NEW! A website for former members of
Shankarananda's group in Melbourne, Australia. Press
HERE.
Swami Shankarananda, Russell Kruckman, was given
sannyas by Muktananda and was considered one of the more 'advanced'
swamis and helped to full the rumors that he was to be Muktananda's
successor. He was married to Joanne Moran, AKA Girija, AKA Mother Girija
before becoming involved with SYDA.
Shankarananda ran the Ann Arbor Ashram for many years
in the late 1970's. It is said that he was quick to share aspects of his
astrology chart to those who would listen, reinforcing his claim to
being named the successor.
He ran the SYDA ashram in Melbourne Australia for a
few years in the early 1980's.
In early 1997 an ex siddha yoga devotee from Australia stated the
following about Shankarananda:
Apparently, the Melbourne Ashram became really
cliquey when he came to stay after Baba died. There was an in-crowd,
and if you weren't in the in-crowd you were unimportant. I know that
Sw Shanks had an affair with one of the devotees, and I think what
happened is he got challenged by GM about it, and admitted it and
left.
However, I think his leaving was at a similar time to the split
between GM and her brother, and so in the process of his leaving I
think Sw Shanks took quite a few of the devoted with him.
These days a significant number of people in Melbourne have a chanting
group, with Baba as their Guru. They are openly critical of GM, and
are always "gossiping" about what is going on in SY. They are not well
respected within the community, though I think people have managed to
go to both that chanting group and the Ashram, but they are always
whispered about. I think Sw Shanks has on occasion turned up and
joined them and perhaps (though I'm not sure) seen as some kind of
leader.
After an affair with two women swamis, Yogananda and Lalitananda both of
whom later stopped being swamis and left for a while then came back, he
was confronted by some upper level SYDA staff, at Chidvilasananda &
George Affif's direction in Atlanta in about 1985 or 1986. He was told
to marry Devi Greenberg, (Devi had been married to Dan Greenberg, a SYDA
swami for some years) another woman he was to have been involved with.
His position as a swami was taken away by Chidvilasananda. After leaving
SY, he joined with Nityananda.
After helping Nityananda restart his organization,
Shankarananda, started the Shiva Ashram in Santa Monica. He eventually
moved to Australia and runs a small ashram there.
Below is a summary of a series of Email correspondence
that took place with him over a period of several months, starting in
February 1997.
Following this report is a comment from an Indian,
an ex-siddha yoga devotee. Shankarananda's racism is addressed.
In early February of 1997 I sent an email to Shankarananda
inquiring as to his views of personal responsibility regarding his
participation in Siddha Yoga.
Shankarananda admits to Muktananda's sexual activities and takes no
personal responsibility for helping people into or to stay in Siddha
Yoga. A reported master chess-player by some and a "silver tongued
devil" by others, he did try to sell me his version of the "Truth" and
invited me to his ashram as a means to that end. I declined, the price
is much too high. I found Shankarananda racist against Indians and
needing to minimize the actions of Muktananda to keep his view of him
intact.
What follows is a summary of several months of communication with my
comments.
I'll start with initial email to him from in Feb 97:
Pendragon:
"A teacher or swami, such as yourself, had a great deal of
influence bringing people into SY and helping the powers that be,
keep people in. It would seem, that since you have come to the
obvious conclusion that SY is not for you, that you might use your
current position (as an ex sy swami) to bring the truth to light for
those who are still in SY and for those who are "on the fence".
Shankarananda responded stating that he had left Siddha Yoga in 1986
and spent four or five years clearing himself from feeling "bitterness
and enmity" before he moved on. He worked for a few years in the late
'80's in Nityananda's "return to action". (I remember going to a program
at Stanford University in 1987. I remember being struck that
Shankarananda really seemed to be the main push behind the program.
Nityananda while there as a drummer, seemed almost secondary to
Shankarananda's enthusiasm).
Shankarananda reports that they created a "westernized "yoga" called
"Recognition Dynamics" with Nityananda. Without saying why, he left
Nityananda in 1991. At the invitation of devotees in Australia he
returned there. He had run an Australian Ashram for Muktananda from
1980-83 and was well liked by many of the devotees. Now Shankarananda
has a "beautiful little ashram" south of Melbourne and teaches mediation
and self-inquiry under the title of the "Shiva Process".
