>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Messages to Mother Center
        > FINISHED LETTER TO BRO. VISHWANANDA		 New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
chela2020
Registered User
(2/24/03 4:05 am)
Reply 		FINISHED LETTER TO BRO. VISHWANANDA
March 1, 2003

Dear Brother Vishwananda,

It has been our understanding that you welcome letters from members or even ex-members that would bring more light to changes that they would like to see made within the organization. So on behalf of some SRF members, who have either left SRF or who are still in the organization, as well as some of the monks and nuns who have left, I am mailing this letter to you. First of all, I must say that we are from the SRF Walrus board, but most of us, if not all, are not members of Ananda. So, if any issues come up that makes it appear otherwise, it is only because we care about all of those who profess love for Yogananda and also consider them members of our family.

We have all heard of the recent exodus of 40 monks and nuns, and we also realize that many other members have left SRF as well. This saddens us all because we have a great love for Yogananda and his work, and for each other, and I am sure that you feel the same. It is hard on all concerned when so many leave due to being deeply hurt by things that they have either heard, read, or experienced. For this very reason Walrus was created: "The purpose of this board is to air out problems, help each other, and help SRF. Many things are happening behind closed doors or to people who are suffering quietly and alone. An open discussion of the real current state of SRF might help the situation…”
We have gathered together a list of things that have bothered us very deeply. These suggestions come from the many postings on Walrus, and so we hope that you will listen to them and take each one into consideration. None of us really want to have to be on an SRF Walrus board complaining about SRF. We are on the Walrus because we need the support of others who feel the same way.


In love and friendship,


A few Members of the Walrus


Chuckle Chela:

These opinions and recommendations are offered with respect, with a spirit of assistance, and with the hope of fostering discussion.

FACT 1: SRF financial records are completely secret. The membership has no accounting of how their donations are handled, invested, and disbursed.

OPINION 1: The membership has not only a right to know how the organization handles its finances; it also has an obligation of responsibility toward finances. Revealing financial statements would allow members more participation in this responsibility. Also, such disclosure would prevent the creation of rumors, half-truths, and innuendo regarding finances.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Publish annual audited financial statements (balance sheet and income statement). Institute an AGM for those who are interested.

FACT 2: Members know little or nothing about planning for major decisions, such as major capital expenditures.

OPINION 2: It might be beneficial for everyone if more information was made available to the membership regarding significant, long-term planning and decision-making. Not only might the members be able to contribute, they would also feel a greater sense of "connectedness" with the organization and would have a better understanding of what SRF stands for, how it operates, and how it attempts to implement the Aims and Ideals. There would also be much less speculation and rumor mongering among members.

The lawsuit with Ananda is an example. The membership would have been better served if SRF had been forthcoming much earlier about its reasons for instigating the lawsuit. The same applies to all the disagreements between Ananda and SRF. While it is understandable that SRF didn't want members to focus on such matters to the detriment of their spiritual focus, the fact remains that a significant number of members either did focus (some obsessively) on these issues, or felt the stress of the lack of harmony between the two organizations and their respective members.

The key principle is transparency. The organization might be better served with more transparency.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Make more information available to members regarding planning and decision-making. It is interesting to note that the managing councils of meditation groups and centers must seek the approval of the entire membership of the group on expenditures over about $300. A similar principle might be wise for the entire organization. Similarly, those who serve on managing councils of groups and centers may only serve for up to three years consecutively, thereby ensuring a rotation of the responsibility. This also prevents abuses of power.

We might wish to have one or more lay members on the BOD. Regardless, one of the functions of the BOD would be to ensure that the membership was appraised of all major decisions.

FACT 3: There seem to be few, if any, opportunities for feedback, grievance, and dialogue.

