If I were President for a Day - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Messages to Mother Center > If I were President for a Day
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
BigMo Unregistered User (9/29/01 9:22 pm) Reply	If I were President for a Day I am suggesting the following as the new rules and regulations for the SRF Church. I would be willing to take this on myself, and make these changes. Those within SRF please feel free to print and use these ideas. I don’t sue to protect my writings. The new rules would include: Changes to monastic lifestyle 2A) A single spiritual life committee will be formed to explore issues related to the quality of spiritual life in the ashram. They will recommend rule changes to the Directors. Their recommendations will be made public to the membership and feedback requested before a decision is made. Decisions only related to the private life of the monastics need only be reviewed by the monastics. ALL the monastics. 2B) The monks themselves will elect, by popular vote, the monks to hold a seat on this committee, same for the nuns. They know the people who should be there. There will be one committee. They will be elected to the committee for 1 year and may serve up to 3 years. It should be 4 monks and 4 nuns and at least one of these is a novice monk, one a novice nun. 2C) There will be two lay members on the committee, one man and one women. These will be determined by the Board. They will hold a maximum term of one year. This is an unpaid position. 2D) Monastic compensation would be changed. $40/month is a disgrace. I trust the SLC to come up with a proposal based on other life style changes I would suggest. 2E) Monastic dress would be changed. A formal dress style would be required when representing SRF at a public function, but rules for rules sake (or control) would be abolished. The silly dress rules would be one of them. 2F) I would expect rules related to freedom of movement would be relaxed, with recommendations from the SLC. SRF is a cloistered environment for the encouragement of spiritual progress, not for reasons of control. 2G) Some basic rule changes are needed. But some bad habits are deep in the organization and need to be violently rooted out for progress to take hold. For example, if a monastic goes to someone and tells of the misdeeds of another person I would kill the “squealer”. There might be some simple trial to make sure it really happened. The death would be slow and public. After a few deaths this destructive practice would stop. 2H) It would no longer be assumed that a monastic will run each department. Business managers would be selected based on real business skills. 2I) Monastic leadership positions would always be elected. The SLC would decide the length of term for each position. Term limits would ensure fresh blood and fresh ideas and help avoid the power hungry situation currently in place. Approval by the Board. 2J) Monastic separation is today used as a means of maintaining control by some nuns. While separation would exist, it should be reasonable and not based on control issues. Issues of communication and cooperation would be taken into consideration. We would also assume we are dealing with adults and not 16 year old kids waiting to peek at each other. 2K) The members of the SLC would be expected to spend one day a month on clean up duty, cleaning the offices, bathrooms, kitchen, or grounds, depending on what is needed. This includes the non-monastics on the SLC. If a member of the SLC’s normal duties are clean up or maintenance, they will spend one day in some other capacity. 2L) Monastics would be allowed to serve the public in other ways. If they want to join the Red Cross, or some volunteer community efforts, they would be allowed to do so. They are not prisoners. We will become a giving, unselfish, loving, concerned organization and out people will want to reach out and help others. 2M) The monastic “counselor” system is a mess. Anyone who wants to keep it will be shot and the SLC will come up with something to take its place so people can get help and discuss issues. The use of outside councilors might be considered. At the minimum people will be allowed to choose their own counselors. 2N) Any monastic deciding to leave the ashram would be provided any lead time they needed, lodging at an SRF apartment or home, a short term lease on a car to help them get adjusted, and some training if they needed it to get a job. I would also expect the board to discuss the board’s failure in creating an environment which did not meet this person’s expectations and report to the president on what they are going to do about it. Problems in the environment which caused monastics to leave would be dealt with aggressively and with a high priority. Changes to employee treatment 3A) Employees would be fairly compensated for their jobs. 3B) Employees would be given a retirement plan. 3C) A grievance committee would be elected by the employees. This committee would have a two year term and someone could only serve two years. They would elect their own chairman and half the people would be elected each year. Employees could take issues to this committee who could take them to the Board. These people would be paid overtime for any additional time spent on this assignment. Changes to rules of SRF 4A) First of all, write the rules down and publish them! (Once they are agreed upon) Management by rumor and power play is a mess. 4B) SRF finances should be made public. SRF has a lot of money and it might be that some people should not be giving to SRF if they actually need the money more than we do! Giving is always appreciated by God, but we don’t need to deceive our membership into giving. 