By-laws Mystery: True or False

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > SRF Teachings and Ideals > By-laws Mystery: True or False
Page 1 2	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
True Enuf Registered User (3/10/03 9:55 pm) Reply	By-laws Mystery: True or False On the yogananda.net board, Blue Cowboy on 2/14/03 posts under title: "No. (edited)" "...although Master taught the technique and the initiation ceremony to some during his lifetime, because of the ministers who left his order and began their own organizations, he also wrote this into the bylaws of SRF he revised in 1951: "Only the president [of SRF], as the channel of Paramahansa Yogananda, has the authortiy to initiate in the Kriya Yoga. By virtue of the spiritual authority vested in the president, he or she may designate an ordained minister of the Church to conduct a Kriya Yoga ceremony, such designation to be reviewed annually." Does anyone know if this is true? Is there any reference to this in any of the SRF magazines around that time? Later issues around 1953 make no mention of this. The first change I've found, regarding ""The actual technique should be learned from an authorized Kriyaban (Kriya Yogi) of SRF-YSS." as opposed to a "generic" kriyaban is in the 1956 AY, although BC quotes from the 1971 edition. Even after SRF retrieved the rights to publish the AY in the early fifties from the Philosophical Library, they published an edition in 1954 with the original authorization language. Since there's been so much debate surrounding this issue, I'd have thought SRF would've pulled this by-law change out to show the whole world long ago. Unless I'm mistaken, this restrictive version didn't appear until much later. So which is it?
True Enuf Registered User (3/11/03 5:51 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Regarding the post above, I’ll add my personal opinion: something doesn’t compute here. A change of this magnitude would not have been kept under wraps. Rather, it would have been deemed important enough to require wide dissemination among the membership, through an announcement in the magazine and with an explanatory letter sent to all devotees. Furthermore, it would have been adduced as evidence to bolster SRF’s case in a certain trial… I’d bet such a document does not exist and that BC is merely repeating something he heard somewhere, sometime. However, if this alleged by-law is ever publicly presented, it should be tested by independent laboratories to determine the age of the paper and ink. For once the ride down the slippery slope of changing this and that begins, regardless of how innocent or minor the changes might be, and even if done with the best of intentions, the resulting karmic pattern will enable and smooth the way toward bolder alterations when a suitable opportunity presents itself.
Lobo Registered User (3/11/03 11:59 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Although I rarely visit that site I happened to read this post of BC's and had much the same reaction as you. Deconstructing his assertion that PY revised the by-laws to counter the actions of disciples that had left and started their own organizations I am not aware of any such thing. Nerode and Dhirananda did leave, and much has been written on this board about that. But they didn't start their own organizations to teach kriya. The persons who started their own organizations started them AFTER PY's demise. Kriyananda, R.E. Davis, even Norman Paulson; all of these were disciples during his lifetime, not leaving until after he departed. Swami Premananda of the SRF in Washington D.C. (see first edition for picture with PY and quote from PY) was teaching kriya during PY's lifetime under PY's authorization. It wasn't until the mid 50's that SRF dropped their organizational afflilation with Swami Premananda; while PY was alive the latter was considered doing his guru's wishes under his authority. So in conclusion it seems very difficult for PY to revise the by-laws to stop the spiritual outlaws from giving kriya outside of SRF when they weren't. Plus the wording of the new by-laws (my guess is Tara or Daya made the change after PY's death) seems inconsistent with PY. There isn't anything that I"ve ever come across of his writings wherein he states that the president in future, after his death, will be his channel. Rajasi didn't claim to be his channel and Rajasi was his closest disciples and first president. Also it is my observation that BC is a cheerleader for SRF, having some close associations with some of the monks, which is where he probably obtained his information, and which, in my opinion, makes it that much more suspect. You are right-on, in my opinion again, that if SRF had such a document in PY's handwriting and with his orginal signature (not a signing machine) they would have made it public long ago as this subject (the right to confer kriya) has been a bone of contention between both Kriyananda, Davis, and SRF.
crogman1 Registered User (3/12/03 6:22 am) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False SRF is just a little non-profit pseudo church and is not bound by laws to maintain the kind of rules you describe. They can associate with who they want and start up relationships and shut them down without formal reasons. The fact that they may have done this after PY's death doesn't mean anything. Some people keep thinking they are the religion of the new age and need to act with high ideals and obey some high thinking rules to maintain an "Airplane route to God" status or something. Wake up people. I would be surprised if they have many rules written down at all.