OPINION 3: For employees and volunteers there need to be opportunities where they can file grievances for decisions made concerning their efforts (the same might be true for monastics, as well. Many monastic orders have a "chapter of faults," which provides an opportunity for monastics to give feedback to superiors without a fear of retribution). Feedback should always be honored and responded to. It might be beneficial to have opportunities for members and monastics to be able to talk about issues concerning them in environments that respect dialogue and understanding, that are safe, trusting, and supportive of all involved.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Institute opportunities for feedback, both formal and informal. Ensure that responses are given, either in writing or verbally, to positive or negative feedback. Implement formal grievance procedures. If necessary, establish the position of an ombudsman or a committee charged with reviewing policies and complaints. Implement opportunities for dialogue among all members, using people (either monastics or lay members) trained in facilitating respectful dialogue; as far as I know, very few monastics have any formal training in these skills).

FACT 4: There is no published code of ethics that is available for members, employees, or monastics. If there is such a code, it appears to be hidden from most of us.

OPINION 4: We all need to see that there are moral standards to which the organization adheres. While such standards may be implicit in the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda, they still need to be clearly and concisely spelled out in a formal code of ethics. This is almost routine practice for most business, service, and non-profit organizations. The code needs to contain provisions regarding actions one can take if it is felt that the code has been breached (see the above recommendation).

RECOMMENDATION 4: Take whatever actions are necessary to implement such a code. Hire professional ethicists, if necessary. The ethics code should cover principles found in Yogananda's teachings, in the precepts of yama/niyama, in the teachings of Sanatan Dharma, and in the moral and legal codes common to our society.

FACT 5: A number of employees and renunciants at MC and some of the other ashrams have had serious difficulties with supervisors and superiors. While some sorts of difficulties are to be expected and would be addressed, many of these serious problems were not even recognized, let alone addressed adequately.

OPINION: 5 These problems have led to detrimental conditions, not to mention to the exodus of both renunciants and lay members. The problems have probably not been adequately addressed, yet but need to be. SRF plays a dual role for those at work in the ashram environments: both as "family" and as employer. This can be very confusing for both renunciants and member-employees; the result is serious problems with projection and transference. There may also be situations where spiritual "training" and discipline is confused with what might actually be abuse or inappropriate managerial behavior.

There has to be recognition of the psychological forces that exist, even among "spiritual" people. The unconscious mind does exist and it does have a significant impact on our behavior. Meditation alone is not a sufficient means of ensuring psychological health.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Using the help of trained psychotherapists in the ashram was a good step. Their assistance should once again be sought, and their recommendations should be seriously considered. Such explorations amount to efforts to promote and maintain a healthy psychological climate in the organization and culture.

FACT 6: There are some less than optimal dynamics between members and some monastics, particularly ministers and SRF leaders. The latter are unduly "worshipped" and idolized by members. At the same time, a significant number of members report feelings of inadequacy, of unworthiness, doubts, and fears.

There are also signs of more less-than-ideal (to put a positive spin on it) communications between members than is healthy or warranted in an organization devoted to harmony.

OPINION 6: The dynamics in the relationships between the monastics and the members may inadvertently be contributing to these negative feelings that are expressed by members. The entire culture may have some dysfunctional elements that should be explored. Such explorations amount to efforts to promote and maintain a healthy psychological climate in the culture. People in SRF may need to learn how to communicate clearly and effectively with each other.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Using the help of trained professionals, instigate efforts to explore and come to terms with some of these dynamics. Members and monastics alike may need opportunities to think and talk about the dynamics existing in the culture. This would need to be done in environments that are safe, supportive, and respectful. These opportunities could provide members with a chance to practice communication skills.

FACT 7: SRF's organizational model appears dated in some respects.

OPINION 7: The organizational model used by SRF's leaders doesn't appear to have changed significantly for many years. Since that time, many institutions--business, social services, government, education, to name a few--have gone through at least one and in most cases several major restructurings, in some cases, revolutions. (Imagine, for example, having an organization that took so long to accept the use of such basic tools as fax machines). Using the model espoused by "The Holy Science," we could say that SRF's model is stuck in Kali yuga, while most other institutions have evolved well into Dwapara Yuga. SRF's managers and leaders appear to be unaware or not interested in implementing such concepts as systems thinking, the organization as a learning institute, infometrics, research on and analysis of programs and their effectiveness, using your clients (the members) to help design the organization and the service it provides, and so on.

