|
Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Bertolucci Lawsuit
The following
FAQ answers some of the most frequently asked questions about the
Bertolucci lawsuit, which Ananda was involved in from 1994 to 1998.
Ananda has long since put this case behind it, but questions about
it still arise from time to time, often because of false or distorted
accounts of what the case actually involved and the final outcome.
This FAQ is
Ananda's attempt to present the facts simply and directly, uncolored
by its point of view. Included are links to other statements that
can be found on this or other websites, written from a variety of
perspectives, which provide additional information on the complex
history of this lawsuit.
Who is posting
anti-Ananda information on the web?
Accusations
about sexual misconduct and abuse of power
What is Ananda?
Who
is posting anti-Ananda information on the web?
I've seen negative things about Ananda on the internet. Are they
true?
The short answer
is-no, they are not true. Why then, you might ask, would anyone
say such shocking things? The complete story is long and complex.
Here, we'll briefly share the main facts and provide website links
to more detailed discussions. Most of the facts are a matter of
public record and differ dramatically from what is presented on
the anti-Ananda website.
In the end,
however, it is impossible to answer every conceivable question in
this format. If you would like more information, we encourage you
to contact us. Your questions, even on what may seem to be sensitive
issues, will be well-received and fully answered. We also encourage
you to visit Ananda Village or one of the Ananda colonies. Your
own personal experience of Ananda and its people is the best way
to know for certain what's true and what isn't.
Who
is posting this negative information about Ananda?
As far as we
know, it is being posted by people who are members of Self-Realization
Fellowship (SRF), the organization founded by Paramhansa Yogananda
(1893-1952) in 1925. Ananda's founder, Swami Kriyananda, was a high-ranking
member of SRF until his ouster in 1962. It was after that, in 1968,
that Kriyananda founded Ananda. Both SRF and Ananda members consider
Yogananda their spiritual teacher or guru.
Why
would Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) members be critical of Ananda?
History is full
of examples of conflicts between religious organizations. Often,
the ones that are most alike seem to have the most difficulty getting
along. In this case, SRF's position is that it should have exclusive
control over Yogananda's mission-a monopoly, in other words. SRF
advocates this position openly in its publications and in discussions
and talks with its members and followers. For some SRF members,
being critical of Ananda is an important aspect of being loyal to
SRF.
Why
did Self-Realization Fellowship sue Ananda?
In 1990, SRF
initiated a lawsuit in federal court against Ananda to obtain court
support for its view that SRF had exclusive rights to Yogananda's
teachings, name, likeness, voice, and to the term "Self-realization."
Although SRF's
lawsuit dealt mainly with trademark and copyright issues, it was,
in essence, an attempt to destroy or seriously cripple Ananda-either
by defeating Ananda in court and severely limiting its ability to
spread Yogananda's teachings, or by bankrupting Ananda with the
costs of aggressive litigation. Early in the case, the federal court
judge commented that if SRF prevailed on its claims, the likely
effect would be to put Ananda out of business.
SRF's position
went against a millennia-long tradition in India of disciples freely
sharing their guru's teachings with others. It also went against
Yogananda's direct request to Kriyananda, that he devote his life
to teaching and writing in service to his guru.
How
did the SRF lawsuit against Ananda end?
The lawsuit
finally ended in 2002. After 12 years of litigation, two appeals
by SRF, including one to the U.S. Supreme Court, and a month-long
trial, Ananda prevailed, winning more than 95 % of the lawsuit.
The Court
rulings:
1) SRF's
trademark in the phrase "Self-realization" was ruled invalid.
"Self-realization" is a commonly used phrase to describe the goal
of religious practice in the Hindu-Yoga tradition. Ananda presented
statements from 35 Hindu-Yoga organizations in America, thousands
of pages of documents showing generic use of "Self-realization,"
and expert testimony.
2) SRF's
trademark in "Paramahansa*
Yogananda" was ruled invalid. Although Ananda's lawyers made
religious freedom arguments, the court's ruling was based on trademark
law.
3) SRF does
not own Yogananda's "publicity rights." This claim was based
on a California law that gives heirs of celebrities control over
their name, likeness, voice, and signature. It was another attempt
by SRF to prevent Ananda (or any other organization) from identifying
itself publicly as a Yogananda organization.
