Great Defense of SRF vs. Cultbusters.com

This is a great defense of SRF posted on the website cultbusters.com. I like it especially because the writer, named Mikhail, has some problems with SRF, yet the writer is able to fid the grains of sugar mised in with the sand.

**********************

I have spent some time (my first) reading quite a number of accusations leveled against Yogananda, etc.

A lot of criticism lacks substance. For example, the criticism that the non-profit was set up to purchase land and no mention made of kriya yoga. The writer(s) seem to imply that this is some sinister if not evil plot that reveals the materialistic nature of Yogananda.

Wow! That's like me saying, 'I like women.' And then people saying that therefore I hate men. Or that I like only women when they are in pairs. Or. that I hate female children until they become women.

Any comment made can be subject to misinterpretation. One can read a lot into anything.

Another criticism makes mention that young girls were seen having free entrance to Yogananda's room. Really? Were they girls or women. No mention is made of the age. Again, the implication (maybe the accusation was made outright) that he was having sex with girls or women.

My friends, lots of persons made accusations. It's easy to do. All it takes is for one to utter words. For example, I had a friend who went to bed with a woman. It was a one-night stand. Afterward, to get revenge on him, she accused him of rape!

People make accusations all the time. Many of them believe them even if they are outright lies. Some people justify this. Can it be that all of the persons who are regular contributors to these discussions never have experienced this?

The ideal here should be objectivity. Hearsay is a wicked tool and very untrustworthy.

Too many persons here have been hurt (and embarrassed) by joining cults and other religious organizations only to find out that no, there are no Utopian communities where everybody is wonderful. Bad things happen even in religious orders and ashrams.

Do not judge the whole based on the few.

Don't get me wrong. I feel for anyone who has been taken advantage of. But the fact that contributions are requested or money required to obtain lessons is not a horrible thing. There are costs involved.

My gut instinct tells me that Yogananda was an honorable man. I have read much of his writings and what some of his disciples have said about him.

Jesus and Saint Francis had their detractors also. So too Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Buddha and many others.

Too live in the world is to partake of sin, or evil. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I have read too much on Eastern Spirituality to cast it all out as rot. Too many reputable persons have commented on Meditation, its practice, samahdi, siddhis, etc. to conclude that it is all bunk.

If so, what is the hidden agenda for people who preach love, peace, etc? If they are making lots of money and becoming rich and seem insincere, okay, that's one thing. And I agree there are many, maybe even the vast majority, who are hucksters.

There is dogmatism on both sides: the Believer and the non-Believer. Yogananda or his guru or some other yogi said something to the effect: "What is the truth? Test it empirically, i.e. for oneself. Shut the mind down daily for an extended period each day for a year. And then notice and measure its effects."

I think that is a fair test. For the sincere investigator, that is the challenge.

There is something about real Sprituality. I say this as one educated in Marxism and political radicalism. I am not a particular follower of any path. And yet, I believe there is a DEEP TRUTH in the Yogic path, and Buddhism and mystical Christianity, etc.

Intellectual conversations disputing the veracity of this and that leader have some merit, no doubt. I myself have fallen away from a few whose reputation have been obviously sullied. I make fun of many so-called New Age Prophets and other writing books rehashing the works of others.

But, take care, do not believe all that people say or claim. Many of them harbor ill will and do not speak honestly. Others are even less honorable and subject to deceit and worse.

By the way, for those who know me, the words they often use is: Negative, hypercritical, acerbic, caustic, etc. I say this to let you know that I am not in the namby-pamby group of those easily swayed and duped. My brother follows a so-called guru who I deem a total airhead.

I agree with Socrates that there needs to be careful criticism and an honest distinction made.

Mikhail
.