4C) A summary of the finances would be published, possibly quarterly or yearly. In the SRM? The new Board will decide how often. We will set a new standard for integrity and openness. 4D) The number of members would be published. Who is on the Board would be published. All this goofy secret stuff would be published. 4E) All use of lawsuits as offensive weapons would be stopped. All use of lawsuits would be stopped for that matter. We have nothing to hide, nothing to fear, nothing to protect. 4F) A priority would be set to get Master’s writings, pictures, videos, and talks out to the world. This is one of the greatest services we can provide humanity. The Board would be accountable for this as the lead SRF managers. Go ahead and finish this critical task. SRF Leadership 5A) The president would serve a single three year term. They would basically be the chairman of the Board. 5B) The president would be selected by the Board and could be a member or monastic. It would be an unpaid position, probably part time. An outside person could hold another job and still be president. 5C) No articles would be published with talks by the president. They would not be treated as an alter-Guru and we would make special efforts to make sure our membership didn’t fall into this trap. No closing talk at Convo, no security escorts, no pictures sold, no special cars, etc… 5D) The SRF Board would be responsible for the operation of the business. All functions normally associated with a board of a corporation, even a non-profit, would be associated with this board. While managers would be allowed to manage, the Board would have final say on budgets and high level hiring. They would also set the high level priorities for the organization, year by year. 5E) The Board’s decisions on priorities every year would be published for the membership. At the end of the year the results would be published. The goal being accountability to the membership, who are the real owners of SRF. If we are not serving there needs then changes should be made. Why else is SRF there? To protect something? 5F) The Board and president would also take a day a month to work in the kitchen, clean bathrooms, clean offices, etc… This would be written into the rules. If you can’t see the reason for this you should not be on the Board. 5H) The President will not have their own separate membership department, not have an army of assistants. Their role is simplified and this is not needed. 5I) The President will have an open forum discussion period with any and all monastics who wish to attend once a month. They will not be filmed or recorded. They would allow all questions on any topic and the questions are NOT submitted ahead of time.. The first one might last 24 hours but thereafter they might be 2 hours. 5J) The President will have an open forum discussion period with any and all employees who wish to attend once a quarter. They will not be filmed or recorded. They would allow all questions on any topic. There would be no secrets within SRF. 5K) Classic business problems like the abuse of power in Public Affairs, the laughable print REQ procedure, and the mis-management in editorial would be solved by the managers involved. The Board would be expected to make the decisions to get these problems solved. As they would end up on public goal statements (I would insist on that) then we would be accountable for fixing them. Procedures would be reviewed and business logic applied with a firm hand. 5L) The Board would act on suggestions from the SLC for changes to the rules of SRF. The Board approves changes and may suggest them themselves. 5M) People on the Board may not be on the SLC. SRFWALRUS: Edited at the authors request. I guess he is the author! Edited by: srfwalrus at: 12/20/01 12:19:28 pm
Disappointed Unregistered User (9/29/01 10:23 pm) Reply	Why Big Mo, why do you undercut your good ideas with the "kill them" and "shoot them" stuff? I am sure you realize that this will frighten some people or turn them off. We don't necessarily know that you are being facetious.
BigMo Unregistered User (9/30/01 6:15 am) Reply	Facetious? Dear Disappointed, Facetious? It is not important for them to know if I am being facetious. It is only important that I know. The roots of these problems go deep deep deep and drastic action will need to be taken. The "evil doers" being scared for a while is a good thing. If someone is not going to take these suggestions serously because of that phrase they would not have taken them seriously anyway.
Raja Begum Unregistered User (9/30/01 11:05 am) Reply	Accountability and a Sense of Humor C'MMon Disappointed Don't be so literal in your thinking BigMo, I had a good laugh on your killing the finks. Maybe we should have the present Board of Directors killed and do a hostile takeover. Sincerely, I think your ideas deserve serious consideration. That SRF org is neither fish nor fowl. neither an orthodox monastic order or a progressive corporation makes us all very confused. But confused is what they want us to be. Confusion is the opiate of the masses. Clarity and openness lead to accountability. What then...???