4) SRF's
claims of unfair competition and trademark tarnishment were dismissed.
5) Yogananda's
magazine articles and lessons published before 1943 were declared
in the public domain. Students and devotees now have access
to the original versions, which are noticeably different from the
versions edited by SRF after Yogananda's passing.
6) All books
by Yogananda published before his passing in 1952 are in the public
domain. SRF has made many changes to the editions published
after Yogananda's death.
7) The original
edition of Yogananda's spiritual classic, Autobiography of a
Yogi, is in the public domain. There have been thousands
of changes to this book in the editions published by SRF after Yogananda's
death.
8) SRF's
copyrights in numerous photos of Yogananda were declared invalid.
These photos are now in the public domain.
9) Jury
verdict that Ananda's reproduction of certain of Yogananda's writings
for religious and educational purposes was a "fair use." This
was in essence a finding that Ananda was "not guilty" of copyright
violations.
10) Jury
verdict requiring Ananda to pay $29,000 to compensate SRF for loss
of sales on several audiotapes of Yogananda's voice. Compared
to the 30 million dollars in damages that SRF had asked the jury
to award, this was only a nominal victory for SRF.
For more
information about the SRF lawsuit, see www.YoganandaRediscovered.com.
For the appeals
court decisions, see Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda
Church of Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.
1995) and Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church
of Self-Realization, 206 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 2000).
Swami
Kriyananda was once part of SRF, is that true?
Swami Kriyananda
became a disciple of Yogananda in 1948 and lived with Yogananda
until his death in 1952. Kriyananda served in SRF for 14 years as
head of the monks, director of SRF center activities, senior minister,
and SRF's principal lecturer. He traveled extensively, sharing Yogananda's
message with SRF students worldwide. In 1960 he was appointed to
SRF's Board of Directors and made Vice President of the Board.
In 1962, Kriyananda was abruptly dismissed from SRF in what he describes
as one of the most painful experiences of his life. Kriyananda
discusses these events A Place Called Ananda, chapters 14:
The Reaction and 13:
The Delhi Project.
Accusations
about sexual misconduct and abuse of power
I've
heard something about a lawsuit by 8 women, accusing Ananda and
Swami Kriyananda of sexual misconduct. Are their accusations true?
No, they are
not true.
There was never
a lawsuit against Kriyananda or Ananda by eight women. There was
a single lawsuit filed by a former Ananda member, Anne-Marie Bertolucci,
disgruntled over the failure of her love affair with a married Ananda
member.
Initially, Bertolucci
accused Kriyananda only of having sexual "designs" on her. She cited
a brief (consensual) neck massage incident and the viewing of a
movie. Although Kriyananda was married, Bertolucci also accused
him of "fraudulently" holding himself out to be celibate by his
continued use of the title, "swami."
Bertolucci's
allegations of sexual misconduct against Kriyananda enabled her
to introduce accusations against Kriyananda by others from the distant
past as supporting evidence for her case. Standing alone, these
allegations were too old to be the basis of a separate lawsuit.
Kriyananda responded
immediately in writing to the accusations, and later published his
response in a national magazine. He categorically denied the allegations:
"I
have never harassed anyone, sexually or in any other way. It would
be contrary to my most basic instincts and principles to go against
another person's free will, which it is my practice to support even
at great cost to myself.
"[Our]
adversaries .have raised the general subject of my status as a
celibate, claiming that I have misrepresented myself publicly
in order to deceive people. I welcome this charge as an important
opportunity to clear the air not for only myself, but for many
other spiritual teachers in America who have faced similar charges
in recent years."
For Kriyananda's
complete statement, see Gurus,
Celibacy and Spiritual Authority.
Kriyananda later
stated under oath that he had been involved in a few sexual relationships
in the early '80s, prior to his marriage in 1985, but these relationships
had been fully consensual. After these relationships ended, the
women involved remained friendly with Kriyananda, never suggesting
they had felt "coerced." Their stories became very different years
later, after they had become involved with SRF.
See
more information on the eight women
Unfortunately,
at the trial, as a result of a highly irregular ruling by the judge,
Kriyananda's attorneys were not allowed to cross-examine any of
his accusers on the sexual allegations.
What
was the Bertolucci lawsuit about?