It is extremely likely, nay, almost certain that SRF would be much better able to achieve its goals if its organizational structure were thoroughly examined and overhauled. One can conclude by saying that there needs to be greater trust manifesting in the organization: trust of the monastics, the employees, and the members. If you don't trust them, how do expect them to behave?

RECOMMENDATION 7: The entire organizational model needs to be dispassionately examined and revised where necessary. Professional help will certainly be required. Indeed, it may well be that a business school would be interested in using SRF as a model for analysis: analyzing it as it currently is, organizing and implementing a corporate overhaul, and then analyzing how the change improved matters.


Chela2020:

These are suggestions that I would like to make because there were things about SRF that cause me to mistrust them as an organization:

1. Not hearing about Ben and Nerode's allegations against Yogananda until after the newspaper printed them makes me feel that SRF was hiding something from us.

2. Editing parts in the Autobiography of a Yogi and saying that Yogananda wanted them changed, but showing no proof, and re-editing them again years later, makes me feel that certain changes were not the ideas of Yogananda, since he had passed on and was not here to edit the work those three times. The items edited are things that show me that SRF desires control over the Kriya teachings, etc. But again, I commend SRF for the many books that they have printed that have very little editing done to them.

The major item mentioned above is on page 242 of the 1971 edition:

Original edition: "The actual technique (of Kriya Yoga) must be learned from a Kriyaban or Kriya Yogi; here a broad reference must suffice."
1971 SRF edition: “The actual technique should be learned from an authorized Kriyaban (Kriya Yogi) of SRF-YSS. Here a broad reference must suffice.”
1981 SRF edition: "The actual technique (of Kriya Yoga) must be learned from an authorized Kriyaban or Kriya Yogi of Self-Realization Fellowship (Yogoda Sat-Sang Society of India). Here a narrow reference must suffice.

3. Devotees are afraid to openly have the original writings by Yogananda, and as a result, they pass them around secretly. It is my feeling that they should not have to feel a need to do this secretly, but I understand SRF's reasons for discouraging this, because after seeing the changes that SRF has made to the writings, many leave. SRF will never be able to stop the exodus from SRF by telling devotees to not read original writings, etc. The only way to stop this exodus is for SRF to change.

4. Considering the devotees intelligent enough to be able to read religious books outside of those printed by SRF without trying to make them feel guilty for doing so or telling them that the information will confuse them. This includes making any devotee feel guilty for attending a church, synagogue, or temple of their choice, since even Yogananda stated that we could go to the church, etc. of our choice. Each individual devotee should be able to believe as they wish, so reading other books should not confuse anyone.

Borg108:

Secretiveness, mistrust and lack of information are major problems within SRF. For example, many devotees very active in the work didn't even know about the Ananda lawsuit until it had been going on for years and millions had already been spent on it. Others who were told Brother Arjunananda had taken a leave of absence form monastic life were shocked to learn what really happened when it came out in the newspaper years later. Some were also distressed because of the misinformation given out about Daya Ma’s residence. Most disturbing of all, perhaps, is the information on how SRF spent millions on the peoplesoft accounting and control system which caused the layoffs of dozens of loyal devotee employees and a deep rift in the organization that led many to feel that SRF is being managed by and for the benefit of attorneys and accountants. The Mt. Washington expansion fiasco is a further example of misspent resources and putting organizational self-interest above the needs of others. Ignoring problems or pretending they do not exist will not make them go away. By taking this approach, SRF has steadily become more insular and isolated from its members.

Other examples along the lines of the lack of openness and acceptance are blacklisting members who raise questions and speak their minds, not keeping counseling information confidential, putting comment notes into members' files, opening the mail and listening in on phone conversations of monastics, instructing former monastics to stay away from the temples for years and keep silent about their monastic experiences, and keeping service opportunities away from those have made non-conservative lifestyle choices.

As positive recommendations, I respectfully suggest more involvement of lay members in the management and decision making processes. This could include an advisory board made up of lay members who are attorneys, accountants, management consultants, psychologists, etc. Also needed are other forms of two-way interaction between monastic and lay members. Discussions and workshops could be introduced where real dialoguing takes place at all levels within SRF. Given the deep entrenchment of rigidity within SRF, empathetic, non-violent communication practices (NVC) should be learned and applied throughout the organization. Once this is accomplished, SRF leadership could get together and take stock of the organization's mission, goals, and objectives. Desired changes should then become apparent by reevaluating all policies and procedures in the light of the organization’s mission.

