HV Horrors/Science of the Soul

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > SRF Hidden Valley Ashram > HV Horrors/Science of the Soul
Page 1 2 3 4	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
psychdev Registered User (10/29/02 12:09 pm) Reply	Re: agreeing to disagree? <<Psychdev, what do you think might happen if people took your advice? What do you anticipate? >> Wonderful question, Gardendiva. In terms of tangible effects, I think that examining one's own reactions to situations (especially in counseling or psychotherapy) can be enormously reassuring and may open up whole new ways of experiencing the world and the self. This is commonsense stuff which I'm sure you already know. One the one hand, a battered housewife may figure out that she's not really reasponsible for her husband's behavior ("if only I were just a LITTLE bit nicer, he wouldn't hit me") and she is a viable, valuable person in her own right. On the other hand, an angry subordinate or coworker may find that he does not have to be angry or resentful--that apparent the boss's attempts to devalue, humiliate, disempower were projections of earlier abuse or other sensitivities. If we are responsible for our own feelings in this way, it also relieves us of the responsibility to change others or to discredit contrary views. In terms of SRF, I think anyone who finds that SRF is intrinsically abusive for them at this point in their lives should, by all means, seek another path. SRF is not the only path to realization and they certainly don't have a monopoly on truth. I do not blame, condemn, or doubt such a person's sincerity, spiritual inclination, or strength. And I would "defend to the death their right" to do this.
soulcircle Registered User (10/29/02 1:20 pm) Reply	psychdev...a question for you psychdev, please email me if it would be of value to you there is a question i would like to raise soulcircle <heypoet@aol.com>
soulcircle Registered User (10/29/02 1:35 pm) Reply	psychdev...a 2nd question for you psychdev from the following *Quote:* In terms of SRF, I think anyone who finds that SRF is intrinsically abusive for them at this point in their lives should, by all means, seek another path. SRF is not the only path to realization and they certainly don't have a monopoly on truth. I do not blame, condemn, or doubt such a person's sincerity, spiritual inclination, or strength. And I would "defend to the death their right" to do this. reading your posts and reading this, i have the following question.......are you saying i am over-reacting, or that you will defend "to the death," my right to live my life outside of srf and comfort kindred souls? and let's stick entirely to the specifics of my story in a post above, and keep hypothehtical situations and generalities at the door, please. one more insight into my make-up, psychology has been around a hundred plus years in western academia, it's infancy, now reaching a period of being a toddler fascinates many of us far down the road when some maturity is reached will also be a fascinating period, lol my take is that you have embraced a challenge, in being in this field and you are a cool new friend my take is that i am a person of specifics and the golden eagle that soared above me yesterday, reminds me to ask you to come down, to my level, so that i can more closely rub shoulders with an angel of the mother, a part of the "whole" that Devotee1970 refers to in a very recent post in i need advice, what is truth? you are a part of a whole, thank you for welcoming me as i welcome you soulcircle
psychdev Registered User (10/29/02 5:15 pm) Reply	Re: psychdev...a 2nd question for you Hi soulcircle, Thanks for the kind, poetic words. Regarding your question, there's no way for me to know whether you were overreacting or not, at least in your experiences with SRF. It would be unwise for me to comment on them specifically, in a psychological context, although I am sincerely humbled by your trust in my opnion. That kind of feedback, of course, can come from trusted friends who have known you for a long time. Or from finding a local well qualified psychotherapist (5+ years experience, board certified) who is willing to share this kind of journey with you. You may have already done this, so maybe the suggestion is not helpful. I slightly disagree with your statement about psychology being in its infancy--maybe we can agree that it's in it's "childhood". FWIW I personally believe in the "Mensch" criteria for psychotherapist. You're probably familiar with the word. It's yiddish (and NYC) slang for someone whose human-ness takes first place befor being a psychologist--who has "good boundaries", does not place his own needs on the client, and who is accepting and nonjudgmental. I would say that, among psychotherapists I have known, may 30% qualify. So it's important to be selective IMHO. But I imagine you have already thought about all this already. Hope that (sort of) responds to your question.
