Part 4 – Swami Kriyananda
& Ananda
Not only was Swamiji very young when he came to Master, but the
guru was in his final and more withdrawn years of life. Swami himself was
inspired by the expansive universality and power of these teachings. But on a
personal level he stood, he often told us, in “awe” of his guru. The thought of
any form of familiarity was unthinkable. (This did not, apparently, stop the
young “Walter” from pestering his guru with many questions.)
Added to this, was the fact that Swamiji’s own dharma and inspiration
was to share these teachings. Yogananda had no need, at least from Swamiji, for
personal service; others held those roles. Yogananda, in turn, focused his training
of the young monk, Walter, who later took the spiritual name, Swami Kriyananda,
on the teachings themselves. Within months, the Master appointed Walter in
charge of the other, older (and longer term) monks; he soon gave a kriya
initiation; began teaching, editing, and writing. He wasn’t even 25 years old!
Thus we find, here also, a difference between SRF and Ananda. The
one inclines to view Yogananda more personally with the teachings standing in
the (now absent) guru’s stead (in the form of those impersonal, bi-weekly
printed lessons); and the other, Ananda, inclined to emphasize the teachings as
universal and as having personal and creative application in each person’s daily
life. The first generation of SRF leaders seem to have established and accepted
the fact that their guru was gone and what remained was for the organization to
take on a caretaker role of sharing the teachings of the Master bereft of his
magnetic and transforming presence.
The latter, Ananda, by contrast, was conceived and born after the
guru was gone and with the mission to experiment and see how to apply those
teachings to daily life. This was to be done through the dynamic and very personal
vehicle of the “world brotherhood colonies” that Yogananda sowed “into the
ether” by his “spoken word” at the garden party in Beverly Hills in 1949. The
difference is understandable and not noticeably different in the beginning, but
over time, like non-parallel lines, becomes widely divergent. SRF’s removal,
after Yogananda’s passing, from the “Aims and Ideals” of SRF of the goal to establish
and support world brotherhood colonies follows this distinction just as much as
Ananda’s dedication to this ideal supports this divergence.
Yogananda’s many efforts to reach out past the monastic life — establishing
a school for children at Mt. Washington, a Yoga University, a world brotherhood
colony in Encinitas, a farm, a cafĂ©, etc. etc. — all were ultimately abandoned.
It would be natural for those monastics to consider that he also abandoned the ideals
that inspired him to try. (Swami Kriyananda taught us that while it wasn’t the
right time in American history for these projects to succeed, Yogananda’s
efforts signaled his guidance for future disciples. In part, Kriyananda’s view
is based on the simple fact that until his guru’s death in 1952 Yogananda spoke
forcefully and frequently about the ideal of communities.)
Returning to my original point, it seems to me that from the very
beginning, the SRF monastic experience contained the seeds of "us and
them." When many years later SRF became financially endowed, they could at
last afford to remain apart from the need to depend upon public acceptance.
PY's autobiography has immortalized him in the public mind. This is the
Master’s legacy. It also has minimize the need for his SRF children to do more
than mostly hold up the “Autobiography” and continue to offer the lessons.
(There’s the annual convocation, and travel by the monastics to various centers
worldwide, as well. Both of these are primarily offered to its own members.)
The world, like Elvis Presley or the Beatles, would simply have to
come to them.
In quite a contrast, Swami Kriyananda founded the first Ananda
community in the hectic heyday and backyard of the San Francisco-based hippy
movement with its "back-to-the-land" and anti-establishment culture.
It was communal in spirit and it was communitarian in form. Though a magnetic
spiritual leader, Swami's ("SK") intention was to manifest PY's ideal
of intentional communities. It was not simply to create another monastery.
This required a more participatory and involved approach rather
than a traditionally hierarchical one. SK never had a financial endowment and
from the beginning needed and welcomed the support, commitment and creative
contributions of others. I won't go further to describe his enlightened,
supportive leadership and wisdom, but suffice to say, by contrast, Ananda's
very communitarian mission required
fostering an openness and inclusivity markedly different than that of SRF.
Next article is Part 5 - Conclusion: What
the Future May Hold
No comments:
Post a Comment