We understand that SRF is deeply committed to maintaining its medieval monastic paradigm in preference to modern psychological, business or other organizational models. However, there should be room within that framework for improvement and growth. Monastics who become ministers or counselors should be given proper training in this specialized area. Those who plan to make business decisions within the organization should be given proper training in this area as well so that these decisions are not meted out to accountants or others having their own self interests at heart. UCLA has an excellent evening MBA program that monastics could easily attend.

It has been suggested on this site a number of times that financial contributions to SRF should be curtailed until such time as there is more financial accountability from SRF. I have proposed that those of us who still attend SRF services leave flowers in the offering baskets as devotional rather than monetary offerings until such time as we better know where the money is going through such things as annual financial statements.

Of course, there is much more that could and should be said. I hope that you and others in management SRF will take the time to carefully look over the Walrus site. Some of the information may appear inflammatory, adversarial and overly negative to them, but that reflects the frustration of those who feel hurt, betrayed or rejected by an organization that they once trusted and to which they once gave so much of their time, resources and energies. If you keep an open mind, I think you will see that there is a consistency of viewpoint calling for more openness and greater fellowship within SRF. One need only read the East/West magazines of the 1930s to see and feel a great change of tone from the SRF that exists today. The fact that the Walrus site has had over 480,000 visits since it was established in August 2001 indicates that many people want greater communication from and about SRF. Many devoted persons have felt frustrated by the organization and are turning elsewhere for the information, fellowship, and “bhav” that they still want and need.


Username:

Announcement at the temples and meditation centers that there are higher levels of Kriya and what you need to do to get them. I know people who have been at SRF for 20 years and don't know this!

Parabastha:

- To restore the original photo of PY funeral with Premananda between Rajasi and Dr. Lewis.
- To recognize Ananda members as disciples of PY (or at least do not deny Kriya initiation to them when requested)
- To restore the original PY signature (the title ParamAhansa is ok, but his signature should be the original, without the inserted a).
- To recognize Durga Ma's and Kamala's books.
- To make available all PY videos and audio talks.
- To produce for SRF students videos on the Energization Exercises, Hong-Sau and Om meditation techniques.
- To make available to Kriyabans PY's Kriya talk.
- To give top priority to PY unpublished books: Second Coming of Christ, Revelation, Genesis and Yoga Sutras commentaries.
- To include a lesson or an appendix lesson on Kechari Mudra, with techniques to attain it.
- To ordain qualified householders as "Yogacharyas," following PY's example. Those new Yogacharyas could serve as temple ministers, counselors, and visit cities and countries giving classes and Kriya initiations.
- To redefine the Brahmachari training, as not only a monastic training. After completing his/her training as a Brahmachari/Brahmacharini, he/she may elect to return to the world and led a householder life, or devote the rest of his/her life as a Brother/Sister. This way the Brahmacharis who left the order will not be looked down as they were "fallen monks".


KS:

Suggestions for changes to monastic lifestyle

1.) A reformulated spiritual life committee (SLC) could be formed to explore issues related to the quality of spiritual life in the ashram. They would recommend rule changes to the Directors. Their recommendations would 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 all the monastics.

2.) The monks themselves would 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 would be one committee. They would 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.

3.) Monastic compensation would be changed. I trust the SLC to come up with a proposal based on other life style changes.

4.) 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.

5.) Some basic rule changes are needed. But some bad habits are deep in the organization and need to be rooted out for progress to take hold. For example, when a monastic goes to another member and tells of the misdeeds of another person.

6.) It would no longer be assumed that a monastic would run each department. Business managers could be selected based on real business skills.

8.) 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.

9.) Monastic separation today is 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.

10.) 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. If a member of the SLC’s normal duties are clean up or maintenance, they will spend one day in some other capacity.

11.) The use of outside counselors might be considered in regards to counseling monastics.