True Enuf Registered User (3/12/03 8:23 am) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Lobo, in fact Premananda continued in SRF until about 1956, if I recall correctly. His books were still advertised in the SRF magazines throughout 1953, and he was listed as the head of the Washington DC temple in the directory of centers toward the back of those magazines (as was M. Hamilton, R. Davis, O. Black, K. Silva in their respective cities.) The articles of incorporation were amended in December 1954 (I believe Rajasi was incapacitated by that time) to include, among other things, a mechanism to deal with problem ‘children’: "To train, instruct, and ordain ministers of Self-Realization Fellowship Church; to train, instruct, and confirm Sisters and Brothers of a subsidiary monastic Self-Realization Order; to make and enforce regulations concerning the religious doctrines, rites, and ceremonies that may be taught and practiced by such Ministers, Sisters, and Brothers; and to make and enforce regulations for the discipline, suspension, and expulsion of such Ministers, Sisters, and Brothers." I still don’t believe there is such a specific by-law, allegedly written in 1951 by PY. Now if it was created after Master’s death, then it’s back to "he said, she said." SRF used to advertise and distribute books by many of its teachers, such as Br. Jotin (Premananda) and Ranendra Das, which is why I never had a problem per se with Daya Mata’s books. How they’re pushed is of course another matter. Crogman, no organization or entity is bound by law to maintain any such rules, except where changes might violate federal/state/local law, civil rights, anti-discrimination codes, lead to an arbitrary confiscation of paid-in assets, etc… Otherwise, they are free to organize as they see fit. All the powers of the directors of the corporation are duly written into the articles of incorporation. They are free to change/modify/delete any existing by-laws whenever they wish by writing new ones. An incorporated entity cannot, however, physically alter original legal documents nor create backdated ones. If the motive is for pecuniary gain, to establish legitimacy for the purpose of holding members to the entity and creating disincentives for them to leave to a competing entity, that would be fraud on top of forgery, both of which are felonies. In the case of a tax-exempt non-profit, it could lead to revocation of that special status, heavy fines and the imprisonment of the culpable parties.
Lobo Registered User (3/12/03 11:01 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False True enuf, So we agree that these changes to the by-laws (if they even exist--how would an average devotee obtain a copy of them?) were not made during PY's lifetime. In her book about her father, J.D. Salinger, Margaret Salinger tells a story of her father's interest in meditation and Eastern religion. He first was taken with Ramakrishna and Vivekananda but was put off by the former's emphasis upon "women and gold", particularly "women", as the downfall of the spiritual aspirant; in other words he wanted a path that allowed a sexual life. He read the AY and was very elated to find that PY did not place so much emphasis (although he certainly didn't disagree with R.K.'s contention that too much sex was not helpful to the yogi) on sexual abstience. He also very much wanted to obtain kriya initiation. Thus he corresponded with Kriyananda of SRF's Center Dept. (middle 1950's) as to how to become quickly initiated into kriya. Kriyananda directed him to Swami Premananda in Washington, D.C. Salinger and his wife took the train down from their home in Vermont and were in fact initiated by Premananda into kriya yoga. He thereafter quit the practice but not before dutifully practicing for some time. So what you say about SRF's relationship with Premananda during this period gibes with Ms. Salinger's description of her's initiation. It is interesting to understand that while PY was head of SRF he allowed his top teachers to publish their own books; never fearing it would appear that people wouldn't seek him out as the founder/leader--beyond those ego-games. And it is likewise interesting to Yogananda historians how after his death his "top" disciples quickly stopped all SRF official contact with these other disciples, eventually even going so far as to deny their existence and importance to Yogananda, even airbrushing Premananda from PY's memorial picture and claiming that Rajasi, rather than Premananda, conducted the Vedic rites for their guru.