chuckle chela Registered User (10/29/02 7:48 pm) Reply	Re: HV Horrors/Science of the Soul Psychdev, thanks for your postings; I think you make a number of points worthy of discussion. I agree that seeing the problems in black-and-white is not very useful, as things are more complex than we might wish. The leaders of SRF, whatever we might wish to think of them, are not evil, psychotic, or bent on destroying others. Neither are they perfect. They are (surprise, surprise) just like us--liable to err. For that reason, I think we need to look at all this with compassion. A number of people have made this point previously on the Walrus. But this leads us to what is, in my opinion, one of the real fundamental problems. The leaders and the direction of the SRF work are held out to be perfect and incapable of error. Alas, one finally has to admit that it just ain't so; the evidence is there when one finally removes the rose-tinted glasses. Unfortunately, it appears that some of those monastics and lay members who challenged the orthodoxy of perfection were, as it were, sent to Coventry. Yes, more transparency and honest dialogue and a willingness to examine the issues and the possible personality issues (transference, projection, and so on) would help overcome many of the problems. As you must be aware, many monastics and lay members did try to deal with the issues in constructive ways. There was the Synthesis project, initiated by a couple of members; it ended up dead in the water. There was the opening up of the Spiritual Life Committees initiated by the monastics, along with the help of a professional psychotherapist. From what I gather, it was when they got close to the nitty-gritty, examining some of the underlying psychological issues and the many problems these unconscious psychological forces created, that the leaders got nervous and pulled the plug. (If this is indeed the case, I can readily understand that this plug-pulling could happen. As you would well know, though, forces such as transference and projection, when left unexamined, can result in problems, not only for individuals, but for those in marriages, and in family dynamics, and in the workplace. You mention that we here in the Walrus may be projecting. It is also possible that the SRF leaders are projecting and have their own transference issues; indeed, as you would know, the dynamics are usually such that both sides have these unconscious dances going on). There was the Encinitas couple running the retreat who tried to solve some of the problems; again, it seems they got nowhere, even when they went to the very top. There were the many professional lay members and some monastics in various departments at Mother Center who pointed out fundamental problems; they were all too often ignored, shunned, and, in some cases, fired. Were the SRF leaders wrong at every turn in dealing with these issues? I don't know, as I am far removed. They may well have been right in some cases. However, it seems there was little or no chance for dialogue. Your point about one's own personality influencing the situation is well taken. That the personalities and psychological and spiritual needs of those who had difficulties with the leaders and/or who left had an influence on the outcomes is likely beyond dispute. I think we'd all agree that those who had problems and/or left found that it just wasn't working for them. I've noted with interest (although it may mean nothing) that most of the former monastics who posted on the Walrus simply said their piece in a few postings and then split. It seems to me that they realized the environment didn't work for them (and possibly didn't work for anyone), left, said their thing on the Walrus, and went on with their lives. You say that "�the tendency to idealize, to see the world in black-and-white terms, to have wildly unrealistic (and unreasonable) expectations of other people is the root of many complaints I've seen on this board." Hmmm, I'm not sure this has most often been the case, although I will agree there has been some whining, even by myself. Perhaps you and I would need to have walked a mile in the shoes of some of the former monastics to be really able to comment. But, as one person who once posted here said to me, "If you were an SRF leader, would you have a discussion with these name calling, sarcastic, whining people?" It's a valid point. Still, I would hope that people could see beyond the name calling and whining to see what may well be important issues worthy of consideration. I'm not sure if the comparison of St. Francis is a good one. Certainly, his choices and the results are worthy of our consideration. But he created his own monastic order; he wasn't a monk in an already existing order. However, he was the ultimate rebel! (Not