12.) Any monastic deciding to leave the ashram would be provided any lead time they need, 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.

Changes to employee treatment

1.) Employees would be fairly compensated for their jobs.

2.) Employees would be given a retirement plan.

3.) 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

1.) First of all, write the rules down and publish them once they are agreed upon. Management by rumor and power play doesn’t work.

2.) The number of members would be published as well as those who are on the Board of Directors.

3.) Use of lawsuits, as offensive weapons, would be stopped. We have nothing to hide, nothing to fear, nothing to protect.

SRF Leadership

1.) The president would serve a three-year term. They would basically be the Chairman of the Board.

2.) The SRF Board would be responsible for the operation of the enterprise. 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.

3.) 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. If we are not serving their needs, then changes should be made.

4.) The President would have an open forum discussion period with any and all monastics that 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.

5.) The President would have an open forum discussion period with any and all employees who wish to attend once a quarter. They would not be filmed or recorded. They would allow all questions on any topic. There would be no secrets within SRF.

6.) Classic business problems like the abuse of power in Public Affairs, the print REQ procedure, and the miss-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, and then we would be accountable for fixing them. Procedures would be reviewed and business logic applied with a firm hand.

7.) 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.

8.) People on the Board may not be on the SLC.


Soulcircle:

With humility, devotion and attitude it works like mathematics

forget numbers and sweeping the world and focus on quality
if there are self realized members....
if there are....
when and if large numbers want this consciousness they will come

without individuals with a lot of cool attitude and samadhi the whole fellowship is an empty shell

