manner of the advaitic sages. Perhaps he did not do this so as to get a wide audience of western beginners "hooked" with fascinating spiritual tales. Perhaps, also, these more advanced teachings were reserved for an inner circle, such as in Ramakrishna hiding a copy of the Ashtavakra Gita strictly for Swami Vivekananda. The specifics of attaining "Christ Consciousness" and "Cosmic Consciousness" are somewhat and sometimes vague, in my opinion, as will be further explained.

One problem, if we could call it that, with Kriya Yoga is the same one facing all mystical yogas. And that is, that the same phenomena can be experienced from different points of view, according to the sages. That is, just as the everyday waking world can be experienced from the vantage point of both enlightenment and non-enlightenment, the same is the case with subtle visionary phenomena and higher samadhis. The mystic, prior to Self-Realization, perceives all experiences from the ego's point of view. So the Kriya yogi who perceives, with his mind's eye, the rings of colored light with a bright white star in the center that represent the subtle planes of the cosmos (as Swami Kriyananda recounts in his book The Path, and as Yogananda mentions in many places) must still understand or "recognize" that experience (from the point of view of truth) for it to be conclusive in terms of spiritual maturity. The white light at the center of the inner vision can not truly be entered or penetrated without ego-transcendence except, perhaps, temporarily, or at the time of death, and in ignorance, and such ego-transcendence is first attained most fundamentally either through knowledge (jnana) or when the spirit-current or attention passes away from its apparent ascending or descending course in relation to the body-mind to make its way to its transcendent locus at the root of the body-mind in the heart. Then the being can awaken further to the truth of itself and the world as the unconditional and non-dimensional heart or consciousness or Mind itself (universal Self or Soul) as sahaj samadhi.

In other words, the quality of "awakeness" can be applied to every succeeding level or stage of growth. The heart or being or consciousness must awaken prior to the experience of the higher structures of the body-mind if passage through these stages is to be free and non-binding. The sage understands Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa samadhis; the yogi only experiences them. When he returns to earth he is for the most part the same as he was, except for the subconscious certainty that there is more than gross life, but he is not enlightened directly by such experiences (although they may be useful and, according to Kriya yoga, necessary for eradicating tendencies (vasanas)). This is not abstract theory alone, with no relevance to beginners on the Way, for the beginning may determine the end result.

Yet the writings of Paramhansa Yogananda are overflowing with great heart-devotion, and have done much good to many, many people - including even Robert Adams, who felt jnana without bhakti was dry and lifeless.

“God tries us in all ways; He exposes our weakneses, that we may become aware of them and transmute them into strengths. He may send us ordeals that appear insupportable; He may sometimes seem almost to be pushing us away. But the clever devotee will say: “No, Lord, I want Thee. Nothing shall deter me in my search. My heartfelt prayer is this: Never put me through the test of obliviousness of Thy Presence.” [Note: The test of a saint].

“Do not expect a spiritual blossom every day in the garden of your life. Have faith that the Lord to whom you have surrendered yourselves will bring your divine fulfillment at the proper time.” (8)

“The moment when Divine Mother beats you the hardest is the time you should cling tenaciously to Her skirt.” (9)

Yogananda’s principle guru, Sri Yukteswar (1855-1936) [he also took instruction from Swami Kebalananda, another disciple of Lahiri Mahasay] was described by his famous disciple as being a strict disciplinarian, an uncompromising taskmaster, and a man with forceful and candid speech. Yogananda felt that Yukteswar would probably have been the most sought-after guru in India if his methods and manner had not been so severe. Alas, such has been the fate of many true teachers. Nevertheless, Yukteswar was revered by those who understood his ways. It is worth noting that his reprimands and rebukes were not directed to casual visitors, but only to those who were devoted to him and to his discipline. Yogananda expressed gratitude for Yukteswar's "humbling blows", confessing that the hard core of ego is "difficult to dislodge except rudely." Yukteswar was also an excellent astrologer. He cast charts for both Satyananda and Yogananda and gave them each a protective amulet. He told them that it made no difference whether they believed in such things or not for the scientific principles would work irregardless. Yukteswar was fond of discussing astrology with eminent practitioners of the art, and to this end he would forward full-fare round-trip tickets to coax them to visit him. If they could not come then he would visit them. One of his most important theories was that the precession of the constellations in the 25,000 year “Great Year” cycle was due to our sun being part of a binary sun system with perhaps Sirius as its companion star. This is being born out by much contemporary research. Yukteswar also correllated this with the Hindu system of Yugas, and found errors in the calculation of those. Most importantly, he discovered that confusion with a greater or Maha-Yuga cycle led many people to conclude that we are in the dark Kali (Iron age)Yuga, whereas in fact we have been in the ascending phase of the Dwapara (Silver Age) Yuga since 1699 A.D..

Yukteswar established several Self-Realization Fellowship centers (known, in India, as Yogoda Satsanga - YSS) and appointed two successors: Satyananda for the East (10) and Yogananda for the West. He died on Mar 9, 1936, and in June of that year appeared in a "physically rematerialized body" to Yogananda and at least one other disciple. (11)

Sri Yukteswar shared the general yogic view, and the view of Kriya yogis in particular, that the ajna chakra or third eye is the center for spiritual realization. He said that "the essence of religion, pure consciousness, and the Supreme Lord reside in the "Cave" in between the eyebrows." (12) Kriya teachings argue that the vibratory pranic or life-current enters the body at the medulla oblongata (brain stem), which is "the main switch that controls the entrance, storage, and distribution of the life-force." (13). They consider the medulla as the twin pole of the ajna or agya chakra, Christ center, or spiritual eye. The prana then goes upwards into the higher brain and downwards from there to the various bodily centers (chakras). In the yogi much of it is stored in the sahasrara at the top of the brain. This is a unique view. The shabd yogins would say that both the the prana as well as the attention or surat, both enter the body from the top of the head, not the medulla.

Swami Kriyananda, in his rendition of Yogananda's commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita, interestingly states:

"The sun in the body represents the light of the spiritual eye - or, alternatively, the sahasrara (the "thousand-petalled lotus") at the top of the head. The moon represents the reflection of that light in the ego, or agya chakra (the medulla oblongata), and therefore represents the human ego itself. Ego-consciousness is, in fact, centered in the medulla." (14)

For Ramana Maharshi, in contrast, the center for Self-Realization is the transcendental Heart (the "sun"), all-pervading yet felt or intuited prior to realization relative to the body as being in the heart on the right side, and from which the light above the crown (reflected in the brain - the "moon") emanates and, upon Realization, is recognized, free of egoic illusion. Ramana therefore would object to this kriya interpretation of the sun and moon as rendered from the Bhagavad-Gita. Ramana also simply said that the source of the pranas is the same as that of the mind, which is the Heart, and did not concern himself with any of the bodily centers, all of which he dismissed in advaitic fashion as existing in the mind and irrelevant for realization.

The Kriya path posits the physical, astral, and causal bodies/worlds, and teaches that when the attention is withdrawn from the outer body it enters three progressively deeper "astral" nadis: the sushumna, then the vajra, and finally the chitra. [The classic "ida" and "pingala" nadis are considered as more superficial, more to due with the breath, than the vajra and chitra nadis, which are deeper and luminous with astral light]. This is also a unique interpretation of the nadis:

"Passing through the chitra, the energy and consciousness enter the innermost channel, the brahmanadi, which constitutes the spine of the causal body. [this is interesting; one has not yet left through the top of the physical head, but he is supposed to be in the spine of the causal body] It was through the brahmanadi that Brahma, the Creative aspect of AUM,[elsewhere Kriyananda uses the word Brahman] in His aspect of Creator of individual beings and their three bodies, descended into outward manifestation. It is through this final channel of brahmanadi, therefore, that the soul must once ascend in order to become again one with the Spirit. As the yogi withdraws his energy up through this final channel, he is able to fully offer his separate, individual consciousness to infinity...The opening of the brahmanadi is at the top of the head. On reaching this point, the yogi becomes reunited with omnipresence, for the last sheath has been removed that closes him off from infinity." (15)

Vedantist V.S. Iyer, court philosopher of the Maharaja of Mysore, teacher of Paul Brunton and Ramakrishna monks Nikhilinanda and Siddeswarananda, by contrast, had this to say about this sort of view, from the point of view of truth:

“Some yogis teach that Brahman is in the top chakra of the skull; that therefore we must ascend there. This is childish.” (Collected Works, Vol. 1, ed. Mark Scorelle, 1999, p. 105)

We will hear more from Iyer later. Ramana Maharshi also adamently opposed this view.

This also appears a problematic and contradictory teaching for the shabd yogin, for according to that school a successful exit at the top of the head would only leave the soul at the threshold of the astral world, with astral and causal bodies intact and yet to be transcended. Therefore, the shabd yogin would not agree that "the last sheath has been removed." It is, of course, a traditional kundalini and raja yoga teaching [and indeed, even Ramakrishna taught this for a time, before he became a sage] that nirvikalpa samadhi and infinite consciousness is attained when one reaches the sahasrara, but there seems to be a big jump in logic here. There is much explaining needed regarding the subtle channel or "brahmanadi" between the agya chakra and the sahasrara. What exactly happens to the astral and causal bodies? How indeed are they transcended by the life energies, consciousness or attention passing from the agya chakra to the sahasrara, the sahasrara being defined as at the top of the head? If the sheaths are so transcended by this process then it seems that the astral and causal worlds would also have to be transcended, which then might suggest that such worlds are within the "brain-core", and not outside of it. But if that were the case then there would be no subtle or heavenly realms after death, and such a conclusion tradition says we must reject. What exactly, then, are the kriya yogis saying?

And, secondly, according to Ramana Maharshi, even repeated experiences of nirvikalpa samadhi would not give absolute freedom without continual checking of the the vasanas in the heart while in the waking state until the non-dual realization was stabilized. Thus, Ramana also would NOT agree with the claim of Yogananda that freedom for the yogi was secured, with no possibility of backsliding or "fall", once he reached beyond savikalpa samadhi to nirvikalpa samadhi. There are stories of yogis waking up out of nirvikalpa samadhi after years and years and still being the same as when they went into their trance. The end result would therefore appear to differ depending on the antecedent state, the maturity of mind and heart, of the individual.