He reports that while "furious" at Chidvilasananda for several years
he did "let the anger go" and "I am restored to affectionate feelings
towards Gurumayi, as I used to have."
About Chidvilasananda, Shankarananda takes a middle of the road view:
Shankarananda:
"I also see clearly her good points and her bad points. There is
no doubt in my mind that her devotees get something from her. There
is also no doubt in my mind that they are generally in deep denial
about some of the seamier aspects of her ways. On the other hand, it
is my observation that her enemies are in complete denial about her
level of shakti and spirituality."
It appears that Chidvilasananda may not hold the same affection for
him, "They (referring to SY) won't even let me sell their books."
Regarding Muktananda and Chidvilasananda:
Shankarananda:
"I can't say that Baba did not engage in sexual activities. I
also can't say that during GM's reign violent and highly
objectionable actions where directed against Nityananda, myself and
others. But I also can't say that there was no Shaktipat, no divine
presence, no spiritual power there--even now."
"I don't mean to pardon any of the bad actions that were performed.
One of the fallacies is that Gurus or Siddhas are beyond normal
human standards. I think they can be challenged as anyone else would
be challenged."
"I don't know why Baba engaged in sexual activity. It didn't
touch me personally as much as the successorship."
Shankarananda believes he reached self-realization from Muktananda.
Shankarananda:
"I went to Baba for self-realization. At the same time I was
unconsciously seeking a perfect father. I attained the former but
not the latter."
Regarding the process of leaving Siddha Yoga, Shankarananda seems to
be taking a view that negative feelings are "bad" (my word) and one
should not act on them. Rather wait for them to change and then you
won't want to act. The problem with this stance, is that in the end,
nothing gets done. Feelings, are always changing. If no one acted when
they were angry (I'm not taking about revenge or actions that break the
law, Shankarananda seems to put these in the same category as anger)
little would be done when it comes to confronting injustices in the
world. If I would have listened to him, I would have never started this
web site. Then where would we be? Siddha Yoga of course would have a
thorn removed from their side and hundreds of others would not have all
the information that exists to make an informed decision.
Shankarananda:
"I have observed many, many people dealing with leaving SY over a
number of years. This includes ex-swamis and others. I have noticed
that their ideas about what happened change during the course of
time. I have mentally and even physically written numerous letters
to GM and not sent them. A few months later I no longer feel that
way. Yogically I am very reluctant to act when the motivation is
bitterness, anger or revenge. That seems to increase suffering all
around. However, if I were clear that a certain action should be
performed and I felt that I was in a clear space, connected to the
Self, then I would do it."
My response to this was strong. It seemed that he was addressing the
issue of forgiveness.
Pendragon:
"Forgiveness is an interesting concept that I have been pondering
since you last wrote me.
What exactly is forgiveness? The dictionary says: "To excuse for
a fault or an offense; pardon". So, am I to pardon Muktananda for
his human weaknesses when he denied that he was faulted? This raises
an interesting point. Do you forgive someone who shows no remorse or
admission of error? I am so very reluctant to do this. I have always
felt more compassion for Nityananda than Chidvilasananda or
Muktananda because he did admit to his errors (granted it was only
under the pressure of his trying to come back) eventually. He also
humbled himself when he went to talk to Ammachi several years back
seeking her counsel about the problems he was having from SYDA.
(This was prior to the O Guru publication). This touched me in a way
that Chid and Muktananda have never been able to do.
I think in trying to forgive someone who takes no self
responsibility for the matter at hand is dangerous and in part
delusional. To think one's act of forgiveness is going to effect the
other (and this raises the question: do we forgive for ourselves or
for the other person or for both?) who is locked in their own sense
of righteousness only clouds the issue. To ignore that person, or to
challenge that person, if one is so inclined, may be of some
benefit.
Actually, I think forgiving the person who has not repented can
add to the problem. A person thinks they have done no wrong and the
victim (if you will) forgives them. Actually the first person likely
is to look upon the victim with distaste for not standing up for
themselves OR if the first person truly believes in what they are
doing, you have simply reinforced that persons thoughts and
behaviors.