around Kamala there were at least five people who where physically with her [one living individual, ANY NUMBER of times] ...who were with her when she was obviously breathless
~~~~
I have heard second hand ABOUT NO OTHER INDIVIDUAL gaining the full benefit of kriya and devotion [humility, devotion and attitude]

let's focus less on numbers/growth and more on the direct oneness with divine mother as Kamala exemplifies, ok?

and please do not be afraid to let it be known that SRF leadership, though maybe blessed by a great measure of "God-realization," is not infallible, and that SRF can make errors in judgment.

at this time I can only add, have the video Paramhansa Yogananda, Glimpses of a Life Divine available to all, for purchase from website, bookstores, at centers and convocation.

Edited by: chela2020 at: 2/27/03 6:40:57 am
parabastha
Registered User
(2/24/03 7:43 am)
Reply 		Re: FINISHED LETTER TO BRO. VISHWANANDA
Please add to my suggestions:

- To include a lesson or a appendix lesson on Kechari Mudra, with techinques to attain it.

- To ordain qualified householders as "Yogacharyas," following PY's example. Those new Yogacharyas could serve as temple ministers, counselors, and visit cities and countries giving classes and Kriya initiations.

- To redefine the Brahmachari training, as not only a pre-mononastic training. After completing his/her training as a Brahmachari/Brahmacharini, he/she may elect to return to the world and led a householder life, or devote the rest of his/her life as a Brother/Sister. This way the Brahmacharis who left the order will not be looked down as they were "fallen monks".

Parampara
Registered User
(2/25/03 6:12 am)
Reply 		Re: FINISHED LETTER TO BRO. VISHWANANDA
Good day,

I am new to the board, in that I have recently registered. I just read the letter to Bro. Vishwananda, and would mostly like to comment on some of the there said. What I gather from for instance Raja's notes is that SRF can't do it for you, and that he was 'kept' in a certain place by SRF, mentally and spiritually, and that since it happened to him, an intelligent person, he could very well imagine it happening to others like him, and actually, he can see it has.

Well, to me, it sounds more like a coming of age, spiritually. And that an organization such as SRF would be instrumental in that, would seem to me very fitting, for isn't that its purpose in the first place, that one comes of age? I understand the objectional nature of that statement. It could have been anything, really, but what one believes in most is of course most effective in rendering this change. You could imagine a person where this natural authenticity is more or less present as an emotional condition to begin with. Such a person would go from there from the start. They do exist. They wouldn't battle with the 'knowledge' that is not knowledge of our overdeveloped intellects, while their emotional and intuitive natures drag behind. Perhaps the prevalent condition of our times.

The persons therefore who are saying they poured their life-blood into SRF, what do they mean anyway? That SRF is a rotten apple that they gave their most precious years to; or that SRF is a fiction because they Were SRF, and Are, if still. Isn't that the pivital realization, that You are SRF. I don't believe that the Board of Directors or anyone else who is monastic could take anything away from you. Unless that is what you have to learn. I don't believe your devotion to their personalities is required by them. If you have any problems with the dissemination of the teaching, be the living teaching yourself. You may also not heed the Master's words, when he said that the leadership of SRF has long ago been established by the Great Babaji. The names of these great Masters are used so lightly here! It works on my good nerves, for in moments of the realization of their beings, I cannot believe someone could use their names or their work so callously. And I am not one to misunderstand the way people talk about these things. I am talking about what would be deep inside your soul. I could talk for hours perhaps about my mother's household, but would rather talk about my love for her. If then the state of SRF could be helped by a management course or a differentiation of the mind into basic personality types, that would imply the essential difference between state of realization of, say, leaders and the work they are involved in.
Yes, Master sold the stock St. Lynn gave to him, and had he waited, it would have been worth perhaps millions. Is he less your Master now? Or St. Lynn now your master, because he did understand this? Is our reverend Mother Daya now to be received with spite and disrespect because you have made wrong decisions in your life, and your mind was more ready than your heart? What would you change, if you could? Or are we expecting 'them' to do if for us again, which is the very problem in itself?

If people here are worried that SRF would 'do the same thing to others than it did to them', you also need to realize that a message board like this has immense power to disseminate doubt in the minds of people like that. In other words, what may be therapeutical to some who have overfamiliarity (that always makes one lose respect, it is well known), it may be immensely harmful to the seeker. Here is a quote from the Spiritual Gita, commentary on Lahiri Mahasaya's Gita by his disciple Bhupendranath Sanyal:

(about a character in the Mahabharate story called Bhurishravas) "Listening to gossips (Shrava=to hear), sitting with various people and getting effected by their talks, one starts doubting the sadhan path, nothing is more harmful than a doubtful mind."

Be true to your Master. And of course, He is no less your authentic self. More so than his organization. Who has problems understanding this? That the outward forms are not the inner forms, and that both are forms, and that there is a formless self. I would think it is all very clearly stated in Master's writings and the writings of other Masters and saints. It has never been other, has it.

Deepest Pranams

Edited by: Parampara at: 2/25/03 7:38:27 am
chela2020
Registered User
(2/25/03 7:24 am)
Reply 		Re: FINISHED LETTER TO BRO. VISHWANANDA
Parampara,