True Enuf Registered User (3/13/03 6:30 am) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Truly sad, the case of Premananda, loyal chela of PY. How much simpler and forthright if it was done like this: Premananda obviously had permission from PY to teach as he saw fit. Let’s assume for the sake of this exercise that SRF felt they had valid reasons to separate from Premananda. Perhaps they approached him and said, “Look, we feel strongly that going forward the teachings should be presented in a uniform manner. Of course we’re all teaching the same thing, but your manner of doing it and emphasis on certain areas is at variance with our presentation. Will you change it?” Premananda might have answered “Master knew all along what and how I’m teaching. I feel equally strongly that I should continue this way.” SRF then proposes “So we’ll separate. Perhaps you can change the name of the temple to avoid any confusion. We will announce it in the magazine as follows: “We wish to announce that SRF and Swami Premananda have agreed to end their mutual affiliation, so that he may focus on the traditional teachings of Advaita Monism. We want to take this opportunity to thank Swamiji for all he has done to advance Master’s work in the West and offer him our best wishes for the future.” That’s it. Simple. No need to airbrush him out the photo (it’s a lousy job to boot… you can see this weird painted in shadow on Dr. Lewis’ gown). No need to re-write history. And years, decades, centuries later, people would just see a swami in a picture and read perhaps his eulogy. Almost no one would dig into who he was, and if they did, so what?. (It’s like a picture of Br. Nityananda in on the memoriam books. How many folks would ask if he had a biography? Who’s Nityananda, when did he come, what were his duties..?) Once, however, so blatant a change is made, it always raises a swirl of questions, just like when some fallen member of Stalin’s Politburo would disappear from existence (every printed word and photo excised, etc..) I seriously doubt such an announcement would have split the organization. Maybe a few would’ve be interested to join him, but so what? The very wording of the absolutely truthful announcement would be perfectly satisfactory and could never generate an excess of curiousity. Anyway, Premananda was never a threat to anybody. He remained until his passing with his little Washington temple, which continues to this day. Really sad.
chela2020 Registered User (3/13/03 12:26 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False (This message was left blank) Edited by: chela2020 at: 7/1/03 4:35 pm
parabastha Registered User (3/13/03 3:25 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False I think like you True Enuf. I strongly feel that Swami Premananda was at the top of list to be the next SRF president after Rajasi, since Dr. Lewis could not be because he was married. Swami Premananda was single, a swami personally ordained by PY himself, and an Indian like Master. So he was removed from SRF, he and his church, by the Mormon clan (Tara, Daya, Ananda, Mrs. Wright, Mrinalini etc), eager as they were to take the full control of everything.
Lobo Registered User (3/13/03 8:26 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False True enuf, I think it would have, if done as you have put it so well, gone very far to provide all, new devotees as well as longtime disciples, the reassurance that SRF was only concerned about continuing in the open-hearted, hide-no-secret tradition of their guru. It would have not de-personalized Premananda and by doing so would have recognized his importance to the guru. In short it would have been excellent. Ah, but it wasn't to be, was it? Anyway mistakes have been made and anytime something is hidden it only raises questions. Questions which all devotees have the right to raise as they concern not only the organization but the live of the guru, and who he took as his disciples; just as the organization publishes books and videos and tapes of the monastic disciples, people should have the right to understand his other disciples now written out of SRF/Yogananda history. People such as Yogacharyi Margaret Hamilton (now called by her followers Mother Hamilton); Master's disciple from Seattle and friend of Gyanamata. Bob Raymer who was with Master during the last years of his life when he came to PY, and who now today runs Yogacharya Oliver Black's Song of the Morning Ranch in Upper Michigan. Peggy Dietz, a close disciple, who was PY's driver during the years he commuted to Lake Shrine before its opening; and who worked for a period of years in the office serving in that capacity. After she decided not to become a renunciate PY told her to give kriya initiation to those she thought it would benefit. She asked, "Sir, what about the office, what will they say?" His reply, "Who are you following, me or the office?" Yes there is much that is missing from the world of SRF, banished for political reasons, rotting in the darkness of official secrets. Sad, indeed!