Also to think that we might influence or touch someone (again I
assume that forgiveness is generally a two way street in that we are
doing this in interaction with another person; not that we may be
expecting a particular response although generally I think we do
despite of what we think but there is an interaction of thoughts and
feelings that is part of any interaction, even with a person that we
are dealing with inside ourselves) with our "forgiveness" who is not
open is a bit deluded don't you think?
I've noticed in SY specifically and spiritual communities in
general that people go to great lengths to avoid uncomfortable
feelings. Instead of feeling the hurt and vulnerability they will
use many different means, including chanting and platitudes to avoid
it. (I am not against chanting by any means but rather it seems that
we should feel the feelings and then move on to the chants. We are
human beings that have feelings; to deny them by any means chanting,
drugs or denial only pushes them underground for them to cause more
problems).
Then there is forgiveness of self. I think this is really much
more important. Can I forgive myself for believing that someone was
God when they were not? Can I try and understand why I needed to do
that and continue to do that when the evidence suggested otherwise?
This I believe is the true challenge of forgiveness. Whether I ever
forgive Muktananda or Chid is secondary to this point. Until I can
understand my errors in judgement I will certainly not be able or be
developed enough to try and understand others errors . To the degree
that I can accept myself will be to the degree that I can honestly
accept another.
Anger I think can be a healthy reaction to an unhealthy
situation. I also think there is a relationship to the amount of
anger we feel to the amount of hurt we have felt. Anger though is
just one step in the process of loss that we all face when something
or someone does not meet our expectations.
I do think that we all hold some degree of culpability when it
comes to SY. If we did not actively recruit or encourage people to
stay then what of the responsibility that comes when we become aware
that there are problems and we choose to ignore them?
What is also necessary in healing is the recognition of what was
positive about any given relationship. The very issue that
Muktananda and Chidvilasananda both presented with a noticeable
degree of spiritual energy is the very confusion that keeps many
people in denial about the problems in SY. Despite the fact that
Muktananda was lying to us and put himself on a pedestal when he was
having sex I did feel and receive a great deal from him. (I can say
the same about Chidvilasananda but to a lesser degree).
That you consider Muktananda "the greatest human being I ever
met" would certainly bother the young girls and older women he
abused. Can you allow yourself to really see him for what he was? Or
is there a need to keep him on a pedestal as well? That he is dead
makes it all the easier to keep him out of the current problems.
That he needed to lie to us (again he claimed to be celibate and he
was not) bothers me greatly. Once a person decides to lie and to
protect themselves in the process doesn't everything else have to be
questioned as well?
Since leaving SY I have visited other spiritual teachers from
India and it was in part the vast differences between other
traditions and SY that helped me to see the problems in SY.
Muktananda placed just a little too much emphasis on the Guru and
the need not to see other teachers. It's almost like he was
continually reminding us (and himself) of the lineage to convince us
(convince himself?) that it was as he said. (Of course while he
didn't always say it himself that would have been too obvious but
the MC almost always did). I've always wondered why Nityananda of
Ganeshpuri did not publicly appoint Muktananda as the successor.
Seems like it would have been a simple thing to do. Another way to
look at this is that Muktananda picked a saint to follow who didn't
talk much making it easy for him to claim something that wasn't
necessarily his. I've heard from a friend who spoke to the source
that Muktananda actually didn't get shaktipat from Nityananda of
Ganeshpuri but from another Guru in India. I don't have a problem
with this except that Muktananda decided to claim that he got it
from Nityananda. Why not talk of all his spiritual practices in all
the traditions unless of course he wanted people to focus only on
him and Nity SR keeping it in the family. How many more secrets are
there about Muktananda that are kept to protect the devotees? How
condescending!
That Muktananda made mistakes and was human is so very clear.
That he pretended to be more than he was and reinforce peoples
thinking of that is just as clear. That we may choose to continue to
do that, is now the issue at hand.
What would it mean to see him as he really was? A flawed man who
gave people spiritual experiences at the expense of abusing others?
If we can see him for what he was, do we not then claim our own
sense of our self in the process? And isn't that really what it is
about? If we can not claim our sense of material self how can we
ever expect to claim our sense of spiritual Self ?"