that unlike his Master, perhaps?). And isn't it interesting that those who followed him honored that spirit? I wonder how he might have fared in an SRF ashram. Speaking of other monastics worthy of consideration, let me suggest reading Thomas Merton's "Contemplation in a World of Action." He deals with many of the issues SRF has been facing. His life at Gethsemani is an interesting case of how he faced and dealt with many of these issues; yes, it was a struggle, a severe one at times. While I'm willing to agree with you that SRF is not a "toxic cult," (at least, outside the ashram; I have no authority to comment on ashram life), I do think that there are elements of the SRF culture that are spiritually detrimental, that lead to a diminution of self-reliance and self-realization. Again, transparency and a willingness by the leaders at all levels for self-examination and dialogue are necessary, in my opinion. My primary concern has been that there may still exist a fundamental unwillingness by the SRF leaders to engage in this self-examination. I think, for example, that those who scoff at Bro. Vishwananda's blaming the troubles on the rapid growth during the 90's may scoff for good reason (at least he now admits there are problems; last year he said SRF knew exactly what it was doing). Clearly, the problems are much more fundamental than that. Trying to reform things is a noble idea, and I'd love to see reform, but unless there are signs that the leaders recognize that there have been fundamental problems and that fundamental changes are required, why bang one's head against the wall, especially knowing what so many went through? I know of one monastic who decided to stay but who confessed, "They [the leaders] aren't going to change and I've given up hoping they would." In the end, it just may be that the SRF environment just didn't work for many people, monastics and lay members, alike. Or they felt they had to move on. As the former Sister Dhriti allegedly said to her fellow nuns, "I am leaving because I can no longer grow spiritually in this place." And, yes, perhaps some of us are running away from lessons we need to learn. But if many of the problems in the SRF culture-monastic and non-monastic-that have been outlined on the Walrus board do exist, then it may well be that SRF is not serving its members well. I welcome your posts and hope you will continue to contribute! A question for username. Can you elaborate on why you think psychdev is deceiving himself? Thanks.
psychdev Registered User (10/30/02 9:30 pm) Reply	Re: HV Horrors/Science of the Soul I wanted to make one clarification to my posts in this section. My postings apply primarily to HV, the place I know best, rather than in any general sense to SRF. I know relatively little about the day to day workings of the organization beyond what I hear on this BB (although I know quite a bit about it's history and have specific knowledge about the Bertolucci suit). It seemed to me that the the HV discussion had become quite one-sided and reckless, and disregarded the possibility that reasonable people may have quite different, positive, and valid experience of HV. I also wanted to focus a bit on how our own backgrounds contribute to organizational and interpersonal dramas, as I've already described. That's not very profound, but I think it was important to add a little balance. Further note to soulcircle: I'm not sure I really replied to your question regarding "overreacting" vs fighting for your right to leave the organization. Here's another attempt to answer... Basically, I believe YOU have to determine for yourself whether you overreacted (perhaps with the help of honest, trustworthy friend or a counselor). It doesn't matter what I think. Second, and similar to the first point, I think leaving/staying with SRF is a matter of YOUR personal goals. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what you think about SRF or what SRF is or what SRF says. It matters only what YOU want to get out of a spiritual practice. This probably goes against official SRF doctrine regarding "loyalty is the highest spiritual law", the need to "give without receiving" etc. But I think you are on safe ground. Utlimately, "the Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath." A very deep truth from Jesus teachings IMHO, along with the saying that "Love is the fulfilling of the Law". In other words, you don't exist to support SRF--SRF exists to serve the spiritual welfare of it's members. You've already come to this conclusion, I believe, as have many posters on this board. But perhaps is worthwhile just to say it again. None of this change my personal committment to this path or to SRF. My allegiance is to a set of teachings and practice, and SRF is still the best channel for me.