The statement of Kriyananda's, "as the yogi withdraws his energy up through this final channel, he is able to fully offer his separate, individual consciousness to infinity", may, depending on one's understanding, be an example of what Ramana called a "deceitful strategem," i.e., an illusory individual presuming to offer his illusory self to a God from which he was never truly separate. There is no separate thing to be reunited with "omnipresence.

The Kriya teachings involve the use of traditional Hatha Yoga means including asana (right posture) and pranayama (breath control), as well as the traditional Raja yoga components of pratyahara (abstraction of attention from the senses), dharana (concentration), dhyana (contemplation), and samadhi (transcendental absorption), with the goal being ascended absorption at the ajna center, passage through the central brightness within the spiritual eye, and finally Nirvikalpa Samadhi, beyond the sahasrar and the three bodies and worlds. Its practice of concentration of attention on the lights and sounds in the brain core is similar to that of Shabd Yoga, although the latter claims to take the soul much higher with a much less arduous sadhana. Kriya Yoga, on the other hand, makes claims for bodily transformation and rejuvenation that the latter does not. Sometimes this tends to get over-emphasized at the expense of the goal of realization itself. Much of the following would be considered totally unnecessary from the point of view of a sage like Ramana Maharshi. From an interview with Paramhansa Yogananda:

“The technique I had already received from two disciples of Lahiri Mahasaya—Father and my tutor, Swami Kebalananda. But Master [Sri Yukteswar] possessed a transforming power; at his touch a great light broke upon my being, like the glory of countless suns blazing together. A flood of ineffable bliss overwhelmed my heart to an innermost core...."

"The Sanskrit root of kriya is kri, to do, to act and react: the same root is found in the word karma, the natural principle of cause and effect. Kriya yoga is thus union (yoga) with the Infinite through a certain action or rite (kriya). A yogi who faithfully practices the techniques gradually freed from karma or the lawful chain of cause-effect equilibrium."

"Kriya yoga is a simple, psychophysiological method by which human blood is decarbonized and recharged with oxygen. The atoms of this extra oxygen are transmuted into life current to rejuvenate the brain and spinal centers. By stopping the accumulation of venous blood, the yogi is able to lessen or prevent the decay of tissues. The advanced yogi transmutes his cells into energy."

"The kriya yogi mentally directs his life energy to revolve, upwards and downwards, around the six spinal centers (medullary, cervical, dorsal, lumbar, sacral and coccygeal plexuses), which correspond to the 12 astral signs of the zodiac, the symbolic Cosmic Man."

"Elijah, Jesus, Kabir, and other prophets were past masters in the use of kriya or a similar technique, by which they caused their bodies to materialize and dematerialize at will."

"Kriya is an ancient science. Lahiri Mahasaya received it from his great guru, Babaji, who rediscovered and clarified the technique after it had been lost in the Dark Ages. Babaji renamed it, simply, kriya yoga.”

The next to the last paragraph above could pose a problem, as the "similar technique" used by Jesus and Kabir, according to the Sant Mat gurus, would be Shabd Yoga, not Kriya Yoga! The Kriya organization promoted a theocentric myth that their yoga was a special dispensation to the "New Age" from the legendary immortal master named "Babaji", which presentation, like Theosophy, is representative of much occult mythology which became the manner of many early twentieth-century communications of traditional oriental esotericism in the Western world. Such yogic techniques have been taught and employed for centuries. It is time, is it not, for teachers to agree with Ramana Maharshi, who once said that in his system "it was all an open book"? Secret initiations and teachings are for a bygone era. The only true "secrets" are those which can only be known through real spiritual practice, that is, the realized experience of that which can nevertheless be clearly explained and pointed towards verbally and through the written word.

Another example of the occult slant to the presentation of the Kriya school is as follows. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri (a disciple of Satyananda) tells us that since his death Satyananda has appeared to him in a "resurrected" form on numerous occasions (see Swami Satyeswarananda Giri, Biography of a Yogi (San Diego, CA: The Sanskrit Classics, 1985)) . Yogananda spoke likewise about Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi. Their choice of language is interesting, inasmuch as this line of yoga teachers consider Jesus the Christ as a master of Kriya Yoga and the first guru in their lineage. The second is the immortal avatar Babaji, the third Lahiri Mahasay, and the fourth Sri Yukteswar. Self-Realization Fellowship households and centers often display photographs of Yogananda and the gurus immediately preceding him as well as that of Jesus in affirmation of this claim [not unlike the practice of many “Neo-Advaitins” who gain legitimacy by having a photo of Ramana Maharshi in their satsang halls.] Jesus, the original master, was resurrected, so was Sri Yukteswar, and so was Swami Satyananda. [To complicate matters Babaji was supposed to have been Krishna in a previous incarnation, which wouldn't set well with some of Sri Aurobindo's disciples, who felt that he had been Krishna in a previous life. Ramakrishna also claimed to have been Krishna]. Kriya yoga thus appears to be a popularized and even theistic version of an assortment of hatha, raja, and nada yoga techniques that have been taught since ancient times. Its domain is clearly experiential mysticism in the manifest realms, with a gesture towards the unmanifest and a mystical feeling of union with the manifest, but, it seems, without including an explicit, definitive recognition of the true Unborn as pointed to in high Buddhism or Advaita.

Interesting also is that, for all the emphasis given in SRF to the fact that Yogananda's body did not decay for weeks after his mahasamadhi, and also given the emphasis in Yogananda's teachings on how doing the Kriya exercises would prolong the life of the body and keep it more youthful, the Yogi himself died at the relatively young age of fifty-nine. If this was a conscious decision on his part it is still mysterious in light of his statement that he would be the last guru in the Kriya lineage. If this was so why then leave so soon? The great Sankara died at the age of only thirty-two, but according to Ramana Maharshi this was because of the fact that he worked incessantly and did not recharge his bodily vehicle by going into samadhi. The same argument, however, can not be made in the case of Yogananda.

As was the case with Sri Aurobindo, Paramhansa Yogananda was said to have been spiritually active in influencing world events, in particular the Korean War. Yogananda stated:

"When South Korea was invaded by the north, I myself put the thought into President Truman's mind to go to its defense. That situation was a threat to the whole world. Had South Korea fallen, the communists would have gone on to Japan, and would then have come up and taken the Aleutian Islands, from where they would have invaded Alaska and North America. The whole world, ultimately, could have been swept up into the materialistic philosophy of communism. For these reasons it was very necessary that South Korea be defended. That is why I have called this a holy war." (16)

Yogananda also commented on the role of sages in influencing the outcome of WWII. As Swami Kriyananda recounts:

"When Hitler first rose to power, Paramhansa Yogananda, for several reasons, saw some hope in that accession. One of those reasons was the unfairness of the Versailles Treaty, which had forced germany into virtual destitution. He also saw, as he told a few people, that Hitler had been, in a former lifetime, Alexander "the great" of Greece, who had shown an interest in the yogis of India. When Hitler allowed himself to be seized by ambition for power, however, that ambition distorted his potentially spiritual leanings. At that point, several masters began to work against him [Aurobindo, the Mother, Narayan Maharaj, and Meher Baba, to name a few who were claimed to have done so].....They..put the thought in Hitler's mind to make mistakes that led to his eventual destruction. They suggested to him from within, for example, to divide his forces and fight both in the east and in the west, and also in Africa. This they did by feeding the confidence he felt in his own ability to win "everywhere." Militarily, there was no need for Germany to divide its fronts. That self-division proved, for it, a fatal error." (17)
Yogananda said that Mussolini had been Marc Anthony in a past life, Stalin was Genghis Khan, and Churchill had been Napoleon (this might have been a small problem, as Sri Aurobindo was also said to have been Napoleon). When asked the same about FDR, he quipped, "I've never told anybody...I was afraid I might get into trouble!" (18)

Yogananda said that "the divine purpose behind the Second World War was to liberate the 'third world' countries, most of which were British colonies." Supposedly a part of this was karmic retribution against Churchill: as Napoleon "he wanted to destroy England. As Churchill he had to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire." (19)

Apparently, for Yogananda, as well as for Sri Aurobindo, the thought that the world bankers as well as secret societies and major power-elite actually funded the Russian Revolution, triggered WWI, orchestrated the Versailles Treaty and its inevitable repercussions, and also financially supported Hitler until several years into WWII, never crossed their mind. Whatever the divine plan was for the fate of the nations involved in these major conflicts, there was another plan that the sages and masters seem not to have been privy to, that of the Illuminati, who appeared to have achieved all of their major goals, to wit: the breakup of Germany as a major power, the fomenting of unrest in the Middle East, the handover of eastern Europe to the communists in order to create a Cold War, with the subsequent creation in the public mind of a need for a global governing body, first materialized in the incipient United Nations, and in dialectical fashion thus move a few steps closer to accomplishing their long-cherished New World Order. This topic is discussed in more detail within the article Sri Aurobindo and the Integral Yoga on this website. Divine plan or no divine plan, one obvious irony is that if the masters had not influenced Hitler to split his forces, but rather cooperated with his desire to make peace with England, he might have been able to prevail in his goal of stopping world communism and thereby avoid the consequences for humanity of both the Korean conflict and the Cold War - the outcome of which Yogananda said he had favorably influenced. "Who can fathom the mind of the Lord?", saith the psalmist.

Kriya Yoga is somewhat difficult to describe because there have been differences and modifications of the practices as it has been passed down from Lahiri Mahasay to Sri Yukteswar to Paramahansa Yogananda. Supposedly this has been to speed up and make more scientific the process to the attainment of Christ Consciousness and God-Realization. The above link opens into an extensive amount of material suggesting contradictions within the Kriya teachings, and cultic aspects of the organization, including scare tactics such as the threat of lifetimes wasted if you ever leave the guru and the fellowship (all too common among religious groups, invading the Radhasoami Mat, Auroville under the Mother, as well as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, fundamentalist Christianity, and many more), and the need to take an SRF loyalty oath, that the reader will be left to explore for himself. Here we will give Yogananda the benefit of the doubt, out of respect for the great devotional inspiration derived from his writings, leaving each individual to draw his or her own conclusions about guru politics.