Lobo Registered User (3/13/03 8:45 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Chela 2020, Of course Salinger did not understand Ramakrishna's teaching after reading the Biography. He didn't have anyone to discuss this with other than his young wife (Margaret's mother) who didn't share the same interest all that much. But he took away from his reading that Ramakrishna was anti-sex, which is something that is very understandable, as the Biography is full of his admonitions not to look into women's eyes, to see women, all women as one's mother, etc. etc.; but more than that Ramakrishna seemed to have valued those close disciple's the most who were the most "pure", that is those who hadn't experienced any desire for woman, sexual desire. It is true that he told married disciples who wanted to leave their families to renounce the world (including "woman") that it adharmic, and that it was their duty to support their families. He had many householder disciples of course, and didn't counsel them to renounce sexual relations within the marriage union. But the Biography contains both his strict admonitions against sexual desire which was given to his closest, later monastic, disciples; as well as, his advise stated above to his householder disciples such as Master Mahasaya and others. Perhaps Salinger didn't have the perspective wherein he could have seen the difference between the two groups and the varying advise Ramakrishna gave to them respectively? He was a troubled man who was seeking a way to gain peace of mind, and who was dealing with sexual attractions to younger women, much younger, as his marriages show. He was therefore happy to find that one of the SRF guru's was married. That proved, at least to him, that kriya yoga was for those who were married, not exclusively for monastics, renouncers. Maybe if he had taken the time, but again he is almost as famous for his anti-social behavior as he is for his novels, to seek out for instance Swami Nikilananda of the New York Ramakrisha-Vivekananda Society for guidance he would have been able to understand the distinctions Ramakrishna used to guide his different classes of disciples.
Borg108 Registered User (3/13/03 9:27 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False An excellent and inspiring book by Swami Chetananda of Vedanta is called They Lived With God. It is about the exalted householder disciples of Sri Ramamkrishna. It shows that high states of spiritual consciousness are not limited to monastics.
Lobo Registered User (3/14/03 10:36 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Borg, Yes I've read that book and it is as you say very inspiring. Have you read Isherwood's "Ramakrishna and His Disciples"? Another good book about him and his disciples, well written and very readable.
Auretta Registered User (3/28/03 11:38 am) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Dear all, this is my first post! I'm italian, so may be my english will very bad...sorry in adavance! I would like to thank you for your very interesting Forum! I read all your posts concerning the matter, and I have a lot of questions abot! Understanding that Kriya Yoga iniziation it's debating in this way: -only SRF monks can iniziate disciples (plus cerimony) -other Gurus (out of SRF) iniziated disciples (with cerimony or not) Following the above mentioned points, I ask you: - It's permitted to a senior kryiaban (4 kriyas)(not SRF) iniziate a disciple in Kriya Yoga? Obviously He or Her would be teach the same lesson writed by Yogananda. - It does exist any old writing by Yogananda describing this possibility? - If yes, in which book, or other documents? (very important) - What you think about this? Yogananda would accepted this? I hope to read soon your answers! Sorry aganin for my english, and blessing to all of you! Aurora
Lobo Registered User (3/28/03 9:31 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Dear Auretta, Glad to see that you had the courage to post here despite your lack of English (which, by the way is very good and understandable. I shutter to think of trying to write something in Italian). My understanding is: The SRF president has the sole authority within SRF to designate who can give authorized kriya initiation. To my knowledge today there are only monastics who she's authorized to give kriya. In PY's lifetime he gave certain of his disciples the authority to give kriya initiation, both householders (non-monastics) and monastics. After his death that authority was transferred to the SRF president, although personally I don't think he called the future presidents his "channels". In SRF the only way a kriyaban can be permitted to give kriya to anyone is to receive prior authoritzation from SRF. That is the policy that everyone agrees to when they receive kriya from SRF. I don't know if they allow senior kriya practioners to give kriya, I've never written them to ask permission. Maybe someone else can give better information regarding whether they do or don't. In the 1st edition of the AY Yogananda writes that "the actual technique must be learned from a Kriyaban or Kriya Yogi; here a broad reference must suffice." He later changed it, in the 2nd edition, to a SRF authorized Kriyaban. Hope that helps. If anyone knows anything different please feel free to correct me and clear this up for our friend, Auretta. Peace to you,
True Enuf Registered User (3/28/03 10:55 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Lobo, you might want to re-read my first post in this thread. I assumed you read it as you responded with the third post of this thread. You just wrote "In the 1st edition of the AY Yogananda writes that "the actual technique must be learned from a Kriyaban or Kriya Yogi; here a broad reference must suffice." He later changed it, in the 2nd edition, to a SRF authorized Kriyaban." Not so. Here's from my first post: "The first change I've found, regarding ""The actual technique should be learned from an authorized Kriyaban (Kriya Yogi) of SRF-YSS." as opposed to a "generic" kriyaban is in the 1956 AY, although BC quotes from the 1971 edition. Even after SRF retrieved the rights to publish the AY in the early fifties from the Philosophical Library, they published an edition in 1954 with the original authorization language."