Welcome to the board.

Edited by: chela2020 at: 2/25/03 7:27:24 am
username
Registered User
(2/25/03 7:31 am)
Reply 		To: parampara
Are you an SRF member? Have you ever been to SRF? Inyour post you talk about others but not yourself --- how has SRF changed your life?

Parampara
Registered User
(2/25/03 7:56 am)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Thank you Chela2020 for your welcome. I have been reading some of the Walrus posts for a while, and like you, have decided to add to it with my own experience.
To Username, first of all I hope I am worthy to be called disciple of Master. Yes I have been member of SRF for quite a while. I have lived in the ashrams in India for quite a while, and I have been to America as well. I know some people who have lived in American ashrams as well. However, what one knows in one's soul can hardly be demonstrated, isn't that so?

Edited by: Parampara at: 2/25/03 11:53:53 am
KS
Registered User
(2/25/03 8:01 am)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Parampara,

Welcome to the board indeed. Discouraging others who might be sincere seekers is a good point and a real problem. A different view of that same problem is one we address here. Most of us know sincere seekers who read the AY and came to what they thought was Master’s organization only to find such a disappointing place that they turn their back on Master. SRF is so bad that it is turning people away from God and Master. Part of this is SRF’s claim that they represent Master and therefore their actions naturally reflect on Master.

I suppose you could argue that these people were not sincere seekers? Some were monastics who no longer even believe in God. That is the extent of the negative experience people find deep inside SRF. I suspect you have not seen behind the curtain?

Many here feel that it is probably better to steer people away from SRF. SRF does not represent Master or present his teachings in a warm and helpful way (not even close). I feel it is better to head people off at the pass and have them find a real path to God. SRF is a disappointing detour. Do you think that Master can’t find people and help them without SRF?

The Walrus is not anti-God or anti-Yogananda.

I am sure that living in India is a different experience. In India SRF really helps the community and is a much different experience. I wish we could highlight that more here. The core problem within SRF is in Los Angeles. Even centers and groups are often fine helpful places.

Edited by: KS at: 2/25/03 8:03:40 am
Parampara
Registered User
(2/25/03 8:39 am)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
I personally cannot see how SRF could make you not believe in God. SRF is not God. I also don't see anyone claiming that, other than in the implication of what has just been said. There are ashrams to live with a husband or wife, and there are ashrams to live monastically (I'm using the word ashram here in the essential meaning of shelter). So you live there. Even if organizationally it is not sound, then still you are soul living on God's earth. Maybe it is very hard, like life is hard.

I fail to see the reason for people becoming agnostic or atheistic after experiencing life inside American SRF buildings. People most certainly fall from their goals; I know a person closely like this who was far into monastic life, and enjoying the bliss of this, and who lost balance. He does not blame the SRF. He sees where he lost his balance and why, and also that it is not the only way to attain realization. But it is certainly a concentrated path, and so the ups and downs can be like high waves with great lulls.

I think many people having read the Autobiography of a Yogi also ventured out to find that place, that time, and did not find it. It also takes some realization to be able to view life as Master did. It is still life and earth here, never forget. So the question is: How is Master best served by you? Well, not through an organization, for most people, isn't that right? But rather in their daily lives. And you support the organization that dessaminates the teaching, the books, the lessons, etc., and maintains the grounds were Master walked. Master will take care of it. You don't believe that, do you? Even if there is bad blood, He will still do it. And so will Master Babaji.

Maybe this message board is not the most effective way God could do His work through us and to help Master's SRF. It is like the teaching of children; you can criticize a child for its behaviour, although we donnot always understand what is being done, and you are cut off from the child; or we can suggest in love to the child what you think should happen. Guess what is more effective. So SRF is our child too, and we have to nurture it, and do our part. Not criticize it, but give our love and understanding. Not to try to get our own back from SRF because we went in in an unfit manner. If SRF can take your love of God, you did not love God. So God's tests are hard. I know they are. Let him beat you up. But if you defend yourself, guess what you are defending.

Maybe it is a time of crisis. I know it is on many levels of life. And it certainly is a very challenging time. Pray to Master about it. Have we forgotten that beautiful Love? He will show you what is the truth. Certain words seem stale now, but don't let the mind deceive. Master said this play of history goes up and down, and don't try to change it. Who can get anywhere without a dark night of the soul?

Edited by: Parampara at: 2/25/03 8:56:22 am
chela2020
Registered User
(2/25/03 10:50 am)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Parampara,

I distracted some of my post because I wanted to compose a longer letter, and so here it is:

Thank you for your interesting and very spiritual letter.