Essentially, again, kriya yoga employs asana and pranayama techniques to move the subtle life energy up and down the spine, attempting to purify karmas associated with each of the six spinal chakras, with the hoped for result that this life force eventually collects at the third eye (ajna chakra) and from there proceeds to the sahasrar, which Kriya considers the doorway to the infinite. When the life-force collects at the ajna, a circle of colored rings appear, predominantly a golden ring around a blue sky, with a brilliant white star in the center. Concentration on that star leads to passage beyond it and beyond the "three coils", to eventual Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Repeated attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi eventually is supposed to lead to realization of the same in daily life, which, as stated, is called “cosmic consciousness” in the terminology of Yogananda. It is, essentially, realization of Nirvikalpa samadhi in the midst of daily life.

How that is achieved is not entirely clear. The assumption is that repeated immersion in nirvikalpa will bleed through into ones daily life and eventually and naturally create sahaj, although that specific word is not used or explained. Ramana Maharshi was adamant, as previously stated, that even repeated experiences of nirvikalpa samadhi would not necessarily lead to Self-realization, or what is known as Sahaj or sahaj samadhi, the “natural state”, without jnana and the eradication of the vasanas. Furthermore, here is what PB said on this basically yogic and Indian version of sahaj samadhi, versus its Ch’an and, in his language, philosophic version:

“The Indian notion of sahaja makes it the extension of nirvikalpa samadhi into the active everyday state. But the Ch’an conception of sahaj samadhi differs from this; it does not seek deliberately to eliminate thoughts, although that may often happen of its own accord through identification with the true Mind, but to eliminate the personal feelings usually attached to them, that is, to remain unaffected by them because of this identification."

"Ch’an does not consider sahaja to be the fruit of yoga meditation alone, nor of understanding alone, but of a combination seemingly of both. It is a union of reason and intuition. It is an awakening once and for all. It is not attained in nirvikalpa and then to be held as long as possible. it is not something, a state alternately gained and lost on numerous occasions, but gradually expanded as it is clung to. It is a single awakening that enlightens the man so that he never returns to ignorance again. He has awakened to his divine essence, his source in Mind, as an all-day and every day self-identification. It has come by itself, effortlessly.” (20)

[Note: do not be misled by the last sentence of this quote. Elsewhere PB says a man must work hard for this, but only that the final stage, that of irreducible insight into reality, comes effortlessly by grace].

It is not clear whether the final realization for the Kriya yogin is the same as realization herein defined. It appears to be in the category of the former or Indian version wherein something like nirvikalpa is attempted to be held onto as long as possible. This is also complicated by the claim of Yogananda in Autobiography of a Yogi that final liberation for a saint is usually attained from a higher astral world after death rather than from the physical plane. This concept has its counterpart in Sant Mat and even Buddhism, which speaks of a realm called Sukhavati from where the bodhisattvas attain their enlightenment. For the Buddha, however, enlightenment itself was beyond all such states and was, as he once remarked, "a tacit insight, nothing more.” It is a misconception common on mystic paths where an initial emotional approach leads to the view that stabilization of ecstasy is the final goal. PB elaborates on this point of view:

"The philosopher is satisfied with a noble peace and does not run after mystical ecstasies. Whereas other paths often depend upon an emotionalism that perishes with the disappearance of the primal momentum that inspired it, or which dissolves with the dissolution of the first enthusiastic ecstasies themselves, here there is a deeper and more dependable process. What must be emphasized is that most mystical aspirants have an initial or occasional ecstasy, and they are so stirred by the event that they naturally want to enjoy it permanently. This is because they live under the common error that a successful and perfect mystic is one who has succeeded in stabilizing ecstasy. That the mystic is content to rest on the level of feeling alone, without making his feeling self-reflective as well, partly accounts for such an error. It also arises because of incompetent teachers or shallow teaching, leading them to strive to perform what is impracticable and to yearn to attain what is impossible. Our warning is that this is not possible, and that however long a mystic may enjoy these 'spiritual sweets,' they will assuredly come to an end one day. The stern logic of facts calls for stress on this point. Too often he believes that this is the goal, and that he has nothing more about which to trouble himself. Indeed, he would regard any further exertions as a sacrilegious denial of the peace, as a degrading descent from the exaltation of this divine union. He longs for nothing more than the good fortune of being undisturbed by the world and of being able to spend the rest of his life in solitary devotion to his inward ecstasy. For the philosophic mystic, however, this is not the terminus but only the starting point of a further path. What philosophy says is that this is only a preliminary mystical state, however remarkable and blissful it be. There is a more matured state -- that of gnosis -- beyond it. If the student experiences paroxysms of ecstasy at a certain stage of his inner course, he may enjoy them for a time, but let him not look forward to enjoying them for all time. The true goal lies beyond them, and he should not forget that all-important fact. He will not find final salvation in the mystical experience of ecstasy, but he will find an excellent and essential step towards salvation therein. He who would regard rapturous mystical emotion as being the same as absolute transcendental insight is mistaken. Such a mistake is pardonable. So abrupt and striking is the contrast with his ordinary state that he concludes that this condition of hyper-emotional bliss is the condition in which he is able to experience reality. He surrenders himself to the bliss, the emotional joy which he experiences, well satisfied that he has found God or his soul. But his excited feelings about reality are not the same as the serene experience of reality itself. This is what a mystic finds difficult to comprehend. Yet, until he does comprehend it, he will not make any genuine progress beyond this stage." (21)

Another difference between emanationist paths, such as Kriya yoga, and philosophic paths, such as described by PB and as given in Advaita Vedanta and various forms of Buddhism, lies with the concept of matter. Kriya is a firm believer in matter as crystalized or condensed Consciousness. Even astral matter, which Yogananda terms "lifetrons", falls into this category. To the philosophic sage, all experiences, high or low, no matter how they are subjectively perceived, as dense or ethereal, are ideas in the mind - and ultimately, Mind - but to Yogananda this was the wrong way of perceiving things. He said:

"The human body - and all things else - are naught but a mass of condensed energy; and energy is "frozen" Cosmic Consciousness, or God. We should not call it mind. Mind is different. To say that everything is mind is incorrect. It is Cosmic Consciousness that causes us to be aware of different things, to have a consciousness of so-called matter and a consciousness of Spirit...You will know that the cosmic golden cord that binds the atoms is the tender consciousness of Spirit. It is with this cord that He binds the atoms to become the flower, or the human body." (22)

Thus, Yogananda is not a mentalist. He even criticizes the great Sankara of confusing "mind" with subtle matter. To Yogananda "thoughts" or "ideas" only begin in the causal plane.

"In the causal world, he knows that everything is made of idea-forms, or thoughts...he knows himself as soul (jiva), a manifestation of Para-Prakriti: Pure Nature." (23)

The advaitist would say at this point, "has anyone ever seen 'Para-Prakriti'? Can you prove its existence?" The answer is no. Then why use the term and suppose it leads one to truth? As a yogi Swami Yogananda - as well as Sri Aurobindo - took issue with the advaitins and their epistemology of Drik-Drysam-Advaitin, that everything seen or experienced (Drysam) is a presentation to and inseparable from the seer (Drik), Atman or Brahman. In this view everything is mental, even the soul, which reduces to a thought or concept in Mind. Yogananda might possibly be classified as a parinama-vada vedantist, in which the Mind projects out various levels or stadia, or even an advocate of Samkhya, believing in two primary substances: consciousness and matter (i.e., the primordial field of nature). Indeed, Roy Eugene Davis describes his schema of manifestation as Samkhya (although, it seems, without the extreme dualism of classical Samkhya). Yogananda would not likely have agreed with the ajata-vada vedantist who is a firm adherent to the doctrine of non-causality and that all is Mind; that 'things' are not produced by Mind, they are Mind. V.S. Iyer, teacher of Paul Brunton, had this to say about Yogananda:

"Swami Yogananda of Los Angeles visited me. He kept on saying "I am Brahman. All this is Brahman." I smiled but kept quiet. I ought to have said to him, "How can you prove that you are Brahman?" He would have replied, "I know, practice my method of yoga and you too shall know. To that I would have said, "How can you prove that your method is the correct one?" Such mystics will not reason." (24)

PB states, and this is generally the view of advaita vedanta, as well as Ramana Maharshi and sages such as Atmananda and Nisargadatta:

"The Theosophic doctrine that the physical world is an externalization of an astral plane or even the higher Platonic doctrine that it crystallizes a world of divine ideation is given to beginners as a help to give them a crude grasp, a first step towards the theory that the world is an idea, until they are mentally developed. When their mind is mature they are then told to discard the astral plane theory and told the pure truth that all existence is an idea."

"How hard for the average mind to grasp this central fact, that the World-Idea is the world-creation. The one does not precede the other. The second is not a copy in matter of the first. Man has to work, with his senses and his intellect, when he wants to convert his ideas into objects, but the World-Mind does not need to make an effort in order to make a universe, does not in reality have anything to do at all, for Its thought is the thing. Some mystics and most occultists have failed to perceive this. Their realization of the Spirit did not bring the full revelation of the Spirit. This is because they have not thoroughly comprehended...its utter emptiness. Nothing can come out of the Universal Mind that is not mental, not even the material world which men believe they inhabit and experience." (25)

Even so, and while it is epistemologically consistent, even PB appears to hedge on this point a little bit, when he states:

"It is not quite correct to assume that we are the manifested forms of the perfection from which we emanate. More precisely, we are projecteds of a denser medium from the universal mind, appearing by some catalytic process in natural sequence within that medium. The cosmic activity provides each such entity-projection with an individual life and intelligence centre through an evolutionary process, whereby its own volitional directive energies are, ultimately, merged with the cosmic will in perfect unity and harmony." (26)

This form of mentalistic insight, howwever, that all arises in and as Mind, is how a sage like Papaji could make the enigmatic statement, "nothing ever happened." Yogananda would likely consider the causal body to be made of mind or mental "stuff", but it would still be, from his point of view, a subtle stuff, more subtle than the astral lifetrons, or the physical body, but still an actual condensation of Consciousness (which to the philosophers is Mind), rather than a presentation within or emanation from Consciousness. This becomes more than mere hair-splitting when one goes deeply into the doctrine of mentalism, and affects the very nature of the identity of Self or Soul and Ego. Similar problems emerge when studying the teachings of Sri Aurobindo. Are the differences in these teachings mere words? We will let the reader decide. [For more on this teaching of PB, see the article Elvis Was Not A Mentalist on this website].