Lobo Registered User (3/29/03 10:32 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False TrueEnuf, To be honest I should have not written that PY changed it in the second edition. I don't know that to be true and probably picked it up as hearsay or supposition (on my part). So what you are saying (and for purposes of advancing the discussion I must say that I've only read the 1st edition and the 8th published in 1959) is that PY himself never changed that quote regarding who is authorized to teach the kriya technique. He never changed the wording to it being necessary to have the institutional o.k.? Is the 1954 edition the second? SRF says that he changed it in a "later edition." I have read that he personally edited, or had edited, the second edition before his demise; again if the 1954 edition is the second then it would've been the same as the original edition. So, very importantly, if he didn't in fact change it in the 2nd, all these years SRF has been knowingly putting forth an untruth. I seem to remember SRF responding to Ananda's charge that PY taught the 1st only by saying that he changed it in the second which if I remember they said came out in 1951 while he was still here. If someone does have the 1954 published 2nd edition, or earlier, could you please weigh in here to clear this up as it is a vital matter to all SRF kriya yogis. Or do you have the second edition; as you seem confident that the second didn't have any of the later changes about SRF? Best
True Enuf Registered User (3/30/03 1:59 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Hi Lobo, here's the skinny on editions and dates, the dates being what's important. 1946 - 1st 1949 - 2nd 1951 - 3rd 1952 - 4th 1954 - 5th 1955 - 6th 1956 - 7th It is in the 1956 7th edition that this change is presented. This is not open to discussion, this is fact, verifiable by anyone who looks at these editions. What's interesting is that 1956 is the year after Rajasi's passing, and the AY now included a picture of Sister Daya, looking rather glamorous against a backdrop of columns and staged lighting with shadow effects (this was a common technique of photographers nearly 50 years ago.) However, it states that the 1949 Rider edition (Britain) contained some modifications that Yogananda wanted but could not include in the American edition, since the Philosophical Library owned the rights to the book. It then states that although the rights to the book reverted to SRF in late 1953, they didn't have the time to create a new set of plates until 1956, to include those 1949- and some 1951- changes that Master wanted. So again, as I wondered in the opening posts of this thread, did Master actually write this kriyaban change? Here's the thing: If he did, it would've been presented already as proof of his wishes and used against Davis, Walters, et al. And a change that important surely would have been included in the magazine or a letter to the members. Curiously, there appears to be no hard evidence of this.
Lobo Registered User (3/30/03 11:50 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Hi True enuf, That's very interesting, that SRF claims that PY made changes before his demise but due to circumstances those changes (very significant ones) weren't inserted into the AY until the 7th edition of 1956. And all the more curiouser is, as you say, that was after Rajasi's demise and that he had the organizational authority and power to prevent them. Where, if you don't mind me asking did you find all the editions before the change? Those are certainly very valuable both from a historical viewpoint but more importantly they provide a black and white nonrefutable window into the period of SRF's history between PY's demise, Rajasi's tenure and demise, and the election of Daya by the board. Whenever I visit used bookstores I seek out the Eastern religions section looking for early editions of the AY. So far the earliest edition I"ve found is the 8th of 1959 which of course contains the SRF changes. Is there a source that sells early editions that you might feel comfortable letting those of us who'd want to purchase for their library? This is mindblowing stuff with huge implications. That PY taught the technique could be learned from a kriyaban to SRF must authorize that before allowing the kriyaban to do so is proof that the start of the massive changes made to PY's teachings regarding the organization began immediately after the death of Rajasi and the ascendency of Daya. Hard evidence of his desire to change this teaching would of course be his handwriting such directive. As you note SRF almost certainly would have produced such documentary evidence to counter Ananda and R.E. Davis and others claim that he authorized them to teach kriya without SRF's approval. It probably falls into what can be called SRF's usuage of the dubious take-it-on-faith "he changed his mind at the end." Another major change was the deletion of the Aim and Ideal of SRF regarding World Brotherhood Colonies done after both his and Rajasi's demise; justified with the "he changed his mind at the end." Personally I"ve never bought that assertion finding it weak and politically motivated. And sad.