KS Unregistered User (9/30/01 1:10 pm) Reply	Writing I think the biggest step would just be to write down the rules. How many times did we see this as a problem! The nebulous "management" decided this or that 15 years ago. Or Ma once said this or that. I like the idea of written rules. Being held accountable would scare the hell out of them, as would publishing the finances. Let's do it!
Raja Begum Unregistered User (9/30/01 2:30 pm) Reply	Accountability It must be done. The perpetuity of problems in SRF seem to stem from one cause: their evading scrutiny at every level of the organization and a shifting of blame on the individual. A lot of confusion out there about SRF's non-disclosure policy, about its mysterious board of directors, about its style of managment, etc. For information on nonprofits go to... www.nonprofit-info.org/ SRF probably files a report to the government. This is what the above-cited website says... "The federal report is called Form 990. It is due each year on the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the organization's fiscal year (extensions are allowed). Effective June 8, 1999, new regulations govern public access to copies of this form. A full copy of these regulations, and much other helpful information, is at www.990online.com. "Organizations are now required to provide a copy "immediately" to anyone who comes to the administrative office and asks for it. A copying fee of $1 for the first page and $.15 for each subsequent page may be charged. The forms for the last three years are covered by this rule, as is the original application for recognition as an exempt organizations (though there are certain exceptions which apply to long-established organizations)." Those who want to get the ball rolling on making SRF accountable might want to start here. Onward Kriya Soldiers!! Founder's Syndrome www.mapnp.org/library/misc/founders.htm
Reporter Unregistered User (10/12/01 5:51 am) Reply	Leaving - Rule I really like the rule where we treat monastics better when they leave the ashram. Wouldn't that be a really spiritual thing to do? Show high character and indicate that we had their best interests in mind? Indicate that they WERE really friends and fellow devotees of Master? Why would that be so dangerous to the work?
XInsider Unregistered User (10/12/01 8:04 am) Reply	Sane attitude to monastic departure That depends on what you mean by "the work." If the work is the top secret ,world changing project it is currently viewed to be by the leadership, then treating ex-monastics as friends is tantamount to giving approval to treachery. As many commnent in this site have explained, SRF is a culture of secrecy at present and there are delusions of grandeur involved -- no doubt these sprang from the Matas' deep feelings of responsibility to Master. But it has taken an unfortunate turn and monastics can be viewed as expendable, dissappointing weaklings until they can prove themselves. During a nuns' Sunday service, one of Ma's close attendants quoted Ma as recently saying: "When will Divine Mother send the ones who can take it?!" This didn't cheer people up too much, as you can imagine. Sort of like the feeling people had after Mrinalini Ma's Xmas eve talk, when she made such a distinction between the "veterans" and the rest of the nuns.
Raja Begum Unregistered User (10/12/01 11:01 am) Reply	Two clashing models Try to think of the monastic experience as based on two models: one, the army; the other, a family. Historically, monasteries after 800 B.C. tended to have a military, or what we in SRF would call Kshatriya, orientation. The rigors of self-denial and the emphasis on "killing" the ego are all aesthetics of a military mind. When you fail to make the "expected" sacrifices in the military, you are usually dishonored by your commanders. The emphasis is on unquestioning obedience. Information is channeled on a need-to-know basis. And those who enlist are expected to know what they are getting into. Looking at SRF in that way, we see that the Matas are the generals, the Brothers and Sisters are the majors and captains, the Bramacharis and - charinis are the lieutenants and sergeants, while the novices and postulants are the privates. Everyone is ranked by color: ochre, yellow, and blue. I believe there's white for a miniscule few caled lay-monastics (like a civilian reserve). It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to figure out where the Matas' elitist mentality comes from. This is substantiated by all those stories we have of the Matas being "shredded" by the Master as a form of discipline. I find it very interesting that about the only thing Mrinalini Mata talks about is how she got the living shits beaten out of her (spiritually) but was able to take it with the right attitude each time. Is she bragging? Or is she merely reflecting the one and only one form of pleasure that a military mentality can indulge in --- the satisfaction of having conquered or of having surmounted a difficult trial-by-fire? ("When will Divine Mother send the ones who can take it?") If this is one's only pleasure, naturally, those who whine or quit early are considered cowards. Sri Yukteswar once commented, "Some people