For the shabd yogin, separating from the "three coils" of the physical astral and causal bodies, would not, as in kriya Yoga, lead the soul directly to the Purushottama, or nirvikalpa, but first to the "super-causal" dimension, where the soul is essentially aware of itself as a self-existing eternal 'entity' beyond mind and illusion (a 'drop' of consciousness), but still covered by a thin layer of anandamaya kosha, and confronting a dark void (Maha-Sunn) which it cannot cross to enter the eternal realms without the superior light of the Master. The help of the guru is needed to pass from there to Sach Khand, which is considered the Spiritual realm or true home of the Sants, and from which one then gets progressively absorbed by the Sat Purush past Alakh and Agam Loks, and into the nameless and formless Godhead known as "Anami". These regions are not mentioned on the Kriya path, nor, as mentioned, is the status of "Christ Consciousness", and Nirvikalpa Samadhi made crystal clear, at least to my satisfaction.

A good source to ask about all this might be Mukti, the wife of contemporary teacher Adyashanti, for she spent twenty years in SRF before studying the non-dual teachings under her husband. It is clear from her writings that she has moved on from the teachings of the Kriya school:

"Enlightenment is consciously being that which is entirely unmoving and yet moves all things. In order to know what is unmoving, consciously, one must end all investment in movements of mind and attend to what is always and already stopped. When one no longer invests in movements of mind, the searchlights of your attention withdraw back to source. Abiding as source is true stopping. This return to source—whether by letting energies withdraw and recede from outer attentions or by tracing movements of mind back to their origin—is the way Home. Often in spirituality, there are teachings that assert the need to focus attention on given objects of perception. You may have been taught to focus your attention on a goal, a mantra, your breath, the third eye, the hara, or on sensation, but it is the very assertion of focus and the assertion of the focuser, the “me,” that keeps you forever at a seeming distance from the root of attention: your Self as pure Awareness. In your natural state as Oneness, there is no need to focus in order to discover yourself—any more than point A can know itself by focusing on point B. Point A can only know itself by letting all focus, attention, and searching subside back to its origin."

Kriya thus differs markedly not only from the path of jnana, but also from Shabd Yoga, in that the latter teaches the aspirant to bypass the path of the prana (motor) currents and to instead concentrate the sensory currents at the third eye, ignoring the centers below. The upward course from here appears the same, in that one is to pierce through the big star, but in Kriya what comes after that, again, is simply said to be passage beyond the three worlds, while in Shabd Yoga a hierarchy of seven planes beyond is taught, with the Master or Master-Power being one’s chief aid in transcending from one plane to the next on to the highest goal. In Shabd Yoga, moreover, one is taught to cross the sun, moon, and then the big star leading to the first inner plane, although, to be fair, the experience of disciples vary. Lahiri Mahasay states:

“In the kutastha [soul center] there is darkness surrounded by a golden ring. A tiny star with the effulgence of the sun is in the center, which opens the door to Purushottama [the Supreme Being]. Purusha [the Cosmic Man] in the kutastha is Purushottama. When one goes through the door of the kutastha he realizes Purushottama.”

This sounds similar to the shabd yoga teaching of the soul upon reaching Sach Khand beholding and then merging in the Sat Purush, but, again, seemingly ignores the many intermediate regions before the Supreme.

I say seemingly because in the book, The Holy Science (SRF, 2006), by Sri Yukteswar, the Kriya path appears almost identical, once pratyahara is achieved, with that of Sant Mat. He even uses the term Surat Sabda Yoga (!), and stages of Trikuti, Daswan Dwar (the "door" between the material and the spiritual regions), Sunn, Maha Sunn, Alak, Agam , and Anami. Seven stages or planes of creation are mentioned (Bhuloka, Bhuvarloka, Swarloka, Maharloka, Janaloka, Tapoloka, and Satyaloka), which correspond with traditionally delineated yoga stages which are even listed in Sant Kirpal Singh's The Crown of Life: A Study in Yoga, p. 54 (bhur, bhuva, swah, maha, janah, tapah and satyam).

The involvement with pranayama and kriya techniques, which Shabd Masters argue is a waste of time, are considered in the Kriya teachings as essential preparation to attain the state of pratyahara, whereby one can then catch the sound current and ascend further by attuning with the radiant form of the guru. In shabd yoga the boon of pratyahara is supposed to be given by the master at the time of initiation, with simple concentration at the spiritual eye from that point on all that is necessary. On the kriya path, the assumption is that more is required to become capable of concentrating there. From that point, in any case, the path is almost identical with shabd yoga proper, at least, according to The Holy Science. What I find even more intriguing is how Sri Yukteswar explains the inner phenomena of the great divide between the material and spiritual creations, in terms of passage beyond the" Atom" at the heart where the ego or sense of a separate self originates. I recommend this short book; to me it is metaphysically and cosmologically more revealing than that found in later books on that path).

Paramhansa Yogananda in his lengthy commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita [which he felt appropriate to write inasmuch as he considered Babaji to have been Krishna in a former life, and he Arjuna] loosely summarizes his views on the process of realization. I say loosely because the question of jnana, as in most mystical paths, is not mentioned or delved into in any detail, but only in a passing comment here and there. Yogananda was adamant that his viewpoint was more practical than that of the strict non-dualists. He said:

"Other Gita interpretations..are not fully rounded, as scriptures ought to be. Even Swami Shankaracharya's commentaries were one-sided in the sense that they completely rejected duality, though duality, for people living in the world, is a daily reality. [This doesn't seem to be entirely correct; Sankara rejuvenated religion at all levels throughout India, not just advaita]That is why Krishna says in the Gita that the path of yoga is higher than the path of wisdom, which Shankaracharya taught. [Iyer disagreed, saying that Krishna taught gnana yoga as the highest] The path of yoga accepts actual human realities, and works with them as they are, instead of dismissing them as non-existent. They are illusory, certainly, but for all that duality exists, as a dream exists. It just isn't what it appears to be." (27)

This is consistent with Yogananda's view on karma:

"Why live a bad dream by creating bad karma? With good karma, you get to enjoy the dream. Good karma also makes you want, in time, to wake up from the dream. Bad karma, on the other hand, darkens the mind and keeps it bound to the dreaming process." (28)

In fairness, however, I have noticed in Yogananda’s later writings, after he met Ramana Maharshi, references to a different viewpoint than the ascent back to God that he emphasized in his early years:

“Look upon this world as a dream, and then you will understand that it is all right for you to lie down on the bed of this earth and dream the dream of life. You won’t mind, because you will know you are dreaming...Dismiss this phantasm of disease and health, sorrow and joy. Rise above it. Become the Self. Watch the show of the universe, but do not become absorbed in it. Many times I have seen my body gone from this world. I laugh at death. I am ready anytime. There is nothing to it. Eternal life is mine. I am the ocean of consciousness...When you truly want to be released from this earth dream, there is no power that can stop you from attaining liberation. Never doubt it! Your salvation is not to be achieved - it is already yours, because you are made in the image of god; but you have to know this. You have forgotten it.” (29)

"The truth is, nothing is really created anyway! The Spirit simply manifests the universe. Ultimately, nothing causes anything, for nothing, in actuality, is even happening." (30)

"The simple thought that you are not free..keeps you from being free. If you could only break that simple thought, you would go into samadhi...Samadhi is not something one needs to acquire. You have it already. Just think: Eternally you have been with God. For a few incarnations you live in delusion, but then again you are free in Him for eternity! Live always in that thought....Evolution..is only a suggestion in the mind. Everything, in reality, is going on in the present tense. In God's consciousness there is no evolution, no change, no 'progress.' It is always and everywhere the same one reality." (31)

When asked by Roy Eugene Davis how many of the saints he had written about in Autobiography of a Yogi had attained liberation, Yogananda replied:

"Not many. Many saints are satisfied to experience the bliss of God-communion and don't aspire to liberation of consciousness." He then emphatically said, "You must go all the way!" (32)

Sri Yukteswar, while elaborating a seven-storied creation and the need to ascend to its heights, speaking of the last two stages wrote:

"In this state man comprehends himself as nothing but a mere ephemeral idea resting on a figment of the universal Holy Spirit of God, the Eternal Father, and understanding the real worship, he sacrifices his self there at this Holy Spirit, the altar of God; that is, abandoning the vain idea of his separate existence, he becomes "dead" or dissolved in the universal Holy Spirit; and thus reaches Tapaloka, the region of the Holy Ghost."

"In this manner, being one and the same with the universal Holy Spirit of God, man becomes unified with the Eternal Father Himself, and so comes to Satyaloka, in which he comprehends that all this creation is substantially nothing but a mere idea-play of his own nature, and that nothing in the universe exists besides his own Self. This state of unification is called Kaivalya, the Sole Self." (33)

These views, however, are closer to the Sant Mat view than the ajata doctrine of Maharshi, or the 'nothing ever happened' viewpoint of Papaji.

In another link, a kriya practioner gives a detailed description of the basic, and to my mind quite complicated, kriya techniques. One thing that is distinctive is that sounds that are to be listened to beginning at the third eye by the shabd yogi are listened to progressively beginning at the muladhara chakra by the kriya yogi:

“The sounds of the chakras are discribed as: root chakra--hissing, 2nd chakra--crickets, 3rd chakra--pan flute or deep throated whistling, 4th chakra--tinkling bells or heavy gong, 5th chakra--high pitched whistling, 6th chakra--glorious trumpets, crown chakra--thunder followed by the AUM.”