psychdev Registered User (10/30/02 10:01 pm) Reply	Re: HV Horrors/Science of the Soul Chuckel chela... that's really an exceptinally fine post IMHO. I'm afraid I'm a bit fried at the moment (too much work today), so I'll have to limit myself to just a couple questions/issues you posed. Many of the "wildly unrealistic/black-and-white" postings have regarded HV. There are two reasons I call them unrealistic. Most important is that HV is an incredibly diverse place for those who are residents. It's not really "one" place--it's a collection of different "niches". Your particular work assignment, the particular people you hang out with, how intensely you pursue your own meditative practice determine the reality to an important extent. So a black-and-white statement about HV is a bit over the top--it's just not reasonable. But more concretely, the idea of being upset because a $30/hour wage did not come through, of being obsessed with the fact that individuals believe that they are/are not reincarnation of particular past personalities, that Bro Anandamoy practices his convocation presentations for hours, that monks really cannot read minds, etc.--that fact that these are remarked upon, all this suggest an unrealistic set of expections. I understand how this can happen, especially with younger, more vulnerable, or simply guileless individuals. And SRF no doubt shares some responsibility for this--these ideas may be promoted by some monastics. But these beliefs don't mean much to me--I have a very "minimalistic" view of my meditative practice, almost Buddist: Although I believe in reincarnation and the possibility of "siddhis", it really doesnt matter to me. I really don't CARE. Only meditation practice and service to others are important to me as precepts from SRF. Devotion is also for me because devotion purifies the heart. Regarding Saint Francis: I agree he was a "rebel"--but I think he was primarily spiritual rebel. And he was an extreme conformist regarding Catholic catechism and rules. The key point IMHO: Despite seeing the rampant corruption and ethical and financial decay of the church, St. Francis insisted adamantly on obedience to the Pope, Bishops, and even illiterate local clergy. I am not Catholic, and don't automatically assume anyone should be obedient to a church; so this poses a fascinating contradition for me. One the one hand, St. Francis is deeply moved by the decay in the church and dedicates his life to repairing it; yet he insists on obedience to priests who are known to frequent prostitutes and serve the Host with unclean hands. This is a pretty dramatic contradiction, I think. And likewise with other institutions of the church, such as Bishops who were living with concubines, in large palaces, often with little spiritual interest at all. Yet Francis somehow found a way to become an icon for centuries, without condemning the church or leaving it or being overwhelmed by it's faults. Interesting. I haven't quite figured this out but is seems relevant to SRF. Edited by: psychdev at: 10/30/02 10:08:03 pm
Devotee1970 Registered User (10/31/02 12:13 am) Reply	Peace to you, peace to me St. Francis stayed, and Martin Luther left, and people have been trying to figure out the Christian church for a long time, and people have been trying to figure out the SRF for a long time, and no one has yet to the best of my knowledge. But talking is good. I have certainly done my share. And the nice thing about the Walrus is that she doesn't charge $150 per hour but rather (according to her user profile) eats fish and is in favor of world peace. While I do not eat fish (not that there is anything wrong with fish eaters), I am also in favor of world peace. I also wish love and peace to you all and hope you will arrive at a better understanding of this mess than I have. Alternately, I hope you find a way of living without understanding. I am not trying to be condescending or disrespectful and am not making any editorial comment about the the psych profession or the sea world. Rather, I am feebly trying to take myself less seriously and to interject some lighthearted playfulness into a world that needs a lot more of it than I could ever give. I bow to the One Self expressing itself through you all.
username Registered User (10/31/02 8:19 am) Reply	to psychdev How interesting that you choose to pick a few SRF practices and decide to do those only. Rather than doing (or maybe even realizing ) what SRF is actually telling its members to do and to believe. Do you eat whatever you want - or do you restrict foods as per SRF? Do you have sex with whoever you want - or do you restrict sex as per SRF? So you watch TV? Read outside literature? Go to other churches? Do you think you would still feel the same way about SRF if you did what SRF is telling you to do?