try to appear tall by cutting off the heads of others." You might even say this is a manifestation of one of the 8 meannesses of the heart -- a narrow sense of respectability. But, of course, the military is not predicated on sentimentality; it is based upon conflict with the enemy and shared cooperation during battle. So what precisely is the battle SRF is fighting. First off, the building up of the SRF organization. The spreading of the teachings too. Any obstacles in the way of those purposes become de facto enemies. Let's also remember that Mrinalini and Uma came when they were 13 and 14; Daya, when she was 17. They never experienced the world. They never got naked, made out, made love or had sex. They never smoked a joint , got drunk, went to a rock concert or basically did any of the wacky things most young people do. They never had a normal adult life either All the time, from day one till present, these "ladies" were put in the service of their Master's cause. I wonder sometimes, if behind their righteous devotion, there isn't a certain amount of defiant self-justification. After all, their egos have been picked-on a lot. And even if they've seen the light, their egos, still holding on, have each one gigantic, stinky shadow attached to them. I haven't said anything about the family model, so now I will. How many times have you heard it said, "SRF is your family"? To the monastics: When you first read the pamphlet on becoming a renunciant, isn't there somewhere in there the Krishna quote "Give Me thy heart"? The SRF God is Father / Mother. The Matas are called Matas because they want to be seen as "mothers" of the organization. Some of you even call them "the bad ladies" much like a four-year-old would, his mother. Isn't that revealing? And isn't it familial to name our ministers "Brother" and "Sister"? Loyalty is required not only to the cause, but to the founder and his representatives. And its a type of loyalty more familial, sentimental, and covering a longer duration (incarnations) than say the loyalty a soldier would feel towards a political Commander-in-Chief. The monastics live always together; they are expected to die together. They are excluded from most of the activities of the outside world. Their total world is each other. There are rules about what can be thought and what must not be thought or acted upon. Indeed, the ashram, by virtue of the extreme dependency it inculcates in the monastics who live there, is a family model. A parent / child paradigm. I don't care what the defenders of the "faith" may say. This model insinuates itself into the consciousness of each monastic by the way the lifestyle is set up and also by the basic rhetoric and lore passed around. If this consciousness of emotional and physical dependency is not conspicious and admittable by the monastics themselves, it nevertheless glows subtly like radiation on everything SRF does, is, says, or touches. We could launch into a full scale investigation of how the words, conduct, and even architecture generate this pervasive consciousness. I'm to lazy to shoulder a project on my own. So I won't. I assume we're all on the same page. If you find these two models plausible, you can see why monastics are having a hellish time on the "ranch." First off, with multiple models ruling the roost, the potential for confusion increases exponentially. Expectations are nurtured and then disappointed or frustrated. Not everyone goes to Master looking for a war and a military experience. Some people really, honestly, truly, undoubtedly look for a spiritual family. A place to heal the wounds of division, and a place to feel supported and be supportive. Scoff. Call it needy. But that doesn't diminish its validity one iota. I once was in a discussion with a senior monk about the large numbers of monastics leaving. He didn't give me the requisite ten senconds to finish my sentence before whipping out his tried and true glistening silver pistol of an excuse crying...you know...blah blah blah...these people are not living "the life"...blah blah blah....they want to work out desires...blah blah...they want someone to hold their hand and give them a hug...blah blah.. but no one can do that for them in SRF... blah blah blah...everyone works on themselves... blah blah blah blah... And I saw, clearly, that this man, like a fish who no longer has an awareness of the water he swims in, could never understand the serious double bind his charges are undergoing. This man is a simpleton intellectually. He glides in and around the smoke and mirrors of the SRF organization the way Forrest Gump stepstones through the brazen shifts in the cultural scenery. This man is too gentle a soul to even cognize (what the Matas gleefully profess) that the ex-monastics are nothing but a bunch of sorry-ass, unweaned wimps. He has, not the wrong idea, but a one-sided idea of how things are. Informally, psychology calls this behavior "crazy making." And I ought to restrain myself from sprinking a pejorative on this feast of though but...hey...here we go: What do you call a military organization who steals your heart, mind, and soul, keeps you as dependant as a baby, and makes you feel like @#%$ if you