The final sound they listen to is thunder, heard from the ajna chakra to the sahasrar. Sometimes the big bell is listed as heard at the heart chakra. In shabd yoga, in contrast, the big bell comes from overhead and pulls the soul up above the lower centers into the astral world. Also, in kriya yoga, the pineal pland or third eye center is spoken of as linked with the medulla oblongata, and collection of the pranas between the two is considered necessary for ‘lift-off’ to the sahasrar.

Kriya places attention to the mechanics of energy in the body, and speaks of cleansing the karmas in the "pranic centers" (bodily chakras), but does not place an emphasis on jnana. Both this path and the above, along with Surat Shabd Yoga, speak of final passage of consciousness through the heart of the cosmos into a divine realm or domain. The differences to be made explicit are in what happens before and after passing beyond that central luminosity or "Bright Star." Only in Sant Mat, in this writer's opinion, is what lies afterwards made clear (as far as possible), and even then, according to sages or jnanis, a question exists regarding the finality of ones understanding, especially when returning to the realms of creation. For as PB emphasizes, once again,

"Enlightenment, philosophically found, is both an experience and an understanding." (34)

It is both of these, simultaneously, as one single insight. Would passage through the various inner regions into a Divine Domain, then, be complete enlightenment - even when coupled with the experience of the "cosmic body" as one's own when re-entering the planes of manifestation? To be as accomplished of a mystic to be faced with such a question is no small achievement, but is it liberation itself? We would answer that it could be - but it would depend on what happens along the way. As PB forthrightly states:

"When you awaken to truth as it really is, you will have no occult vision, you will have no "astral" experience, no ravishing ecstasy. You will awaken to it in a state of utter stillness, and you will realize that truth was always there within you and that reality was always there around you. Truth is not something which has grown and developed through your efforts. It is not something which has been achieved or attained by laboriously adding up those efforts. It is not something which has to be made more and more perfect each year. And once your mental eyes are opened to truth they can never be closed again." (35)

Can there be one single method for attaining this? No. The only method, if it be called as such, is sincerity. Edwin Smith (Jah Jae Noh) writes:

“How, then, does the student finally come to truth? Since everything a student does is unconsciously aimed at avoiding truth, it is only through constant confrontation with truth that the student finally understands, accepts. In effect, truth simply outlasts the student. No matter what the student tries to do, truth keeps on “coming at” him until he finally wears out and surrenders. But this process obviously requires that the student persists. It requires that the student be dedicated, sincere....Since everything he does only avoids truth, he surrenders to That Which Is, Reality, Truth, God. He allows himself to be “done” by Reality. His activity is to not inhibit the process of Truth...He does all this in the faith that it is alright....."

"Among sincere students, any “method” will serve to promote spiritual realization. Among the insincere no method will serve. Thus, methodology is irrelevant to realization. Methods are illusory, serving only to pacify and gratify the mind. That which accounts for the realization of some and not others is readiness. Readiness is the activity of surrendering at each moment to the flow of guidance, until that form appropriate for realization is presented....It is the dedication and sincerity of the individual which acounts for even the possibility of realization....All methods are merely activities performed while waiting for divine presence to make itself known to you...."

"The mind can be lead countless times into the heart, yet it can refuse to believe or accept what is experienced. To this extent no learning takes place. So faith is the vehicle, the mode of learning. Understanding, which is the mind’s acceptance of the heart, is the activity of faith.” (36)

______________________________________________________________________________

As mentioned earlier, Roy Eugene Davis has been teaching Kriya Yoga for over fifty years, and, IMO, uses different terminology and different ordering in describing the stages of the path than his Master did. He also says that Yogananda did not teach only Kriya Yoga, but Bhakti and Jnana as well to those qualified for such approaches, much as Ramakrishna had. Further, in seeming contradiction with Yogananda's assertion above that the great Sankara was wrong in both his philosophical teaching and in implying that jnana was superior to yoga, Davis says that in the Kriya school it is taught that not only Lahiri Mahasay, but Sankara himself was initiated by Babaji !

Davis teaches standard Kriya practices, but also visualization techniques, and advaitic practices. This is refreshing from my point of view. He advises disciples, no matter what level of experience they have achieved, to understand that enlightenment can happen at any time, and that it is not an "attainment":

"The very idea that this ideal state is to be attained or acquired is a delusion, an invalid belief. Self-realization is not a state or condition to earn or possess. It is a realization to which we awaken, to discover that, at our core, we have always been enlightened, knowledgable, and free." (37)

(Actually, as we have seen, despite all of his esotericism, in later years Yogananda said much the same thing).

Davis teaches that the soul is an individualized ray or unit of God's consciousness. He says:

"It would not be accurate to say that we are God, for we are not. What is true is that "God is us." Our role is to consciously know ourselves as we really are, as spiritual beings in relationship to God. When we are fully conscious of what we essentially are, and what our true relationship with God is, we are Self-realized." (38)

There is a subtle dualism implied here, akin to the Muslim idea of "fellowship with God" rather than "union" or "Oneness" with God. For those familiar with the works of PB, Davis is in good company on this. PB wrote:

"The Sufi term "companionship with God" is more accurate than the Christian-Hindu "union with God"...It is humbler to admit, with Muhammed, "I am a servant of God, I am but a man like you," than arrogantly to assert with the Advaitin, "I am the infinite Brahman." It is better to say modestly with Jesus, "the Father is greater than I," than to announce with the Sufi Mansur: "I am God." (38a)

For those familiar with the philosophy of one such as Plotinus this is not necessarily a problem, or an impediment to a non-dual position. Much of it hinges on ones definition of Soul or Atman, which has been dealt with in depth elsewhere on this website, and is beyond the scope of this article. Davis does say that when the 'individualized soul' becomes fully awake, it knows itself as the non-dual Self.

The interpretation by Davis of the Kriya cosmology is as follows. The reader will have to refer back to earlier portions of this article to see where this varies from the schema put forth by the other Kriya gurus.

In his introduction to his book Self-Knowledge, a transliteration of Sri Sankara's Atma Bodhi, a classic advaitic text, he diagrams the sequential processes of cosmic manifestation as follows. He follows more or less of a Samkhya schema which he considers consistent with Sankara's commentaries as well as Kriya tradition.

Krishna Prem, widely recognized even by Ramana Maharshi as highly knowledgable on Indian philosophy, and who studied Sankara in the original Sanskrit, also accepts in his Gita commentary the idea that Sankara followed the basic Samkhya framework - from Parabrahman to Atman and Mula Prakriti, Mahat, Buddhi, Manas and the whole scheme of Indriyas and adhibhutas and the so-called external or material world of "purely" adhibhuta. For Sankara, however, the word Samkhya basically meant one who 'discriminated the real from the unreal'. Being an advaitin, he nowhere accepted the strict Samkhya dualism as such, nor did he accept the yogic view that samadhi was the sufficient means for liberation. Davis seems to be in agreement with these views. As Michael Comans states:

"At the beginning of his commentary upon the Gita, Sankara makes a significant statement concerning the relation of Sankhya to Yoga.[45] He says that Sankhya means ascertaining the truth about the Self as it really is and that Krsna has done this in his teaching from verses 2.11 up until 2.31. He says that sankhyabuddhi is the understanding which arises from ascertaining the meaning in its context, and it consists in the understanding that the Self is not an agent of action because the Self is free from the sixfold modifications beginning with coming into being. He states that those people to whom such an understanding becomes natural are called Sankhyas. He then says that Yoga is prior to the rise of the understanding above. Yoga consists of performing disciplines (sadhana) that lead to liberation; it presupposes the discrimination between virtue and its opposite, and it depends upon the idea that the Self is other than the body and that it is an agent and an enjoyer. Such an understanding is yogabuddhi, and the people who have such an understanding are called Yogins. From this it is clear that Sankara relegates Yoga to the sphere of ignorance (avidya) because the Yogins are those who, unlike the Sankhyas, take the Self to be an agent and an enjoyer while it is really neither. They are, therefore, in Sankara's eyes, not yet knowers of the truth."] (38b)

In spite of his advaita, Davis inserts many comments in his writings purporting to illustrate that Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita primarily espoused Kriya Yoga as the means for realization. But as Krishna points out, in shloka 10, chapter 10, "I give Buddhi Yoga, the Yoga of discrimination, to those ever-devout who worship me with love, by means of which they come to me." (38c)

According to Davis, in the Kriya cosmology first there is the Transcendant, Absolute Reality, infinite and without attributes. Then there is the 'Radiant Field' of the Absolute with three constituent attributes, i.e., the three gunas of sattva, rajas, and tamas. Emanating from this is the 'Field of Primordial Nature' ('OM', the creating vibratory current responsible for creation of all the lower worlds), with time, space, and fine cosmic forces. Then there is the 'Field of Cosmic Mind', which is the:

"Field of individualized units of pure consciousness produced by the blending of the Radiant Field (Oversoul) and the characteristics of the Field of Primordial Nature. Souls have Self-Awareness, intellect, mind, and ego (a sense of self-identity)" (39)

Finally, there are the causal, astral, and material realms.

The progression to Enlightenment, then, proceeds through the following stages (keeping in mind, as he says, that "awakening", being beyond time and space, can happen at any time in the process):

The first stage is Superconsciousness, which is described as awakening to 'higher realities and the experiencing of subtle and refined states of consciousness'. Then comes Cosmic Consciousness, which, in short, is an awareness of oneness or wholeness, the realization of the 'omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience of the universal Consciousness'. Supposedly this is a realization beyond the causal level. Then comes God-Consciousness:

"The reality of God is known as God is - as the only expressive Being, Life, Power, and Presence from which the worlds and souls emanate...The soul is liberated from all former restrictions." (40)

Finally, there is Enlightenment:

"Flawless realization (with knowledge) of the allness of Consciousness: from the field of pure Existence-Being (that which is Absolute, unmodified, or pure), to God, Cosmic or Universal Mind, the primordial field of unmanifest nature, and the causal, astral, and matter realms. When established at this stage there is no other level to experience and nothing more to know. Fully enlightened souls live in the world only to fulfill evolutionary purposes and to assist souls to their higher good." (41)

To conclude, he writes:

"Grace is the enlivening life (spirit) of God supporting and transforming creation. It expresses throughout the field of nature and from within every soul. It directs the course of evolution and awakens souls from their sleep of mortality." (42)

With the latter statement one can find no argument.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Autobiography of a Yogi. Complete on-line book.