Shankarananda's response ignored most of what I asked regarding
feelings and the responsibility of forgiveness. He completely ignored
the issue of the lineage from Nityananda to Muktananda. Rather he
attempted to educate me as the true nature of Guru. Ironically, he
continues to acknowledge Muktananda's humanness:
Shankarananda:
"I have always felt that a lot of the problem with the Guru comes
from our misunderstanding of Indian culture. I was in the first wave
of Western seekers. We took everything that was said literally. They
would say, "The Guru is God" and we believed that Baba knew every
detail of your life. I spent enough time with him to learn that
while he was a very intuitive great being he often got information
by ordinary means i.e. somebody told him.
I noticed that the Indians would say, "He is omniscient. He knows
the past and future. He knows your mind completely. He is Shiva
Himself!" But then I observed that they would treat him like an
ordinary person like keeping things from him and even lying to him.
I began to understand that the Hindu mind loves to milk the highest
rasa from a situation and then has a separate standard for practical
reality. Their conversation and language always moves towards the
highest. They love to speak expansively to create great feeling in
the moment. Yet they would often not act on how they spoke. In other
words they knew that Baba was a human being at the same time knowing
he performed a divine function."
"I think I wrote you about the East/West communication problem. I
really think this is an essential part of the SY problem. The Indian
value system teaches to always make statements that create positive
expanded feeling. Literal truth is much less important. Westerners
give enormous value to literal truth and generally very little value
to expanded positive feeling. Hence, Indians have no problem at all
with what looks to a Westerner as very dubious morality. Baba would
have no problem at all telling his audience to behave a certain way
if he felt that was good for them and meanwhile behave in an
entirely different way himself for whatever reason. Don't forget
that we are the first Westerners to sit at the feet of Eastern
masters en masse. As the teaching gets translated into Western
values and language some of these things will get solved. This
dialogue (not just yours and mine) is part of this translation
function."
And here comes the sales pitch and a referral to a "channeled" book:
Shankarananda:
"The Shiva Process work that we do here is an antidote to some of
the problems we both acknowledge in SY. The Shiva Process validates
whatever feeling a person holds rather than making it wrong with
scripture, the guru's word, or the SY course. It is always okay to
make a clear statement of present thought and feeling. Even
statements like, "I hate Baba". "I am angry at Baba's sex life". "I
am angry at GM". We take such statements deeper until the Self
emerges. Very often the effect is magical. I feel moved to invite
you to visit here and spend a couple of weeks and do some of this
work. I think you would find this community very open-minded and
congenial. Excursion fares to Australia are reasonable this time of
year.
It occurred to me that you might enjoy looking at a book that I
highly recommend here and people have gotten a lot of value from:
The Pathwork of Self-Transformation by Eva Pierrakos. It is an
interesting--even profound--mix of spirituality and psychology. East
and West. The only (possible) drawback is that it is "channeled" if
that is a problem for you. Let me add that it is very, very
different from New-Age channeled material I have seen."
Excuse me, but if I've been burned with the guru's of siddha yoga, I
am hardly likely going to pick up a book that is "channeled".
Shankarananda also expands upon what fallibility might mean for a
guru such as Muktananda. He admits that someone as Muktananda might be
able to make a mistake for just a brief moment. We might
disagree strongly on how long those moments of indiscretion were. Seems
like levels of rationalization:
Shankarananda:
"A quick answer to your quick question. Do I consider Muktananda
fallible? Yes. Do I consider myself fallible? Certainly.
Now a small elaboration. From the point of view of spirituality
fallibility involves acting out of harmony with the Tao or divine
will or the Shakti. Why would one do that? Either out of desire,
pride, fear, or some similar negative emotion or out of confusion or
ignorance or inattention. This last category could probably be
resolved into the former category. People believe that a realised
being would never have any of these movements. It may be more
realistic to expect a realised being to quickly notice a jarring
disharmony and do self-inquiry, discover the source, and then make
the necessary adjustment. All this happens inside the person. From
outside, his choices and actions might look spiritual or not. It's
hard to tell.
Let's suppose that Baba's sexual desire clouded his judgment and he
indulged himself in highly questionable ways. Let's also suppose
that Gurumayi's ambition similarly clouded her judgment and led to
questionable actions. Where does that leave us? It leaves me still
respecting their powerful spirituality. How about you? I think your
struggle is more with your own preconceptions than with Baba."
Feeling frustrated that he had not really answered my concerns, I
responded. First about his statements of Muktananda. Then I also took
his comments, and spoke to a well respected Vedic Astrologer from India.
