24.12.2012 Views

stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

stripping the gurus - Brahma Kumaris Info

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

... TO A NUNNERY 331<br />

• One evening, <strong>the</strong> monk who runs <strong>the</strong> SRF postulant (i.e.,<br />

“new monk”) ashram graced HV as a guest speaker. One of<br />

<strong>the</strong> points that he brought up, from his unique perspective<br />

as head of that monastery, was that “<strong>the</strong> people most likely<br />

to leave <strong>the</strong> ashram after taking some degree of monastic<br />

vows are those who are <strong>the</strong> most independent.” While that<br />

is undoubtedly true, <strong>the</strong> clear implication was that independence<br />

and <strong>the</strong> ability to think for oneself are bad things,<br />

when in reality <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>the</strong> only way of doing anything<br />

original in this world. Worse, suffocating attitudes such as<br />

that allergy to independence turn <strong>the</strong> unthinking following<br />

of o<strong>the</strong>r people’s blind guesses and bad advice into an “egokilling”<br />

virtue. They fur<strong>the</strong>r paint <strong>the</strong> inability to so blindly<br />

follow, against one’s own better judgment, what one knows<br />

to be wrong, as being a sin.<br />

• Each one of <strong>the</strong> SRF line of leaders/<strong>gurus</strong>—<strong>the</strong>ir “popes”—<br />

from Daya Mata back to Krishna, are regarded by obedient<br />

SRF devotees as being infallible, and simply “working in<br />

mysterious ways” when it comes to any seemingly questionable<br />

actions on <strong>the</strong>ir parts. I, too, once foolishly viewed<br />

<strong>the</strong>m thusly. For, such regard is simply what I had been<br />

taught was correct, by persons who I assumed would never<br />

deliberately mislead me, as I would never have lied to<br />

<strong>the</strong>m.<br />

As Margery Wakefield (1993) noted of her own and<br />

o<strong>the</strong>rs’ involvement in Scientology:<br />

I had made <strong>the</strong> fatal unconscious assumption that<br />

since I was honest and had good motives, <strong>the</strong>n o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />

must be too<br />

• James J. Lynn, personally chosen by Yogananda to be<br />

SRF’s second president, was a married man. That is, married<br />

before, during and after Yogananda gave him <strong>the</strong> title<br />

of Rajasi Janakananda. (His wife, however, was “both mentally<br />

and physically unwell,” and was not supportive of his<br />

connection with Self-Realization Fellowship [Mata, 1992].)<br />

That fact, however, is conspicuously absent from <strong>the</strong> relevant<br />

literature, e.g., from <strong>the</strong> SRF-published biography of<br />

Lynn’s life.<br />

That anomaly was brought up by one of <strong>the</strong> HV residents<br />

in a satsanga period. The justification which <strong>the</strong> ash-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!