psychdev Registered User (10/31/02 11:04 am) Reply	Re: Peace to you, peace to me username, responding to your post: 1) <<Rather than doing (or maybe even realizing ) what SRF is actually telling its members to do and to believe>> Yes, I think I understand what SRF tells it's members to do/not to do. After 30 years as a Kriyaban and probably 50+ different retreats at HV and Encinitas and time in India (Dwarahat, Dakshineswar, Ranchi), the practices are quite clear to me. 2) Specific practices: <<Do you eat whatever you want - or do you restrict foods as per SRF?>> I'm mostly but not completely vegetarian--I drink milk, occasionally eat eggs. I also occasionally eat fish, although less over the last several years. I used to eat poultry occasionally but no more. I never eat red meat (last 30 years). Unfortunately, I still drink a lot of tea, due to problems with asthma. BOTTOMLINE: Lightening will not strike you if you violate the dietary teachings. However, it (dietary infraction--not the lightening) reduces the effectiveness of meditation. 3) <<Do you have sex with whoever you want.>> As opposed to people you don't want to have sex with? Your post is a bit confusing. I personally am celibate and have been for 20+ years. FWIW, I personally don't believe you should have sex with "whomever you want"--it should be a committed relationship. Obviously, most teenagers and young adults experiment prior to having serious relationships, which I think is quite natural. Unfortunately, SRF has a rather ambiguous policy about sexual relationships IMO. On the one hand there is a 1920's style Protestant sound to the lessons which is extremely off-putting to most modern ears (and to me also). On the other hand, they make statements about "encouraging" people to abstain from sex outside marriage and center leaders (who in a sense represent SRF) should abstaom from sex outside marriage. Again, be assured, lightening will not strike you if you violate these rules. But it may be unwise for meditation, health, or psychological debelopment. <<So you watch TV?>> Yes. So did Master (e.g., 10 oclock news every night). The important thing is not to make it an addiction. <<Read outside literature?>> I assume you mean "religious" literature? Yes, of course. So did Master (e.g., Ramakrishna, Kabir, Brother Lawrence, Buddha, etc. etc.) I think you can get a range of opinions from SRF monastics about this issue, ranging from "no you shouldn't, ever" to "be careful of 'spiritual indigestion'". SRF explicitly states that it's fine to read outside literature "until you've chosen a specific path". They also will probably advise to avoid Ananda religious literature because "it might confuse you". FWIW, I have never allowed SRF to control my reading tastes, although I believe they are right that it dilutes spiritual practice and may be confusing to keep seeking alternative metaphyics. Why? Because we live in duality--each path is a kind of metaphor for reality. But to make progress towards ultimate reality, you have to firmly set your mind in that path. So "mixing metaphors" can ultimately be detrimental. <<Go to other churches?>> If I wanted, of course. However, I'm satisfied with my present practice, so only go if accompanying family or friends. Master and SRF both say that SRF teachings are compatible with "all true religions" and encouraged "muslims to go down on their knees 5 times daily", "christians to attend church", and "Jews to attend Temple." So this is a non-issue IMO. The bigger issue, username, is why you are so hung up on what someone else says? YOU are ultimately the person who must decide what goes into your mouth and also into your mind and heart. SRF cannot do it for you, you have to take responsibility for your own life. In a deeper sense, it's nonsense to think that rules can be absolutely specific... every person's path is different (even if it has the same name!) because every person's understanding, intelligence, maturity, culture, and life-experience is different. We life in duality. My internal representation of God is different from yours, even if we mouth the same words. The fact that you want SFR to set down rules which are consistent, and fit your outlook is understandable. And we should all look