I wanted the opinion of an Indian familiar with spiritual issues.
Pendragon:
"It's refreshing to hear that you see Muktananda as fallible.
That we agree on. And with all relationships, that bring us 'mixed
results' there is a process of coming to terms with it. The more
information that is available, the clearer and cleaner the process
becomes. All the feelings are dealt with and no feeling is better or
worse than another. Anger, disappointment, grief, shock etc are all
natural reactions to learning that someone you trusted and loved was
not whom you thought. I'm wondering if you had any of these
reactions when you found out about Muktananda's sexual practices?
I've discussed this with other swami's and it seems that whether
they've remained in SY or not there has been a tendency to come to a
place of what I would call rationalization of his behavior. Clearly
the swami's are not alone in this practice. I know many folks in and
out of SY who believe that Muktananda was sexual and have simply
accepted it, seemingly ignoring the fact that he lied and that he
was abusing his position of power.
One ex-swami told me:
"I was angry and shocked when I began to realize his actions with
women, because I felt he had put those of us who were responsible
for the public interaction with people in a difficult position" and
"I have had to expand my understanding of sexual interaction to be
able to come to terms with it, and still have not."
What do you think?
Taking it a step further, regarding the Indian Vs. the Western
perspective. You said:
"I think I wrote you about the East/West communication problem. I
really think this is an essential part of the SY problem. The Indian
value system teaches to always make statements that create positive
expanded feeling. Literal truth is much less important. Westerners
give enormous value to literal truth and generally very little value
to expanded positive feeling. Hence, Indians have no problem at all
with what looks to a Westerner as very dubious morality. Baba would
have no problem at all telling his audience to behave a certain way
if he felt that was good for them and meanwhile behave in an
entirely different way himself for whatever reason."
As a westerner yourself, it seems that you are trying to use this
rationalization as a way to continue to accept Muktananda and
perhaps your own existence as a Swami. I took your quote and
presented it to an Indian who has a spiritual basis and is a Vedic
astrologer. I gave him the background, but used no names. Not
completing trusting your western view, I went to an authentic Indian
one.
He disagreed with everything you said. That you had an incorrect
understanding of Indian culture and values. Is it possible that your
need to justify Muktananda's existence and thereby your own is
getting in the way?"
And now the racism and continued levels of rationalization. It seems
things are starting to repeat themselves:
Shankarananda:
"Your Indian informant: frankly, an Indian may be the last person
to ask about Indian culture. I've noticed that they generally don't
have an "anthropological view"--an ability to step back and
dispassionately analyze their culture. I stand by my main idea--that
a large percentage of the problem is explained by the clash of
cultures. Maybe it isn't Indian versus Western so much as Western
liberal values versus "guru culture". The culture of "surrender to
the Guru" flies in the face of every Western democratic notion.
Also, Eastern cultures don't have the value that what is thought
must be the same as what is expressed or enacted. Often the
opposite--it is an affront or insult to express everything that is
thought."
Shankarananda then tries to bring me out of my errors:
Shankarananda:
"1. Baba was once a divine access for you. You loved Baba.
2. You learned certain (perhaps true) things about him that made #1
no longer true.(i.e. you got angry at him.)
3. If you want to have him once again be #1 for you forgiveness and
understanding (entertaining a new perspective) is the only path.
(i.e. returning to loving Baba.) I would say that no where do I get
the feeling from you that this is a practical possibility.
4. If the relationship is irrevocably spoiled why not move
on--either search for a new more satisfactory teacher or find divine
access in Self or in God. Question: Do you feel that there may be a
purer teacher than Baba or do you feel that the whole institution of
Guru is a sham? If the former, go find him. If the latter, I'd guess
that your problem is more with the language around the institution
of the Guru (i.e. "The Guru is perfect. The Guru is God. Obey the
Guru".) What language would you design that would be more
appropriate and more true?
5. If you feel it is your divinely appointed task to bring down Baba
and GM then go ahead. I would carefully examine my motives, however,
making sure that anger and revenge were not driving me. My yoga has
convinced me that when I act out of these kinds of motives it has a
bad and painful result for me."
It appears he is very invested in my either accepting Muktananda
again as a loving being in my life ( #3 but realizes that this is not
going to happen) and/or continues to urge me to let go of all of this
and move on. I struggle with understanding his need for me to move on.