Anne-Marie Bertolucci
was a single woman living at Ananda Village, who in 1993 had a consensual
affair with a senior minister (no longer living at Ananda), a married
man with a young daughter. Both worked in Ananda's publishing department.
When Bertolucci
and the minister, who believed they were in love, sought counseling
from Swami Kriyananda about their relationship, he urged them to
end the relationship. The minister, however, was undecided as to
whether he wanted to remain with his wife. He later decided that
he definitely wanted to stay with his wife and child, and he so
informed Bertolucci and Kriyananda.
When Bertolucci
nonetheless continued to pursue the relationship, Kriyananda told
her she would have to move to another Ananda community. She decided
to move to the Palo Alto community, where she had previously lived.
Though initially
angry with Kriyananda, Bertolucci later apologized. In Palo Alto,
she participated in community life and seemed to be adjusting.
While Bertolucci
was living in the Palo Alto community, Eric Estep circulated a letter,
highly critical of Kriyananda, to residents of Ananda colonies.
Eric and his wife, Naomi, had lived at Ananda Village a decade earlier,
but were now staunch SRF members and vocally anti-Ananda. While
living at Ananda Village, Estep had refused to pay rent, a requirement
for all members, and had decided to leave rather than pay.
Estep's letter
defended SRF's position in its lawsuit against Ananda, and criticized
Kriyananda for presuming to represent Yogananda. He urged Ananda
members not to support Kriyananda and to follow instead the leadership
of SRF's president, Daya Mata. After receiving the letter, Bertolucci
contacted Estep.
Shortly afterwards,
Bertolucci began attending services at the Richmond SRF temple,
accompanied by the Esteps. There she was introduced to Don Price,
one of the "founders" of the anti-Ananda website. Bertolucci moved
out of the Palo Alto community in August 1994.
Estep later
persuaded Ford Greene, an "anti-cult" attorney, to be Bertolucci's
attorney in a lawsuit against Ananda. Shortly before filing her
lawsuit, escorted by the Esteps, Bertolucci flew to SRF headquarters
in southern California, and to the SRF Retreat in Encinitas. There
she met with SRF board members and senior monastics, including SRF
president, Daya Mata.
On November
28, 1994, Bertolucci filed a lawsuit against the minister, Ananda,
and Swami Kriyananda. Her main claims were: 1) wrongful termination;
2) fraud; 3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 4) breach
of fiduciary duty; 5) negligence; 6) negligent supervision; and
7) alter ego liability.
Her consensual
love affair had now become "sexual harassment," made possible, she
claimed, by the cult-like "brainwashing" she had been subjected
to by Ananda. She named both devotional chanting and Yogananda's
meditation techniques as key elements in the brainwashing process.
She also claimed
that Ananda fostered an inhospitable environment for women, and
encouraged ministers to seek out young women for sex. She specifically
accused Kriyananda, who had been publicly married to Rosanna Golia
between1985 and 1994, of fraudulently holding himself out to be
a celibate swami, and of sexually abusing various women in the past.
Bertolucci's
initial complaint included no claim of any specific sexual misconduct
toward her by Kriyananda. The complaint stated only that Bertolucci
now believed that the minister and Kriyananda planned
to pass her back and forth sexually.
Beyond that,
she said only that Kriyananda had adjusted and massaged her neck
with her permission, and invited her to watch what she described
as a '"pornographic" movie, but in fact was the award winning comedy,
"Ruthless People," starring Bette Midler and Danny DeVito.
In 1995, after
Bertolucci's attorney, Ford Green, lost a key motion in court, two
new lawyers, Michael Flynn and Philip Stillman, took charge of her
case. Ananda later learned that Flynn and Stillman were SRF members
with close ties to the SRF leadership. These same lawyers later
entered the SRF lawsuit against Ananda as SRF's attorneys.
Later, at Ananda's
deposition of Bertolucci, Flynn and Greene called a recess and took
Bertolucci out of the room just before she was to be questioned
about the neck-massage incident with Kriyananda. When Bertolucci's
deposition resumed, she claimed for the first time that there
had been sexual contact by Kriyananda. She said that when Kriyananda
massaged her neck, her face was in his lap and he rubbed her face
against his penis. This new allegation appeared for the first time
in the Second Amended Complaint, dated January 19, 1996.
