Re: Daya Mata PY's Successor? -- KRIYA YOGA DISCUSSION BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:31
Author: Bill - 27 April 2002
Subject: Re: Daya Mata PY's Successor?
In reply to: Anon - 26 April 2002 's message, "Re: Daya Mata PY's Successor?" on 07:30

Anonymous,

Of course she "looks to PY as the guru," that's true. Whether she looks to him as the "head of SRF" is the crux of what I have trouble with these days.

I suppose you're aware that Rajasi (Master's greatest and most realized disciple) was never known as Master's "spiritual successor." Nor Master's "channel," nor his "spiritual representative." He was simply president of the 2 organizations. Master was always the focus, the only focus of SRF in those days in terms of publications, in terms of how the organization was structured.

It's my belief, based upon the evidence, that SRF is attempting to place the office of the president (whom we're assured will always be a realized being) and through that office, the organization, between the member/disciple and the guru.

This I find disturbing. Maybe it's my old Baptist background. The Baptists of course rejected the Papacy, preferring to believe that anyone could interpret the scriptures without the aid of an official "representative" of Jesus to guide them in their thinking.

So I'll chalk this thread up to wrong venue and leave it at that. Suffice it to say, however, that I'm not the only member (over 30 years) who've come to similar conclusions and increasingly are speaking out on the net, despite the accusations of being "Kriyanand/Ananda sympathizers," dismissively hurled by status quo'tis who prefer to buy the official line.

And that's fine too.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]