The Path: One Man's Quest on the Only Path There Is, by Swami Kriyananda. Considered a companion biography to Autobiography of a Yogi, includes many accounts of the Master's interactions with devotees. A really good read, imbued with devotion and the spirit of the quest.

Medja: The Early Life and Family of Paramahansa Yogananda. Wonderful book for the amusing and interesting childhood and early manhood of the future yogi-saint. Written by his younger brother. Recommended.

1. Paul Brunton wrote highly of the enigmatic Yogi Ramiah in A Search in Secret India. He elsewhere confessed, moreover, that on one occasion Yogi Ramiah affirmed to him "You have learned all about yoga. There is nothing more for you to learn about this practice." (The Notebooks of Paul Brunton(Burdett, New York: Larson Publications, 1987) Vol. 8, 5.34)

Swami Kriyananda (Donald Walters) quotes Yogananda as implying that he felt that Ramana's disciple Yogi Ramiah was more realized than Ramana himself:

"I also met another fully liberated soul," he told me. "His name was Yogi Ramiah. He was a disciple of the great master, Ramana Maharshi. It does happen, occasionally, that a disciple becomes himself more highly advanced than his guru." (Swami Kriyananda, Conversations with Yogananda (Nevada City, CA: Crystal Clarity Publications, 2004), p. 108)

The only other saints Yogananda recognized as liberated were Babaji, Sri Yukteswar, Lahiri Mahasaya, and two disciples of Lahiri Mahasaya, Swami Pranabananda and Ram Gopal Muzumdar. Walters elsewhere relates that he felt Yogananda was relatively quiet in his meeting with Ramana because he realized they each had two very different roles to play, and he didn't want to call attention to himself. Nevertheless, the following interesting conversations occured between Walters and Yogananda:

"He once told me, "When I met Yogi Ramiah, in Ramana Maharshi's ashram, it was a true meeting of souls. We walked hand in hand around the ashram together. Oh! If I'd remained in his company another half hour, I could never have brought myself to leave India again! He represented everything that is, to me, the true India. It is why I love that country so much."

"Paul Brunton, whom I met there, was another disciple of Ramana Maharshi's. Brunton once told me that, during meditation one day, Yogi Ramiah had materialized before him and asked him to send him my photograph. He wanted to put it in his room. It is sitting there still." I asked Master, "If Yogi Ramiah was fully liberated, did he have disciples also?" "He must have had," the Master replied. "One must free others, to become completely freed oneself." "How many does one have to free?" I asked. "Six," was his reply." (Ibid, p. 225-226) [This comment is interesting in light of Radhasoami guru Baba Faqir Chand's comment that Baba Sawan Singh had told him that his own disciples would become his guru].

"Sri Yogi Ramiah, whom I (Walters) met in 1960 in India, said to me, "Always ask yourself, 'Who am I?" This was the fundamental teaching of his great guru, Ramana Maharshi. "That wasn't what my own Guru taught us," I replied. Sri Rama Yogi [the name Ramiah was called at that time] smiled wryly. "If all the disciples of the great masters really understood what their gurus taught, there would not be the bickering one finds everywhere in religion!" I reflected, then, that of course the Master had said repeatedly, "Know who you really are. You are not this little ego: you are the infinite Self." (Ibid, p. 228)

2. Swami Kriyananda, Conversations with Yogananda (Nevada City, CA: Crystal Clarity Publications, 2004), p. 220, 359
3. Paramhansa Yogananda, Journey to Self-Realization, Vol. III (Los Angeles, California: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1995), p. xxii
4. Ibid, p. xx
5. Ibid, p. 425, 436-7
6.Yogananda, op. cit., p. 171
7. Ibid, p. 186-187
8. Paramhansa Yogananda, The Master Speaks, p. 25, 94, 92
9. Ibid, p.
10. Swami Satyananda (1896-1971) and Paramhansa Yogananda were both commissioned by Sri Yukteswar to accept disciples and teach Kriya yoga, Satyananda for the East and Yogananda for the West, Yogananda once remarked that while he himself could not follow the rules of Sri Yukteswar, a strict disciplinarian, Satyananda could. For fifty years he was the spiritual head of tha Yogoda Satsangs in India, teaching and initiating seekers into Kriya yoga, as well as building schools and hospitals. He also spent considerable time traveling throughout India gaining the darshan of many noble souls, including devotees of Sri Ramakrishna, such as Swami Brahmananda, Swami Abhedananda, and Swami Saradananda, as well as Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Yogiraj Gambhirnath, and women saints Anandamayi Ma and Brahmajna Ma. He was considerably impressed with Ramana Maharshi, as was Yogananda. (One can only speculate if the latter's contact with the sage had anything to do with his decision to make himself the last in the line of Kriya gurus, despite the movement's continuance).
11. Paramhansa Yogananda, The Autobiography of a Yogi (Los Angeles, CA: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1972), p.
12. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri, Lahiri Mahasay: The Father of Kriya Yoga (San Diego, CA, 1983), p.
13. Paramhansa Yogananda, Journey to Self-Realization, Vol. III (Los Angeles, California: Self-Realization Fellowship, 2005), p. 432)
14. Swami Kriyananda, The Essence of the Bhagavad-Gita, Nevada City, CA: Crystal-Clarity, 2006), p.475
15. Ibid, p. 229-230
16. Swami Kriyananda, Conversations with Yogananda (Nevada City, CA: Crystal Clarity Publications, 2004), p. 316
17. Ibid, p. 317
18. Ibid, p. 318
19. Ibid
20. The Notebooks of Paul Brunton (Burdett, New York: Larson Publications, 1988), Vol. 16, Part 1, 2.141
21. Ibid, Vol. 13, Part 1, 4.125
22. Paramhansa Yogananda, op. cit., p. 342-3
23. Paramhansa Yogananda, The Essence of the Bhagavad-Gita, op. cit., p. 308
24. V.S. Iyer, Collected Works, Vol. 1 (ed. Mark Scorelle, 1999), p. 108-109
25. The Notebooks of Paul Brunton, op. cit., Vol. 13, Part 3, 3.65, 3.57
26. Ibid, Vol. 6, 1,131
27. Swami Kriyananda, op. cit., p. 348
28. Ibid, p. 372 29. Paramhansa Yogananda, op. cit., p. 35, 41, 59
30. Swami Kriyananda, op. cit., p. 37
31. Ibid, pp. 367, 348
32. Roy Eugene Davis, Self-Knowledge (Lakemont, GA: CSA Press, 2010), p. 35
33. Sri Yukteswar, The Holy Science (Los Angeles, California: Self-Realization Fellowship, 2006), p. 85
34. The Notebooks of Paul Brunton, op. cit., Vol. 16, Part 1, 2.8
35. Ibid, 2.77
36. Edwin Smith (Jah Jae Noh), Do You See What I See? (Wheaton, Illinois: The Theosophical Publishing House, 1977), p. 59, 66, 56, 146
37. Roy Eugene Davis, An Easy Guide to Meditation (Lakemont, GA: CSA Press, 1995), p. 22
38. Ibid
38a The Notebooks of Paul Brunton, op. cit., Vol. 16, 1.78, 1.164
38b. Michael Comans, The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta
38c. Ramesh Balsekar, Pointers from Nisargadatta Maharaj (Durham, NC: The Acorn Press, 1982), p. 206
39. Roy Eugene Davis, Self-Knowledge, op. cit., p. 11
40. Roy Eugene Davis, An Easy Guide to Mediation, op. cit., p. 39-40
41. Ibid, p. 40
42. Ibid, p. 43

http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/5488517.htm

Threats by Buddhists to Hush Me

2011-11-10T13:55:00.001-08:00

In the beginning this teacher wrote to me:

On a personal note, I usually refuse to even accept former tantra students because of the spirit of denial and deception that the practice contains, where everything related to morals and ethics is built on shifting sand... it boogles the mind that they can speak on tantra and the bodhisattva ideal in the same breath.

While I certainly would never disrespect a practitioner of tantra, without doubt I have no respect for the tradition itself.... shifting sand, a house of mirrors, a shell game... call it what ever you want, but it's the anti-Dharma and unfit at the table of anyone who practices the Bodhisattva Dharma.

As a side note, the practice seems to attract some of the most unstable people, where the teachers of it even fail to weed them out... that's the other problem with it, where the teachers are sometimes more concerned with materialism and popularity.

I suspect that those who actually join those groups and make excuses for them are in it for the thrill of it all.

And then as he learned that I had planned on exposing Tibetan Buddhism and other lineages who have harmed women and children, I get this in his attempt to stifle me:

"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me" -- in those who harbor such thoughts hatred will never cease.
“He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me" -- in those who do not harbor such thoughts hatred will cease.”

This scripture has hushed many people, keeping them from speaking out because they are not supposed think of themselves as being beaten or abused, after all it is karma that caused these things, and as my own ex teacher said, “Never be angry at the instrument of your own karma.”

So I supposed if you are beaten, raped, robbed, etc. you just thank the person for helping you get rid of some karma.

And so now this person tries another tactic after I said that I didn’t care what Buddha had said:

If you stepped back and watched yourself walk by you might better understand why I'm saying this because activist compassion requires you to let go of the incriminations and anger, the feeling that you were deceived and are now justified. If you don't do so then you're only a "crusader" in every sense of the word.

When that didn't work, he said,

Don’t expect the rest of us to sit by and be silent about it...