These new allegations,
which Kriyananda categorically denied, virtually ensured that the
accusations against Kriyananda dating back to the late '70s and
early '80s would remain in the case. They had become "relevant"
because of Bertolucci's new allegations against Kriyananda.
Under Flynn's
direction, the case, which formerly had focused on the minister,
shifted to Swami Kriyananda and Ananda as a whole. Flynn repeatedly
accused Kriyananda of masquerading as a "celibate swami."
How
did the Bertolucci case end?
The trial in
the Bertolucci case began September 1997. Ananda's evidence showed
that between 1985 and 1994 Kriyananda was married, and that this
fact was publicly known and written about in the press. He was not
"masquerading as a celibate swami" as Bertolucci claimed. Kriyananda
admitted to a handful of consensual sexual relationships in the
early 1980s, before his marriage to Rosanna Golia, but denied sexually
harassing anyone, including Bertolucci.
In a highly
irregular ruling, the trial court refused to allow Kriyananda's
lawyers to cross-examine his accusers, or to impeach their credibility
through the testimony of other witnesses. The judge also refused
to allow Kriyananda's lawyers to tell the jury why they weren't
cross-examining these women, or introducing other impeachment evidence.
The testimony
of Kriyananda's accusers thus stood unchallenged and unexplained.
The jurors could draw only one conclusion: that their testimony
was true.
The court order
prohibiting cross-examination was imposed as a discovery sanction.
Ananda had hired a private investigator to obtain information relating
to SRF's sponsorship of the Bertolucci suit. Despite Ananda's clear
instructions to the investigator that all information was to be
obtained legally, the sub-agent of the investigator's agent apparently
reached into a fenced outdoor trash area to obtain the trash from
the Flynn Sheridan and Tabb law firm, (now Flynn and Stillman),
instead of waiting until the trash had been placed on the nearby
street.
The documents
obtained from the trash were worthless and outdated, and were not
used by Ananda. Set aside and forgotten, they were not included
in later document productions. This oversight in not producing copies
of the documents in discovery provided the basis for the sanctions.
The jury
verdict:
1) Count one:
Both the Ananda Church and Walters were found liable on the charge
of "constructive fraud."
2) Count two:
Ananda Church, Walters, and the former Ananda minister were found
liable for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."
3) Count three:
Ananda Church was found liable for "negligent supervision";
the Church had a duty to control Walters' behavior, and failed to
do so.
Awards for
compensatory damages:
$595,000 in
compensatory damages against Swami Kriyananda and the Ananda church
$30,000 in compensatory
damages against the former Ananda minister
Awards for
punitive damages:
$1,000,000 (one
million dollars) against Kriyananda, which was later lowered to
$400,000.
Alter ego claim
The court rejected
Bertolucci's claim that Ananda existed primarily for Kriyananda's
financial enrichment. This claim was tried by the judge without
the jury, and there were no restrictions on Ananda's ability to
cross-examine witnesses.
The judge found
that Kriyananda did not have a dominant role in the handling of
Ananda's financial affairs:
"[Bertolucci's]claim
rests upon two dominant themes: that there was a commingling of
corporate assets funds to Defendant Walters' control and benefit
and his actual control over corporate affairs was sufficiently dominant
that the two must be viewed as one and the same for purposes of
alter ego liability..[The evidence shows that][C]hurch officers
and directors (not Walters) played the dominant role in the exercise
of control over such matters."
Immediately
following the verdict, Bertolucci and Flynn filed a new lawsuit
against Kriyananda and Ananda, based on the trash incident and "malicious
prosecution." Bertolucci claimed that in light of the jury verdict
in her favor, Ananda's cross-complaint for defamation was "malicious
prosecution." They sought millions of dollars in damages.
Thereafter,
Bertolucci and her attorneys threatened to seize the property at
Ananda Village and the Ananda Meditation Retreat, and also the copyrights
to Kriyananda's books.
Although there
were many grounds for an appeal, including First Amendment religious
freedom violations, the large Bertolucci judgment, the new lawsuit,
and Ananda's precarious financial position forced Ananda to seek
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Under court
supervision, Ananda settled the Bertolucci judgment and new lawsuit
by agreeing to pay $1.8 million dollars to Bertolucci and her attorneys.