leave? Guess? Last time I checked the dictionary it was called a CULT. If you think SRF should maintain its Klingon military ethic, consider the following: The New York Times reported that the U.S. Military is taking the subject of mental health very seriously. They learned a lesson after WWII, after Vietnam, the Gulf War and Desert Storm that soldiers need to maintain their psyche's just as much as their bodies and their weapons. The military now has an army within the army of certified psychologists who help our soldiers keep in mental tip-top shape. Isn't that progressive? After all, our President did say we are in a new era, fighting a new war. And not long ago Clinto passed the parity rule which gave insurance claimants the right to ask for mental health benefits. So you see, mental health care is not babying people. It is good countermeasure to the complex world we inhabit. So hey Matas!! What gives? Explain why it was necessary to dissolve the spiritual life committee. Why did you gag on all that love and feel good energy generated by Devananda's and Meetrananda's therapeutic talks at the Convocation. You ladies are falling behind. The "world is marching on" says Master....but not you. So which God do you really worship? A progressive living God, or one frozen like stone in time? We need more psychology and science, more rationality and sanity in SRF. This is not only for the monastics. Our counselors are embarrasing amateurs. There exists time-tested intervention techniques, counseling techniques which do work. SRF ministers ought to become certified. And the ones higher up should stop pretending they are surrogate gurus. Master, at times, dealt with disciples in seemingly irrational ways, but he, being an avatar, always made that training work. Last I've been told, the lineage of avatars stopped with our guru. When anybody less than an avatar tries to imitate that training, the result can only be disaster. This country was founded at the very moment when the world entered into Dwapara Yuga. The founding fathers, who emulated the best of the new age, were 100 percent for rationality and individual thinking. Modern psychology is the natural successor of that spirit. To scrutinize and introspect, not judgmentally, but objectively is what every human needs to do. The world's people, all of us, continue to face an unending barrage of irrationality -- from terrorism to the standard fare of daily neurosis. Yes, we can spray disquietude with the peace of our meditations, but we also must use our minds to organize our experience. SRF claims to provide us with a metal template for organizing our thoughts and experiences...SRF, the one-stop How-To-Live way-of-life. In truth, SRF is a disorienting hodgepodge of models sorely in need of integration. Until we lay these discrepancies on the forge, what can SRF ultimately be but a place for winners and losers? If we want progress among us, I recommend we sift through and sort out these models, catalog the types of words and phrases associated with SRF rhetoric, and spend some time not only examining our expectations but also how SRF played into our expectations, fostered them, and then dashed them all to pieces. Would you join me in this project? Or shall we continue to whine about conditions which will change when dinosaurs die and are replaced with Cro Magnons?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (10/12/01 3:05 pm) Reply	...and a third In post, let me add another model just to confuse things even more: The corporate model. If you recall the conversation I had with a senior monk, at one point he told me that SRF needs to protect its trade secrets and run itself just like any other corporation. I found that revealing. Looks like the Matas really ARE getting modern!!! We know SRF was incorporated in Master's time and it is supposed to run like any other non-profit --- with a board of directors and certain bylaws. So the SRF organization is, in certain ways, indistinguishable from any other corporate non-profit organization. I used to work in a high profile company which had a strong corporate culture. When a company has an identifiable corporate culture, that means it also has strongly identifiable bad habits. Usually the company wants to thrive, and, if it is enlightened (mine wasn't for the longest time), it will hire outside consultants to take a good look at things. The call is often up to the CEO and CFO. When my company finally began Total Quality Management, and when doing so opened channels of communication from the lowliest corporate worm to the highest fat cat in white shirt and tie, the company became more productive and employees, happier. Corporations are like soft armies with a pinch of feudalism added for taste. Of course, we do find an increasing number of cutting edge workplaces which give a high degree of autonomy and rewards to its workers in exchange for innovative service. But I digress... Any way you slice it, the SRF org. prides itself as being a type of fledging but "spiritual" enterprise much after the grandaddy of organizations: IBM. It can invest and sue and it has modern computers and the latest security system and all kinds of intelligent people. Pretty