for an organization which is close to your own outlook, temperament, and natural personality. But you will NEVER find an organization (religous or secular) which has completely compatible outlook. In fact, it's not even conceivable what that would mean. Is it EVER possible for one person to have exactly the same feelings, same ideas, understanding, icons, reactions, or life experience? Get over it. It's not going to happen. You need to take the best from whatever organization/path you belong to, change what you can, and let go of the rest. Or, if there's a better path for your, go there. It's as if you (and others) are looking for the ideal, "Super-Parent"--all wise, all-caring... perfect. When you discover that the parent is imperfect, you're outraged, because someone has violated the rules of the game! (Please send me an email IMMEDIATELY when you find such a person. I've been looking for him/her too--but without success.) Final note regarding rules and your concerns about living by them. There is a philosophical question called "Zeno's Paradox". which goes something like this: If an arrow always occupies a particular point in the sky as it flies to the target, how is movement ever possible? Likewise, in spiritual practice--we always fall short of our goal (until we arrive), and it's often hard to see how movement is possible. The really important thing IMHO (something which it has taken me a long time to learn), is to forgive oneself, and to know that current mistakes are just a bridge to the future. You are always a "failure" until the precise moment that you arrive. This may take 10 years, 30 years, or a 100 years. But I can tell you from personal experience, if you focus on the core SRF practices and don't focus on your failures, it's possible to make progress. I'll add of course that I personally am distant from this goal and am in genuine awe of many personalities I've met in this country and India who are much closer to the goal. These people are like deep wells for me, from which I can draw inspiration. One person's (long-winded) opinion. Edited by: psychdev at: 10/31/02 11:54:32 am
username Registered User (10/31/02 11:26 am) Reply	Re: to psychdev I don't know what IMHO means Do you attend a temple? My emphasis on rules is because the rules SRF has laid down, are used to brainwash members and keep "mother center" in control. You seem to be aware already that "mother center" has done this to the "group leaders". There is a HUGE difference between what SRF is telling its members to do and what Yogananda did. I was asking you if you did what SRF is telling its members to do, not if you did what Yogananda did or what Yogananda said to do. It is not ok with SRF for its members to attend other churches; to read outside literature; to have sex outside marriage (and maybe not even then); to visit outside teachers; to expose yourself to tv and magazines and movies that are have a "worldly" focus. These rules are said over and over and over and over again at the temples. If you do these things, they say, you will not reach enlightenment. If you are not achieving results from the teachings, it is because you are doing something that is "outside the rules". Be alone more, they say - so in other words - the only acceptable "social" thing to do is to volunteer at the temple, but even there, it is better to "practice silence" while there. Edited by: username at: 10/31/02 11:36:21 am
psychdev Registered User (10/31/02 11:45 am) Reply	Re: Peace to you, peace to me username: Are you sure this isn't a rather black-and-white version of what's being said? I've never heard an SRF minister say, for example, you shouldn't attend other churches. Can you give specific names of ministers who say these things. You've got me curious. I think if you write SRF, you will get a much less dogmatic answer on these questions. The SRF lessions, certainly, are more nuanced (at least in places).
psychdev Registered User (10/31/02 11:49 am) Reply	Re: to psychdev <<I don't know what IMHO means... Do you attend a temple?>> IMHO = "in my 'umble opinion". Dont' attend temple--too far away. But have often attended services in HV and Encinitas while on retreat. Plus heard monastic talk both formally and informally at HV.
