Date Posted:09:35 Author: ketch - 7 Oct 2001 Subject: Re: And now for the real truth... In reply to:
Kriyaban - 7 Oct 2001
's message, "Re: And now for the real truth..." on 09:33
Can you explain to us , Ketch , how this change in the book came about, did Yogananda authorise it ?
Kriyaban,
Since I was not on the editorial board of SRF at the time I cannot give you an exact explanation of how the change came about. I refer you to nojdw's reply to your post quoting from SRF's 1995 letter which clearly states that Yogananda did approve the change.
What must be clear to everyone here is that the original phrase does require some clarification. It could be interpreted to mean that anyone who has received Kriya is themselves entitled to give initiation. This was obviously not Yoganandaji's view, as everyone here knows. Some clarification that Kriya should be learned from an authorised source was clearly necessary.
I do not have a copy of the 1951 or 1956 editions, the earliest I have is 1963 in which the changes are present. If anyone has a copy of the 1951 or 1956 editions please let us know the wording in these editions.
The purpose of my post was simply to show that Kriyananda's claim "That he requested more than a handful of these changes is a myth," is demonstrably untrue. Yogananda had even written a complete new chapter, as well as editing other parts of the book.
Furthermore the claim "I was there at the time myself, however, and was actively involved in editorial activities. I know that the greater part of those changes were not authorized by Master" is also questionable. Mr Walters actually came to SRF in 1948, two years after the Autobiography was first published, and towards the end of Yogananda's life. Although he later became a Vice President of the organisation his role during Yogananda's life was as a fairly junior monastic. He was simply not in a position to know what changes the Paramahansa had or had not authorised.
Much of what has been written on this subject here is simply copying and pasting what is written elsewhere. If we are to be able to make any valid judgement what we really need is for someone to actually go through the 1951 and 1956 editions comparing them with a more recent edition, and listing all the changes. Then we might be able to judge for ourselves whether or not the changes are simply a matter of updating the book, or whether or not they are designed to strengthen SRF's institutional control.