In time you'll hopefully understand where I'm coming from in all of this, that compassionate activism and being a crusader are two different things, where the latter requires that you claim a mantle that is not yours to wear because you were not actually abused. It's okay to be compassionate and want to help see and end to abuse, but you need to get behind those who have been abused and follow their lead, not act like Joan of Arc and try to lead them into battle. Do you see the difference?

It matters not to me whether I am angry or not over those who are being hurt, because I will speak out either way, but yes, it bothers me greatly when I know that people are being harmed, especially in religion, a place where we come to heal our souls and minds, a place of peace and compassion, at least that is what is implied at the door.

But there is little compassion in any religion when it is accompanied with teachings of karma, which in turn teach you to believe that all harm that comes to you is due to your own karma; you deserve it. And yet at the same time no one seems to think that perhaps it is your own karma to help others who are being harmed. The teaching of karma can thus be very tricky and misused.

What if someone like Ram Dass, whom I admire for his honesty, said to others, It is your karma to be dying or to be in prison and then did nothing about it. Ram Dass has been helping those people. He even warns others of abuse in religions, as has Joan Halifax, the Batchelors, Jack Kornfield, the Trimondis, as well as a few others.

I do not place myself along side of them, but I will do my best to warn others and to not do so out of anger at what this Chan Buddhist believes is "because I was deceived." If I wanted revenge, it would have been easy to get; I don't want revenge. I went on the boards to find out if my teacher was lying or not, and when the Tibetan Buddhists began harassing and threatening me, I moved on. Then when I learned the truth and found that women and children were being harmed and was asked by a Human Right's Activist to help other women, I joined with her in exposing and thus, hopefully, in helping others.

Also, in Buddhism they try to make you believe that anger is wrong, and yet they harm others with their own verbal and/or sexual abuse all the while trying to hush you up. I find this strange. And so even this person who tried to tell me to not say "I was beaten..." finally wrote:

You do remember what happened to Joan of Arc, don't you? They burnt her at the stake

Just keep in mind that her behavior is seen as a precursor to a mental disorder, saint or no saint.

But then two other people wrote me words of encouragement:

“Some people are heavily invested in the tantric practices, and view you as someone bent on spoiling their party. Others simply can't handle any kind of negativity and feel the need to preach.

What surprises me is how many people forget that Buddhism is about kindness and compassion, and are quick to attack anyone who raises issues relating to the harm that Buddhism has caused. The same would go for any religion, including Christianity, which purports to be based on the principle of treating others as we would like to be treated. People's denial mechanisms seem to be much stronger than their kindness reflex. How sad!

I've run into the same preaching and hostility you have, when posting on forums about lama abuse/clergy abuse. I expected a sincerely concerned response, but anger is more typical. It depends on the forum, but even non-Buddhist forums that are about truth-telling and exposing corruption get very defensive about any criticism of Tibetan Buddhism, especially, and trot out the "China sympathizer" line.

Being a truth-teller is a hard but honorable road to travel. Keep on keepin' on. :)”

And then this:

“you know what happened to joan d' arc

Before she got made a saint she was burnt at the stake as a witch.

That was a threat to make you be silent and to stop disagreeing.

We have not moved on much since poor old Joan got hers for speaking her mind, at least on the forum where that was said.”

But what this Chan Buddhist doesn't realize is that I have been exposing wrong doing in religions for a very long time on the forums, for years.

And yet when I was on the forums trying to get the truth out of the Tibetan Buddhists. One of them accused me of knowing exactly what my ex teacher taught, and said that I joined his group to expose him. I had mentioned no names, no lineages, but he knew who I was talking about because we had emailed each other, and so he brought it out in the open, almost exposing my ex teacher himself. But I would not have had to join my teacher's sangha to expose his teachings; they are his lineage's website, which I wish I had read before ever taking Refuge in the Buddha though him, who as soon as I took refuge said, You should now think of me a Buddha." --a concept in Tibetan Buddhist lamas have that really bothers me now.

And this is what the my friend, the Tibetan Buddhist had to say:

“That is libel. The person is twisting the truth. There is no such thing as advanced yoga tantra and receiving a highest yoga tantra empowerment does not lead to sex. GKG did sack a few people for sexual abuse however. The NKT Highest Yoga Tantra is pure Gelugpa as taught by HHDL. . Men and women are treated equally and out of tens of thousands of people you will always find a few rogues. However I stepped out of the NKT because of those abuses which will be worse now that monks and nuns who are not Vajra Masters will be giving all empowerments.”

And from this same person:

''I wish you well, but I will try to stop you from negative karma out of compassion for others but also because it is harming you too. In the 'real world' I'm considered to be a pretty advanced practitioner of Highest Yoga Tantra with regard to Heruka Chakrasambara and Vajrayogini. You won't know it, but we 'self-generate' as either the female or the male deity with no regard to our gender in our current bodies. Not only that, but for example the female represents Wisdom, not a sex object.

So how, if you self-generated as a male, could you suffer at the hands of a man? It makes no sense, and I wish you would either stop and back away from insults, or make a thorough study and really understand what it is you are attacking."

And so all this aboe from an advanced practitioner.

And so my own reactions in all of this were first shock, then despair, and then more shock in learning about women and children being harmed, and next reading more books that exposed Tibetan Buddhism, which in turn sickened me. Next reading women's own stories, even children's, and all during this time as I was trying to get answers on forums, I was being told that I was committing "libel," and then was hounded. I left the forums for most part.

People, especially men, do not wish to give up their sexual practice in Tibetan Buddhism and will stop at nothing to hush a person up. How many threats have other people had? The Trimondis? I don't know. Some women are even afraid to speak out, and some have been depressed and frightened over what had happened to them.

How long can this go on before people will do something about it? Before people will stop saying it is just their karma?

I remember being upset over what was happening to a friend when I was in a Zen Buddhist group, and all I got from a monk was, "It is her karma." It felt cold even if it wasn't meant to be.

So now I ask, What is our own karma in allowing these things to go on?

Submitted by GU

Child ordinations and the rights of children

2011-11-09T07:29:00.000-08:00

by Gananath Obeyesekere

Recent newspaper articles, photographs and reports in our newspapers have given prominence to massive campaigns to recruit thousands of children to the Buddhist order with the Prime Minister himself urging the recruitment of two thousand children as novices. He also urged the poor to multiply and bring forth children to bless the Sangha with new recruits and to serve in what he no doubt perceives as an endless war. My concern here is with the whole problem of child monks because this seems to be a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Theravada Vinaya, the authoritative source of rules for monks. One newspaper photograph shows a child of about eight years wearing yellow robes and greeted by his smiling sister. The boy was not smiling; I am not surprised because joining a mendicant order is an awesome experience even for adults. One has therefore to ask whether little children are capable of making this kind of decision. Let me therefore address some of the issues that seem to me to be relevant for public consideration.

This Samanera is one of 150 boys ordained last week at the Dimbulagala Aranya Senasana. Immediately after he was ordained his two younger sisters ran to him and peeped into his pathther to see what was in it - (Picture by nihal Chandra kumara

1. The recruitment thrust has the blessings of politicians and the officials of the Buddha Sasana Ministry. I presume that in order to set an example to others the officials promoting the campaign have ordained, or will ordain in the near future, their own children or grandchildren. Outside of the offspring of these idealistically motivated officials, most of the child recruits must surely come from the poorest of the poor and also, nowadays, from those families who have been dispossessed or have suffered from the current war. One might make a case that monastic recruitment is a good thing because it provides homes and basic care for poor children. Yet, most of these children have had more than one meal a day, have had playmates and the support of family and kin folk. How would they fare with no solid food after the noon meal, without playmates and kin support? Moreover, if Buddhists are concerned about the welfare of poor children ought they not to develop alternative provisions, such as homes and orphanages, provision of food and education for destitute families - all of which are in keeping with the spirit of the religion.

2. The more serious problem is that of sexual abuse notoriously associated with all forms of institutionalized monasticism, witness the recent cases of abuse of children put in their pastoral care even by high prelates of the Catholic Church. But Catholics have no system of child ordination and therefore the possibility of abuse of children confined to Buddhist monasteries must be faced honestly and squarely.

Over the last five or six years I have visited many Buddhist monasteries trying to locate two rare palm leaf manuscripts and I believe that in general village monks are morally responsible human beings. Yet, it is foolish to believe that abuse of children does not take place in larger monasteries, in urban settings and among the more worldly monks. The rules of the Vinaya themselves were formulated when specific acts of immorality had taken place in monasteries and among these are unlawful homoerotic activities, generally among consenting adults. In our own troubled times, monks are provided with plenty of sexual stimuli: in TV and in coeducational interactions in campuses and other arenas. Yet the rules do not provide them with heterosexual outlets. One would imagine, therefore, that in our modern context the possibility of child abuse is certainly there and one ought to have institutional safeguards for that purpose. Urban monasteries today provide no serious monastic education because modern monks want to sit for secular government exams and go to secular universities. It is in the rare instance that monks study Pali or Sanskrit and have first hand knowledge of the doctrinal tradition. Many drop out of the monkhood after some time though exact statistics are not available. If I am even partially right then the real issue is to provide incentives for monks to study Buddhism seriously, engage in meditative exercises, and for the laity to provide support and encouragement for adult monks to remain in the order. When masses of children are to be ordained it is likely that most of them will follow the now popular pattern of secular education and many will end up disrobing. If so, what good will child recruitment do for the order?

3. Unlike adult monks children have little chance of resisting sexual advances. They are much more vulnerable; the cultural and familial pressures are so strong that they cannot run away to their own homes and, as far as I know, there is no satisfactory way in which they can protest to the monastic authorities. The new ordinations require, I am told, a guardian who will act in the interests of the child. But how does the guardian inquire into such possibilities when the mere talk of homoerotic practices is taboo? And how does a guardian set about his task? Are there rules and institutional procedures laid out? Perhaps one solution would be to have professionally trained child care workers among Buddhist monks who would then have the legal and moral right to inquire into problems of child abuse. But I doubt that this has even been considered by our pious officials and politicians.