Why should he be so concerned about this? Is he trying to help me? Or
perhaps trying to protect the image of Muktananda for himself and
others. The more I push about this, the more he wants me to move on. How
is it that he knows what is best for my emotional health?
Shankarananda does then go on to explain that his understanding is
that the person is separate from the Guru principle. For Siddha Yoga,
this is dangerous ground because once you are able to question the
actions of the individual, guru or not, all things can be questioned.
This is not what Siddha Yoga wants. Rather blind obedience is required.
However by doing so he does not go far enough in my opinion.
Shankarananda would have us believe that office of the guru is alive and
well. But then I guess he is on the way to being his own guru.
Shankarananda:
"Let me suggest that you separate the human being from the Guru
principle. I agree with you that no human being will be 100% free of
flaws. There will always be a lack, a bad tendency, an
insufficiency. It is inherent in the limitations of embodiment.
Nonetheless, highly evolved beings will be able to channel the
divine power. Their ability to do this will of course, be
compromised by how serious their flaws are. Very possibly their
particular kinds of flaws will make them not the right guru for
certain types of people, while it will not affect discipleship in
others. . It seems to me that you got angry and disappointed by the
persons Baba and GM (I'm not sure which one first). You have moved
from that to anger at the Guru principle. I think this part is
destructive. It seems okay to me to be angry or have reservations or
be realistic about the person Baba and still be able to use him for
divine shakti. It is also okay to graduate yourself from his school
and make an independent relationship with the divine shakti."
Basically I learned that Shankarananda would have us ignore the
mistakes a person under the guise of guru would make because the
connection to the shakti is more important. This sounds very dangerous
to me.
Shankarananda:
"Let me try a new language: "The Guru is a highly developed human
being. He has through an arduous path of yoga made a powerful
contact with the higher power called the Self, the Shakti or the
Guru principle. As a human being he is subject to human law. His
body gets sick and will die (some guru cults expect their gurus to
be immortal in the body and disease free). He has tastes, he has
preferences. He has personal values. He is just like you. He can
make mistakes. He may occasionally lie. He may get angry. He may
become afraid. He may do things that can be criticized by some moral
standards. What makes him special? It is his connection with the
Self. He will be able to constantly return to the experience of the
Self even if his karmic tendencies temporarily sway him. On the
positive side because of his strong connection with Self he is very
likely to be brilliant, charismatic, full of love, full of wisdom
and full of energy and creativity. If you find such a one learn the
secret of his inner connection and don't imitate his weaknesses and
don't feel disempowered by his strengths. He has something of the
greatest value to teach".
That's it for now."
This ended our conversations. There was really no further place to
go. He did later send me a short piece trashing the new Siddha Yoga
book, "Mediation Revolution - A History and Theology of the Siddha Yoga
Lineage". This was strange as he assured me that he was no longer angry
at Chidvilasananda and did want to sell the Siddha Yoga books at his
ashram.
Shankarananda:
"Siddha Yoga has produced a massive document establishing their
claims, their theology and all their agendas. I am sure it will be
hotly debated on the Internet. It is written by a group of scholars
all devotees which includes Swami Durgananda. Its style is scholarly
but its agendas are fairly obvious. True, it is a step up from the
naive revisionism of the past (simply deny that certain things
happened). This could be called medium sophisticated revisionism.
Now you admit certain things happened but glide over them. Of
course, some things still haven't happened.
It is called Meditation Revolution. Have you seen it? You'll "love
it". Give me your book report. It is a weighty tome, full of
churchification, turning Baba's teaching to something remarkably
dogmatic."
In the end Shankarananda takes no responsibly for his role in Siddha
Yoga. He responds, "I never thought of myself as "bringing people into
an organization". I thought of myself as encouraging people to know
their own Self and as serving God and my Guru." By doing so, he neatly
avoids any culpability for the problems in Siddha Yoga, including
Muktananda's lies about his sexual activities.
By wanting to avoid any uncomfortable feelings Shankarananda seems
content to go on with his Shiva Process. Interestingly, as he described
the "Shiva Process" it sounded identical to several of the courses I
took in Siddha Yoga shortly before I left.
Pendragon
11 Jan 98