psychdev Registered User (10/31/02 11:52 am) Reply	Re: Peace to you, peace to me USERNAME: <<My emphasis on rules is because the rules SRF has laid down, are used to brainwash members and keep "mother center" in control. >> So why do you give them that power? Live your own life--you can't give up responsibility for what you believe )
soulcircle Registered User (10/31/02 12:14 pm) Reply	do not see "south indian saint" << Ammachi psychdev, After talking with one or two senior ministers, bro. boomananda (formerly brahmachiri fred) said, "you may see ammachi,......" and then laid out so many dangers, etc that even longtime devotees said, "wow, he is telling us to keep on the straight and narrow!" this was said on a sunday morning to 200 devotees at richmond chapel, i was there and even took notes the date was the third sunday in july '97 i drove him from that airport to the chapel in september with ammachi's bio on the dash board. he was again returning and and the next day at thurs satsanga restated the profound caution i had her bio on my dashboard and he never touched it or acknowledged it the current self-realization magazine (at that time in '97) had a long article on ananda moyi ma in it, so many helpful quotes in her last years ananda moyi ma sent people to ammachi i have heard numerous people call srf the dead-saint religion about that year, a person at the chapel in richmond encouraged him to visit kamala, telling him she was moved to tell him to visit her nearby with the help of so and so... he passed on the opportunity that person was with kamala the friday the day before she passed after having other time including the weekend before sunday the day after....heaven and earth had to be moved (calls to mother center) to even get her passing (after 65 years as a devotee, after nurturing the chapel at richmond from '49 til '79, even raising the down payment and finding the seventh day adventist church that was purchased. she was yogananda's ordained minister in the bay area giving kriya, counseling...the whole works many of these things are only the tip of the iceberg Ammachi Home Page soulcircle Edited by: soulcircle at: 10/31/02 12:35:03 pm
soulcircle Registered User (10/31/02 12:21 pm) Reply	Devotee1970 Devotee1970, I am taking longer to cherish your post in i need advice ..what is truth....gosh thank you ----------------------------- i hope psychdev and all, take heart in your words, embracing emotion, mind and heart, in your post above your recent post in this thread shows the maturity of human heart and emotion and mind, ........an intuition woven with sprigs of healthy herbs i wish for the field of psychology in its "childhood" as psychdev says, or "infancy/toddler" years as i opine.....the same maturity centuries from now for love is the question...love is the answer .......................as you posted in "i need advice" soulcircle
soulcircle Registered User (10/31/02 12:27 pm) Reply	the moment has come for laughter at myself out loud there are times for medicine ........we all know what the best medicine is ******** laughing my heart out ..on floor *** feet in the air at myself out loud
username Registered User (10/31/02 12:47 pm) Reply	Re: brainwash "So why do you give them that power" Hey, no one gives it to them. They impose that power. That is what brainwashing is all about. "Live your own life - you can't give up responsibility for what you believe" - When you are brainwashed, 'what you believe' has been imposed upon you. Dictionary definition of brainwash: To cause a person or persons to change attitudes or beliefs through the systematic application of torture, drugs or other psychological-stress techniques. Edited by: username at: 10/31/02 12:52:32 pm
Devotee1970 Registered User (10/31/02 1:38 pm) Reply	Re: Peace to you, peace to me psychdev, I mention in passing that I am not username, except in the broadest sense that I am a part of you all. I mention this because you replied to my subject "Peace to you, peace to me" and then answered his question (I assume you are a him, username -- forgive me if I am mistaken. Your posts sound a little more like a him than a her ). I also have a question for you all in the same vein as my aforementioned eariler post regarding peace: Do I get any credit for my celibate pre-adult years, or is my Celibacy Quotient calculated only from the age of majority? And -- if I have to start from adulthood, do I use voting age or drinking age? And -- do I get extra credit for never having subscribed to Playboy? Devotee1970 P.S.-thanks for your laughter, soulcircle P.P.S.-Ethel Barrymore once said, "You grow up the day you have your first real laugh at yourself." Maybe that's the relevant date to use for the Quotient. If that's so, then the beginning calculation date for me didn't begin until fairly recently. P.P.P.S.-Everyone has to find their own way. I respect each of yours. Edited by: Devotee1970 at: 10/31/02 2:27:22 pm
chrisparis Registered User (10/31/02 2:56 pm) Reply	Re: brainwash (This message was left blank) Edited by: chrisparis at: 11/22/02 7:47:23 am

Page 1 2 3 4

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - SRF Hidden Valley Ashram -

Powered By ezboard� Ver. 7.32
Copyright �1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.