The bankruptcy court approved the plan, and with considerable belt-tightening,
Ananda managed to pay the full amount by 2001. For more on the Chapter
11, see Ananda through the Years, www.ananda.org/throughtheyears.
More complete
information about the Bertolucci case is available at www.anandaanswers.com
Was SRF involved in the Bertolucci lawsuit?
We believe so.
As of 1994, SRF had suffered loss after loss in its lawsuit against
Ananda. Among SRF's remaining claims, its claim of "tarnishment"
provided a possible avenue for regaining its cancelled trademarks
in "Self-realization" and "Paramahansa Yogananda,"
Citing the tarnishment
claim, SRF asked the judge to consider whether SRF was being "tarnished"
by association with Ananda. The Bertolucci lawsuit had been filed,
SRF said, and was being reported in the newspapers.
Ananda responded by accusing SRF of having "unclean hands" in the matter. SRF could not both create the tarnishment and then benefit from it. Ananda demanded to take the deposition of Daya Mata to explore SRF's involvement in the Bertolucci lawsuit. Ananda based its case on the following facts:
1. Just weeks
before she filed her lawsuit, Bertolucci was escorted by long-time
SRF members to SRF headquarters, where she met with Daya Mata and
other SRF board members.
2. SRF members
helped instigate the lawsuit by supporting and encouraging Bertolucci,
and helping her find an attorney to take her case.
3. Nearly all
of the women making accusations against Swami Kriyananda were associated
with SRF, either as members or followers.
4. Michael Flynn
brought Paul Friedman, a successful businessman and major SRF donor
with close ties to Daya Mata, to Kriyananda's sealed deposition,
under the pretense that Friedman was a paralegal at Flynn's firm.
5. Shortly after
Kriyananda's deposition, SRF transferred to Paul Friedman an apparently
valuable piece of land for $1 and "other consideration."
6. Friedman
boasted to a new Ananda member that he had attended Kriyananda's
deposition, and that even though most SRF members did not know anything
about the Bertolucci lawsuit, Friedman did because he was so well-connected
with people at the higher levels of SRF, and knew Daya Mata well.
Despite the
court order, Daya Mata refused to appear for her deposition, forcing
Ananda to file a second motion to enforce the deposition order.
At this point, Daya Mata accepted Kriyananda's suggestion that both
sides sit down together and try to settle the SRF case.
One of the first
concessions SRF requested was that Ananda not take Daya Mata's deposition.
As a gesture of goodwill, Ananda agreed. A few months later, settlement
discussions broke down. In the meantime, SRF decided not to pursue
its tarnishment claim. Had it done so, the issue of unclean hands
could have been revisited.
What
is Ananda?
What
is Ananda?
Ananda provides
a supportive environment for disciples of Yogananda to live in community
with like-minded people. Ananda has specialized in creating world
brotherhood colonies, the ideal lifestyle Yogananda recommended
for householder devotees. Members practice Kriya Yoga as taught
by Yogananda, and devote themselves to service to others. People
work and live very much like people everywhere, but with God at
the center of their daily activities-whether it be work, play, raising
families, or worship.
Ananda was founded
by Swami Kriyananda in 1968. Today some 1000 people live in Ananda
communities and many more attend Ananda places of worship in: Seattle,
WA; Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Nevada City, CA;
Rhode Island; Assisi, Italy; and New Delhi, India.
Ananda offers
the teachings of Yogananda, including many original teachings and
books for free at www.ananda.org. Ananda activities include two
publishing companies, three yoga and meditation retreats, three
metaphysical bookstores, and several Education for Life schools
for children based on Yogananda's teachings.
Is
Ananda a cult?
No. One of the
central tenets of Yogananda's teachings is respect for individual
freedom. Spiritual growth takes great inner strength; it cannot
be imposed from outside. People who choose to affiliate with Ananda
do so of their own choice, and the affiliation is primarily an
inner one. If anything, Ananda is rather less organized than people
expect; independent minded people appreciate the freedom it offers.
Finances are
private, not communal. People are free to attend worship services
or group meditations as they wish, or to never attend. Members of
the community have telephones, internet, televisions, cars, and
complete freedom to come and go as they please, and to live as they
choose. Read what people not affiliated with Ananda say about Ananda
in Ananda though the
Years.