parabastha Registered User (3/31/03 6:50 am) Reply	Re: To True Enuf Hi True Enuf, Could you tell us please in which AY edition was PY's tribute to Premananda removed? We find it in the last chapter of the 1946 edition (I don't know if it was moved to the new chapter 49 of the 1951 edition, and if so when it was permanently removed.) --------------------------- Quote: Joyous dedication of a Self-Realization Church of All Religions took place in 1938 at Washington, D.C. Set amidst landscaped grounds, the stately church stands in a section of the city aptly called "Friendship Heights." The Washington leader is Swami Premananda, educated at the Ranchi school and Calcutta University. I had summoned him in 1928 to assume leadership of the Washington Self-Realization Fellowship center. "Premananda," I told him during a visit to his new temple, "this Eastern headquarters is a memorial in stone to your tireless devotion. Here in the nation's capital you have held aloft the light of Lahiri Mahasaya's ideals." ------------------------------------- Other things that were removed include: 1) 13 lines of his poem "Samadhi" (chapter 14) 2) The last paragraph of the chapter 25: "Your master has blessed our home, our entire family," my sister [Nalini] said. "The presence of such a man is a sanctification on the whole of India. Dear brother, please tell Sri Yukteswarji that, through you, I humbly count myself as one of his Kriya Yoga disciples." 3) A mention to Swami Satyananda (chapter 32): "One biography in Bengali, Sri Sri* Shyama Charan Lahiri Mahasaya, appeared in 1941. It was written by my disciple, Swami Satyananda." 4) Babaji's authorization to Lahiri Mahasaya to give Kriya "freely" (chapter 34): "Give Kriya freely to all who humbly ask for help." [the word "freely" was deleted.] 5) The mention to Lahiri Mahasaya's books on scriptural commentaries (chapter 35): "The Arya Mission Instituition undertook the publication of many of the guru's scriptural commentaries. Like Jesus and other great prophets, Lahiri Mahasaya himself wrote no books, but his penetrating interpretations were recorded and arranged by various disciples. Some of these voluntary amanuenses were more discerning than others in correctly conveying the profound insight of the guru; yet, on the whole, their efforts were successful. Through their zeal, the world possesses unparalleled commentaries by Lahiri Mahasaya on twenty-six ancient scriptures." 6) The poem "God! God! God!" (chapter 37). 7) The mention to the "Shyama Charan Lahiri Mahasaya Mission" (chapter 40): "In the decade since 1935, Ranchi has enlarged its escope far beyond the boys' school. Widespread humanitarian activities are now carried on there in the Shyama Charan Lahiri Mahasaya Mission." These words of Ananda Moyi Ma (chpater 45): "When the family in which I had been born made arrangements to have this body married, 'I was the same.' And when, passion-drunk, my husband came to me and murmured endearing words, lightly touching my body, he received a violent shock, as if struck by lightning, for even then 'I was the same.' "My husband knelt before me, folded his hands, and implored my pardon. "'Mother,' he said, 'because I have desecrated your bodily temple by touching it with the thought of lust—not knowing that within it dwelt not my wife but the Divine Mother—I take this solemn vow: I shall be your disciple, a celibate follower, ever caring for you in silence as a servant, never speaking to anyone again as long as I live. May I thus atone for the sin I have today committed against you, my guru.' "Even when I quietly accepted this proposal of my husband's, 'I was the same.' 9) PY' and Dr. Lewis's long talk about "world-brotherhood colonies" (chapter 4 . I'd like to know in which editions they were first removed from the AY. Thank you very much for your great contribution to this board.
True Enuf Registered User (3/31/03 2:29 pm) Reply	Re: By-laws Mystery: True or False Hi Lobo and Parabastha, Lobo, during the copyright trial against Ananda, SRF submitted a load of documentation, maybe all they could lay their hands on, to prove their case. It is reasonable to conclude that if they had written proof of Master's wishes that kriya be taught solely by SRF authorized kriyabans/ministers, it would've been near the top of that document list, as it would strengthen their assertion that SRF is the main or only vehicle for dispensing the teachings. Hmmm.... One can find at times some of the old material on Ebay, as well as on Internet used book sites such abebooks.com, addall.com, etc.. More and more book stores supply their listings to these sites, so it's a much more efficient way to search for used books than going to individual book stores. The used book sites can be expensive, so unless you're rich and don't care, it's usually better on ebay. You can check ebay too for completed sales, so you can see what is currently offered as well as recently completed auctions. Some of the old stuff can get pricey, and if it was inscribed by Master, you'll be talking big bucks. Para, all the changes are in 1956. That's the start of the major revisions. Premananda is still in the last editions leading up to 1956, as well as the other items you mention. Edited by: True Enuf at: 3/31/03 2:33:12 pm

Page 1 2

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to: