I, for one, have no reason to assume or believe that this assumption was intended by them. If such a one is loyal to his own faith, is he not a true disciple of PY? I think that such a person can be both loyal to his faith AND a disciple of PY (and this line of kriya masters). How can this be? "God is the guru" PY said often. If a person is sufficiently mature enough to not view his loyalty to his faith as being compromised by his discipleship to PY, and who views PY as an incarnation of God who has been sent to him for his spiritual growth, then why would PY have a conflict with that person's faith (and, if a true faith, why would he?)?
True, you might object, saying, "But this mentor is not the sat guru!" True, but how can any one of us know whether PY or any of the others are our sat guru? I don't think we will know until we are much closer to enlightenment. Even PY's guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar, was a "proxy," he explained, for his sat guru, Babaji! We should know the teaching and the precepts but their application to our individual lives is necessarily directional and relative.
The downside can, however, be a lack of discernment and an eclectic approach for which no deep roots are nurtured. Nonetheless, we are not here to judge others even if, we must, by the requirements of our role, fulfill some degree of our own discernment of a person's readiness to take kriya and to accept discipleship.
Yet, as I encounter students seeking kriya for whom very little personal connection, if any, exists in respect to PY (owing at least in part to the passage of time and the disappearance of direct disciples), I must wonder whether our description and training in discipleship which is wholly based on the example of PY and his own direct disciples, is unnecessarily too high a bar; too irrelevant to the daily lives of sincerely seeking men and women living in this conflicted world of ours; people for whom kriya was intended to uplift. How can kriya spread if every potential disciple is expected to accept and have the kind of relationship that direct disciples had with PY, or even what some of us had with PY through SK as our teacher (and who was a direct disciple)?
What we've done to-date, however, is to describe discipleship in such a way as hold aloft a high bar of expectations which lies beyond the current reach of understanding and experience of an increasing tide of otherwise sincere and potentially qualified kriyaban-disciples. As discipleship is unfamiliar to westerners and triggers doubt, fear, and confusion, I think we need a broader brush to meet them where they are.
...... Note: In all cases, in the ultimate sense, it is God who is the Guru: First,through His Law; second through books and teachers; third, through the most direct channel possible, a guru. Lesser teachers turn one to themselves. A guru’s wish is only to turn devotees to God; to lift them up to his own stature of spiritual realization.....
...... The practice of the techniques is essential. Many times I have heard our beloved Master say to a disciple, “Practice your techniques. It is through the techniques that I can help you.” He has given us these great techniques, but it is up to us to use them for our own salvation."
When you read the AY and its frequent references to kriya, and the writings and lectures and lessons written by PY, it is abundantly clear that the principal, and most visible and objective legacy he has given the world is KRIYA YOGA. It seems inescapable to me that PY intended kriya to be the instrument of attunement for future generations and centuries, when little else other than books and a relatively few number of dedicated and attuned disciples exist to carry on the work.
The only other choice, apart from just printing the technique (as has been done) in a book, is to require commitment to an organization to receive the requisite training and support in satsang and service. This is precisely what PY's own organization apparently has done.
It is understandable. I, too, find sometimes frustrating the mercenary and ignorant impulse in some seekers to come for our training, take the kriya, and "run." They do not understand the importance of satsang (fellowship), devotion, and seva (service) to the guru's work. Yet, SK has made it clear that we do not require membership or service to Ananda as a requirement of kriya initiation.
Nonetheless, when I survey some Ananda members who outwardly fulfill all of these things I don't always see true devotees, either. It takes time to grow our attunement to the truth. We who might be privileged to train and initiate others and therefore act somewhat as gatekeepers, must be careful not to create hurdles that are inappropriate or skewed by our loyalty to the organization we serve in our guru's name.
Today's seekers have little exposure and sometimes a great deal of ignorance, misunderstanding or wariness regarding the meaning of discipleship. We can share what we've been taught; share what we have learned. But we must not impose either the ideals or our own experience on souls whose karmic pattern of unfoldment is uniquely their own.
So long as they are sincere and are open to learning about the precepts of discipleship, I believe it is up each to approach and express their discipleship uniquely (so long as other requirements, namely, learning and practicing the other techniques that are part of the kriya path are fulfilled). One who goes to the altar of matrimony may be confident or have secret reservations but so long as they are sincere, the outcome must await the unfoldment of the resuls of their efforts and their karma.
Let us make kriya yoga available for all who are sincere!