darn mod for a bunch of monks, nuns and assorted-odd yogis. Yes, the SRF organization does model the corporate paradigm, too. But here comes the rub: Men and women don't work together. And while corporate people leave and go back to their lives at home, in SRF, home, work, and worship are one But it gets dicier. In a corporate workplace, the highest positions are just your bosses. In SRF, they are your spiritual leaders. If you get fired from a corporation, you lose a job. If your leave is facilitated in the ashram, you lose a life. A corporate lay-off is nothing but an action motivated by impersonal economic forces. Leaving the ashram is like abandoning your post in heaven. For the military-minded, it is like going AWOL. In a corporate job, I am hired for my skills and expertise and evaluated according to my performance. In the ashram, the same applies...BUT...there are also those who seem to want to evaluate the what's in my heart as well. Sound invasive....? Judged by corporate standards it would be. By a family model, it wouldn't....okay, it would, but wouldn't for a dsyfunctional family. After all this writing, I'm not sure if I ever made a clear point. I hope I did. But, just in case I didn't, let do so now... When push comes to shove, it really doesn't matter how SRF -- or for that matter, any organization --- wants to present itself. Just be above-board. That's all. Have integrity. Examine the way you present yourself and the expectations you set up for others. If you call yourself an army, then be an army. If you want to be a corporation, then be one. If you want to be a Neapolitan of three flavors, then tell all those who apply, "We are a Neapolitan of three flavors." Don't leave it for others to guess and then call them stupid for guessing wrong.
XInsider Unregistered User (10/13/01 9:07 am) Reply	Raja Begum's excellent contribution Mrinalini Mata has often spoken with fierce pride about SRF refusing to bend to the ways of the world. The SRF leadership will modernize when it behooves their corporate interests and refuse to modernize when it threatens their military structure. In this way they may continue the status quo for some years to come. The denial will continue too. So I see little hope that SRF would present itself to prospective members and monastics in a way that reflects the truth of the culture. And would anyone listen anyway? Most people don't choose their religion with their discriminative intellect. I surely didn't.
Yet Another EX Unregistered User (10/13/01 10:12 am) Reply	Corporate Models Way to go, Raja Begum! Regarding the corporate model: At no time is this model more apparent than when a monastic leaves the ashram. It is then when one finds out just how much SRF is your "spiritual family" and how much it is a corporation. It is a very cold and businesslike transaction, and this is what cuts so very deeply into our hearts. We have been told over and over again, year after year, in live satsangas and in countless recordings of talks by seniors played during our meditations, to consider the monastic family as our true family. They present themselves as one's true family. They call themselves "Brother" and "Sister" and "Mata." But when push comes to shove, the organization treats you like a faceless and nameless business transaction. At one point I told one of the seniors about my aunty reminding me that blood is thicker than water (urging me to keep my family connections strong). That senior asked me if I explained to my aunty about spirit being finer than blood (being a higher and more enduring connection -- as if that would somehow ease her concerns???). That very same senior monk never once tried to reach out and connect with me when he found out my plans to leave the ashram. He became cold and distant, and any smile he offered me in passing was so obviously strained that I could barely prevent gagging. Mind you, he wears that same strained, upside-down grimace/smile pretty much all the time (we who know him well know who I'm talking about). And how about that line in the ashram application form that asks if we're prepared to sever any connections with family or friends if deemed necessary by the SRF counselor? And yet if a monastic hasn't been in the ashram for more than 15 years (recently this guideline was updated from 10 years to 15) and falls seriously ill, he or she may be asked to return to their family so that the family (which the monastich may have been asked to sever all connections with) can shoulder the medical expenses. I presume this is because the church prefers to save its gazillions for wasting on funky accounting software and go-nowhere master plans. Some "family" eh? At the same time, one DOES find out who one's true friends and family are when you leave the ashram. They make themselves known by the unconditional love and support they extend to you, and these I found both inside and outside the ashram. I mention this because I cringe when I hear critical generalizations applied to those monks and nuns who have, at this time, chosen to remain in the ashram. Many of them have personally proven to me by their actions (and not just by their words) that they are true friends and family.