How
finances work
Individuals
take personal responsibility for their needs, finding suitable work
and housing, and paying their bills. Individual finances are private,
not communal. Donations are voluntary. Employment is sometimes available
through an Ananda-owned business, though many members work in their
own businesses or in businesses near an Ananda community. Salaries
at Ananda businesses are modest, but enough to meet basic needs.
Individuals can earn as much as they wish through their private
enterprise; personal finances are confidential.
How
decisions are made
People closest
to the situation at hand usually make decisions. Good leadership
is recognized as supportive leadership, with managers focused on
serving the needs of their staff. Decisions are made by consensus
when possible. If someone feels strongly not to go forward with
a suggestion, the group will generally defer. Meetings are generally
harmonious. When there is a strong disagreement and the parties
are unable to work it out, difficulties can be brought to a manager
or to a minister who will help to resolve the issue.
The
role of women at Ananda
Women occupy
management and leadership positions at Ananda in proportions higher
than most American workplaces. More than half of the principal lecturers
and ministers are women. Married couples direct each of the Ananda
communities and jointly share the responsibilities for teaching,
counseling, finances, and overall decision-making. Women earn as
much as men in every position. Coercion or sexual harassment of
any kind is not tolerated in any Ananda community or job.
Who
is Swami Kriyananda?
Swami Kriyananda
is a close, direct disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda. He has devoted
his life to carrying out Yogananda's instructions to him, "to edit,
write and lecture." He is the author of over 80 books, including
many hundreds of sayings and teachings of Yogananda not available
through SRF. (See especially The Path, Conversations with
Yogananda, and The Essence of Self-Realization.) For
over 56 years, since 1948, Swami Kriyananda has lectured to thousands
of people throughout the world on Yogananda's teachings.
Swami Kriyananda
is regarded as the father of the intentional communities movement.
He founded Ananda Village near Nevada City, CA in 1968, and inspired
the creation of urban Ananda communities in the 1980s in Seattle,
Sacramento, Portland, and Palo Alto. He was invited to live near
the Ananda Assisi community in the mid-1990s and spent the next
few years writing numerous books, touring Europe, and giving talks
at the Ananda Assisi retreat.
Despite frail
health, at the age of 77, Kriyananda received inner guidance to
take Yogananda's teachings back to his homeland of India. (Yogananda
spent nearly all his adult life teaching in America.) Today, with
a group of Ananda members from around the world, Kriyananda is establishing
an Ananda community and teaching center near New Delhi.
What
is Swami Kriyananda's role at Ananda?
Swami Kriyananda
has never been involved in the daily management of Ananda communities.
He sometimes offers suggestions on directions or policy, but his
style of management is to suggest, and then allow others closer
to the situation to decide what is best. In the early years of Ananda,
he encouraged many Ananda members to take on leadership and management
roles to guide the community on a day-to-day basis. Many of these
same people serve in that capacity today.
Kriyananda served
as the spiritual director of Ananda from 1967 to 1998, when he retired
from that position. In that role, he provided inspiration and vision
for the spiritual life. He steadfastly refused to allow anyone to
call him a "guru," pointing always to Yogananda as the guru. His
activities today are very much like those of the last 56 years,
limited only by his health. He continues to write and to lecture
when health allows. He hopes by his presence in India to inspire
Indians to a new understanding and appreciation of their native
son, Yogananda, and a renewal of interest in Yogananda's teachings
there.
Swami
Kriyananda's finances and lifestyle
Swami Kriyananda
receives no income except what individuals offer in donations. He
has dedicated his life to the service of God. In the tradition of
his Indian guru, he has deliberately chosen to live with few possessions
and depend upon the grace of God for his support. Many of his books
are now available for free here
on the Ananda website.
Read
what people have said about Swami Kriyananda.
See also, Testimonies
of Light: Stories of Swami Kriyananda
For more information
about Ananda communities and activities worldwide, go to Retreats
and Classes.
See
talks by Swami Kriyananda in streaming video.
For more information
about the Bertolucci lawsuit, and detailed answers to criticisms
of Ananda posted by SRF members on the web, see http://www.anandaanswers.com/
For more information
about SRF's changes to Yogananda's teachings since his passing:
http://www.YoganandaRediscovered.com
* After Yogananda's
death, SRF added an extra "a" to Paramhansa, spelling it Paramahansa. |