4. What are the rules of the order regarding child ordination? The classic rule which officials and monks go by is formulated in the Mahavagga 1, 53-54 of the Vinaya Pitake . In it the Buddha ordained his only son Rahula but, owing to strong protests by his own father, the sage formulated the following rule: "Monks, a child who has not his parent’s consent should not be let to go forth [that is, ordained as a novice]." But well-meaning Buddhists are unaware that this rule was qualified by another sensible rule: "Monks, a boy of less than fifteen years of age should not be let to go forth. Whoever should let (one such) go forth, there is an offence of wrong-doing." (Mahavagga, 1.50) Because sixteen years is the permitted age of marriage for Buddhists at that time one would expect a fifteen year old youth to be fully mature.

Nevertheless, this is further qualified by another rule which unlike the previous one is so vague that it simply cannot be applied to our time. It says: "I allow you, monks, to let a youth of less than fifteen years of age and who is scarer of crows go forth." (ibid,. 1,51) This qualification, however, is nothing to crow about. It is not a general rule but an exception to the former one. And it has been interpreted by later traditions to mean references to a muscular youth capable of scaring crows (who in Buddhist texts are hardy creatures classed with vultures and living on carrion) by throwing a clod of earth at them with the left hand! Simply stated the rule implies that one can qualify the fifteen year norm if the youth (not child) is physically tough and up to the rigours of monastic life. Thus, it seems to me that the Theravada Buddhist rules of recruitment for novices are quite sensible: one must have parental consent; one must be fifteen years old; if not, one must be a youth with the physical maturity of a fifteen year old. There is no space for child ordination according to the Buddha-word which means that in these matters ignorance is our worst enemy.

5. I for one agree that monks have a vital religion~ role in our society officiating in temple rituals and sermons and they are absolutely indispensible for death rituals, especially the pansakula and the remembrance of the dead (mataka dana). Hence, some form of recruitment is vital to the perpetuation of lived Buddhism. If monks, politicians and government officials declare that more monks are needed then they should also ask the question, how many monks does the nation require? Or, is one good monk worth the many who openly flout the rules of the order?

I have no answers to these questions but if more monks are needed there remains a very simple solution to the problem, and that is the recruitment of older folk. Many older people are increasingly given to meditation (of various types, some deep some shallow) and they are nowadays educated, often with a good knowledge of the dhamma. They have more or less retired from work and worldly life and form an ideal recruiting ground for both novices and fully ordained monks (and nuns). Many of them have meagre pensions; therefore free monastic board and lodging would be added incentives. And given the imbalances in our population more and more older people (age fifty and over) will be available for recruitment. They have already enjoyed (or put up with) domestic life and are ready for the life after. They may not be as glamorous as child monks but they could well be the rock on which a solid foundation for the future of the sasana could be erected. It seems that the sensible thing to do is for the Buddha Sasana officials to promote this form of recruitment rather than the Orwellian scenario proposed by the Prime Minister.

http://www.infolanka.com/org/srilanka/cult/13.htm

(The writer is Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, of Princeton University, New Jersey, USA)

Sex Scandal Has American Buddhists Looking Within

2011-11-09T04:48:00.000-08:00

By MARK OPPENHEIMERPublished: August 20, 2010

Sooner or later, every traditional faith has to confront sexual impropriety by its spiritual leaders: extramarital sex, or sex with the wrong people (members of the congregation, minors) or, for supposedly celibate clergy, any sex at all.

But there are great differences in how religions handle these transgressions. For Jews and many Protestants, it is the local congregation that decides what sins are too great to countenance, and what kind of discipline is needed. For Roman Catholics, a worldwide hierarchy decides, depending on reports from local representatives. And for Buddhists — well, the answer is not so clear. The root of the problem, some experts say, is that the teacher/student relationship in Buddhism has no obvious Western analogy. Priests and rabbis know the boundaries, even if some do not always respect them. Doctors, too, have ethical canons they are supposed to honor. A spiritual figure like a priest, an authority figure like a teacher, a therapeutic figure like an analyst — the Buddhist teacher may be all of those, but is not really like any one of them. Even sanghas, or Buddhist communities, that discourage such relationships often have no process for enforcing a ban, and as one Zen society in New York is learning, that can lead to problems.

Since 1965, Eido Shimano, now 77, has been the abbot, or head spiritual teacher, of the Zen Studies Society, a Japanese Buddhist community with headquarters on East 67th Street in Manhattan and a 1,400-acre monastery in the Catskills. For much of that time, there have been rumors about the married abbot’s sexual liaisons, with his students and with other women. Such rumors could no longer be ignored when, in 2008, the University of Hawaii at Manoa unsealed some papers donated by Robert Aitken, a leading American Buddhist and founder of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship.

The papers included files about Mr. Shimano that Mr. Aitken kept from 1964 to 2003. Mr. Aitken, who died Aug. 5, met Mr. Shimano when both men worked in Hawaii in the 1960s, and for more than 40 years he kept notes on his colleague’s liaisons, based on conversations with women who had confided in him.

In a 1995 letter to the president of the Zen Studies Society’s board, Mr. Aitken wrote: “Over the past three decades, we have interviewed many former students of Shimano Roshi. Their stories are consistent: trust placed in an apparently wise and compassionate teacher, only to have that trust manipulated in the form of his sexual misconduct and abuse.” (“Roshi,” or teacher, is a Japanese honorific that goes after the name.)

The Aitken papers were soon circulating on the Internet. On June 15, Mr. Shimano’s board of directors, which exercises ultimate authority in the society, met to discuss the allegations. Mr. Shimano, who was then on the board, was not present, but most board members concurred that the charges most likely had some validity.

“I thought the sources were varied enough” to seem valid, said one board member, who asked not to be named. “I certainly didn’t think it was all a fraud.”

At that meeting, the board members began writing a new set of ethical guidelines for the society. In the text, they included an acknowledgment of past indiscretions by Mr. Shimano. Chris Phelan, another board member, said that Mr. Shimano saw the text of the statement and approved of it. “He didn’t step forward and say he was being libeled,” Mr. Phelan said.

Nonetheless, several board members told The New York Times that they believed that Mr. Shimano’s relations with students had ended long ago, and they saw no reason that Mr. Shimano could not continue teaching.

“As far as I knew, there had been a hiatus of 15 years,” said Joe Marinello, a board member who is the abbot of the Seattle Zen Temple.

But then, on July 19, the board announced that Mr. Shimano had resigned from the board after being confronted with allegations of “clergy misconduct.” The statement was sent in response to inquiries from Tricycle, a magazine about Buddhism. Since that time, the board has said that Mr. Shimano will continue as abbot until 2012, but a vice abbot has been appointed and Mr. Shimano will not be taking new students.

So what had changed?

A week after beginning work on new ethical guidelines — which in their final form forbid “sexual advances or liaisons” between teachers and sangha members — the board was confronted with a new revelation.

In interviews over the past two weeks, four board members, including Mr. Marinello, said that on June 21 a woman — whose name he would not reveal — stood up during dinner at the Catskills monastery and announced that for the past two years she had had a consensual affair with Mr. Shimano, who was at the dinner. Several board members have said that Mr. Shimano later admitted the affair in conversations with them. On Wednesday, the society issued a statement acknowledging that “in June of this year, a woman revealed that there was an inappropriate relationship between herself and Eido Roshi." Mr. Shimano did not return several phone calls.

In two ways, this small, symbolic statement — Mr. Shimano’s resigning from his own board — reflects how American religion has changed in the last 15 years.

E-mail: mark.oppenheimer@nytimes.com; twitter.com/markopp1

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: August 24, 2010

The Beliefs column on Saturday, about Buddhist leaders who addressed a sex scandal, referred incorrectly to a 1990 article by Katy Butler, a journalist, titled “Encountering the Shadow in Buddhist America.” Ms. Butler did not describe Richard Baker, the abbot of the San Francisco Zen Center during the 1970s and 1980, as an alcoholic. She was comparing patterns of behavior by his followers to patterns of enabling behavior of relatives of alcoholics.A version of this article appeared in print on August 21, 2010, on page A13 of the New York edition.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/us/21beliefs.html

DowntheCrookedPath

Paramahansa Yogananda's Misuse of the Powers

The Hellish Realms of Religion

Why I Left Self Realization Fellowship

Swami Yogananda Sought in Damage Suit

Should I Take Kriya?

Human Wreckage Self Realization Fellowship

Gays Discriminated Against in Self Realization Fellowship

Abusive Gurus

An ExSRF Monk Speaks Out

You Must Never Leave Your Guru

Great Wedsites and Books

What is a Cult? – Differences Between Cults and Religions

Neutral and Negative Meanings of the Word “Cult”

Read This Next

Difference Between a Cult and a Religion

Dangerous Cults

Buddhist Monks Walk Away from Sex-abuse Cases

Letter from Roshi Joan regarding Eido Shimano by Joan Halifax

The Scandal of the Zen Teacher and Where it Takes Me

Child Abuse by Buddhist Clergy

SRI LANKA: Children abused and sexually harassed by the teacher for two years

Buddhist monk ingests poison in Sri Lanka

By Shimali Senanayake, Associated Press Writer, May 16, 2005

Monks arrested over sexual abuse of Sri Lankan war orphans

The Buddha Myth 2

§ 13. The Buddha Myth.

Footnotes

How to spot a Buddhist cult

Why I Left Buddhism

Lust for Enlightenment by John Stevens

Rumors of vice rattle China's Shaolin monastery and the home of kung fu

Shi Yongxin, abbot of China's Shaolin monastery, where kung fu and Zen Buddhism were born, has been attacked by Internet rumors alleging improper behavior. The abbot has long been a controversial figure in China.

Why I Ditched Buddhism

Buddhist Retreat

Why I gave up on finding my religion.

Is Buddhism a Peaceful Religion?

The Buddha Myth 2

§ 13. The Buddha Myth.

Footnotes

The Buddha Myth

by JM Robertson

The Series of Buddha

The Documentary Evidence

Buddha as a Secondary God

Objections Answered

Who is Who in Reincarnation and the Power of Gurus

Threats by Buddhists to Hush Me

Child ordinations and the rights of children

Sex Scandal Has American Buddhists Looking Within