Spi Unregistered User (10/13/01 6:40 pm) Reply	Names In the interest of opening up the discussion, I believe the senior monk we are speaking of is Brother Anandamoy. Now that will probably shock some people who have not see it themselves. But there it is. From my own experience, he is guilty of not being a help, not reaching out, and one of looking the other way while people are hurt. He has been hammered himself. I have not seen him abusive like the bad ladies. His sin is one of not helping keep SRF on track and lending his name to the efforts of the bad ladies.
Yet Another Ex Unregistered User (10/13/01 10:21 pm) Reply	Spi Sorry, Spi, but I wasn't talking about Anandamoy. And I'm not comfortable saying who it was. I wanted to emphasize the point and not the person. But I realize how much of a tease it was not to name him. Sorry 'bout that.
KS Unregistered User (10/14/01 6:04 am) Reply	Names Spi, On this board we have not been naming too many names. The bad ladies are the exception. They set the culture and would need to change for anything to improve. Naming individuals who are caught up in it and not handling it too well seems unnecessary and might hurt people who can still help.
username Unregistered User (12/4/01 7:21 am) Reply	990's Churches are exempt from 990s. (Separation of church and state issue)
chuckle Unregistered User (12/7/01 11:27 pm) Reply	Dear Mother Center I've been reading the information on this site for about ten days now, and I'm taking it very seriously, indeed. There seems to be a lot of truth, courage, conviction, and good will here. I agree with all those who are calling for major changes: better treatment of monastics and lay members working in SRF, far more openess and accountability in business dealings and handling of members' donations, and so on. I have been a member for over 25 years, and I have hoped for many years that SRF would adopt Dwapara Yuga business management practices: you know, MBWA, treating employees/monastics with respect and encouraging their input, maintaining open dialogue and communication, using science in evaluating the effectiveness of our teachings (why are the number of members not growing as predicted?), ensuring that people and their welfare is the prime concern, not the organization, using positive reinforcement. All that kind of stuff. Check out what Tom Peters has been doing for the last twenty years. Indeed, check out what any business school has been teaching for the last twenty years. Quite sincerely, I ask: do any of the senior monastics/management have any background in modern business management? There seems to be so much secrecy involved with SRF, and managers today are aware of how ineffective it is as a management tool. I'm sorry to say this, but SRF is looking less and less like a leader in its capacity as a spiritual institution; it looks less and less progressive. But in reading Master's writings, I am struck by the fact that he was very progressive: he urged us to think critically, to use science and its methods in evaluating all facets of our personal and organizational lives, to discuss and work as equals. Compared to some of the Buddhist organizations in North America, for example (take a look at any of Jack Kornfield's books and how he describes how the Buddhist (and other) spiritual communities have dealt with issues such as those confronting SRF), SRF does not fare that well. We look insular, stifling. I know that Bro. Vishwananda mentioned at Convocation that SRF was based on very old teachings, and wasn't about to change, but that seems to fly in the face of the fact that Master wanted the best of Sanatan Dharma combined with the progressive methods of the West. Can you hear that we have been and are trying to help? Can you hear that you are losing and may continue to lose some of the brightest minds and hearts you have? Can you hear the pain? I can readily believe the stories that have been told here. I know of three people who have worked or are working at Mother Center. One left in the 1980's after what he called "systematic abuse" by his supervisor, who was a monastic. He not only left Mother Center, he left SRF; indeed, he abandoned anything to do with religion or spirituality, and he undertook months of therapy. Two of my friends are still there, but one is having great difficulties and the other is preparing to leave soon. This saddens me deeply. Can you imagine how shocked we are to learn that $8,000,000 has been spent, ill advisedly, on a software program? That the efforts at promoting the expansion plans at Mount Washington were not well-thought out and pitted the community against you from the outset? That some 30 monastics have left in the past year? That judges in the @#%$/SRF lawsuits have had less than flattering things to say about SRF's legal tactics and the testimony of senior monastics (not mention that we've been losing that legal battle)? If you think my concerns are unjustified, then you should know that I am only a product of Master's teachings; as far as I can tell, he urges us to think critically (see "Doubt, Belief, and Faith") and that is what I am doing. I'm willing to be shown the errors in my thinking, but will you talk with me?

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Messages to Mother Center -

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