I agree with your statement in regards to Raja’s letter, where you stated, “it sounds more like a coming of age, spiritually.” It has always been my belief that every experience in life, whether negative or positive, helps one on his or her spiritual path to God, and thus helps one work out their karma. For some, SRF is just a steppingstone on their path to God, for others it is the last step in their evolution. This board is also a steppingstone for those on their path to God. And it is my feeling that the people on this board should not be judged for being here. As to your statement about this board having “immense power to disseminate doubts in the minds of people,” then all I can really say is, if a person comes to this board unknowingly, then after reading one post, if they do not wish their views to be changed, they should read no further. It is each person’s responsibility as to what they desire to read or to not read. If they do read it, then it is their karma to do so. While I have always considered myself my “brother’s keeper,” there is not much that I can do to stop others from reading this board.

You stated, “What would you change, if you could? Or are we expecting ‘them’ to do it for us again.” Then you bring in the quote from the Mahabharata about listening to gossip and that causing doubts on the sadhan path. The things that we desire to change, we are not able to change ourselves, because the changes that have occurred were done so by the governing body of SRF. We are not SRF, since the governing body doesn’t take our beliefs, or even Yogananda’s into consideration. Most of us don’t doubt the path, but what we are referring to in our letter to Bro. Vishwananda is the fact that the board of directors has made changes to the teachings of Yogananda, and we do not believe that he made these changes himself, unless he had made a 180-degree change from what he first taught. So it is our belief that we must be loyal to Yogananda by being loyal to his original teachings.

Edited by: chela2020 at: 2/25/03 10:52:14 am
Parampara
Registered User
(2/25/03 11:46 am)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Well, if you want to discuss things privately amongst a few frequenting members of the post, that is another matter. Then indeed one does not have to make clear what is being talked about, which 'bad decisions' and '180 deviations from teachings' is being talked about. Then you are agreed. It is also not very clear having read all the supposed proof of this, by the way. So then it would seem you do have a responsibility, and I don't even want to get into the subject of karma very far in this. If I park my car somewhere in a bad place, it must still be the other's karma to crash into it. Maybe the issue then becomes: everyone must do what is good. You can park the car there or not. It's up to you. There is also such a thing as mass karma. You wouldn't crash in that plane if everyone had your karma, but the plane had karma of many other people, that was worse than yours: the plane crashes. Master talked about this very instance.

The spreading of doubt is certainly a major problem here. Even if you are a true seeker it will not do you good to read these matters. Are you doubting this? Read Master on it. He is very clear on it. Some people also think the only thing that was missing in their search of God is sticking your tongue in your nasal cavity. If I just had that, it would all be fine. Everyone wants the highest, purest techniques, having the least humility and practice. That's only natural I guess. But look at what has been given to you. Everything is there that you need. Isn't it?

Suppose you walk into the bookstore where you first saw the Autobiograpy of a Yogi, but next to it are posts that read "Is Yogananda the father of Erksine?" Do you believe that this would do Master and his work justice? No. The internet today has that power. And if it then is the issue that the persons who cannot see the worth or truth of something through the forms of doubt, and you then judge them by saying 'well, you aren't ready for this teaching if you can't look through this' then all of Master's efforts to draw people in the past must have been totally in vain and purely financially motivated. Obviously not though. Or is this post solely created to warn people about not becoming a monk? Well, then go right ahead please, they should be warned. For the average person though, who can live in Europe or South America and can have access to books, lessons, and maybe even groups, through the effort also of SRF by the way, what do all these things matter? But the likelihood that you will reach them is however still very much in place.

You should not make decisions for others, is what I say. Politicians can talk to each other on television, and be populistic, and gain votes. But that is not justice. They know the people are going to react in a certain way, whether its right or wrong. That is why Sri Yuktewar said you need to learn to behave. To protect others. To protect the Truth. And the truth is not whether SRF has flaws and what to do about them. What should be asked is if one is serving his Master's work, and how best to serve it. Keep your Master's image pure before others. Let others see how He is present in you, so that they might be drawn too. Not for that purpose, but because what you are naturally radiates from you. Someone's discontent with SRF may have a lot to do with the discontent in one's own spirit, and no organization can help you in that per se. That is quite clear.

Does anyone truly come out of his after-effect of Kriya and talk about these matters as is so generally done here? Not in this person. That is all I know, and therefore I express it. I'm not planning to make it a hobby though, on here.

Deepest Pranams

chela2020
Registered User
(2/25/03 12:07 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
As to the editings of Yogananda's writings, there is proof by reading the original writings that are available. In many places on this Walrus site, proof has been offered. Also you might want to check out www.yogananda-dif.org. Have you read any of Yogananda's original writings?

As far as karma goes, when people bring up those issues to me, it reminds me so much of how the Christians threaten with hellfire, or how SRF says if you leave them or the guru you will be lost for many lifetimes. And then isn't the guru supposed to take on your karma? Isn't he supposed to stay by your side no matter what? And yet again, as I had said, most members on this board believe that they are being very loyal to Master by rebelling against the changes made to his teachings.

And how would people find each other privately? Before I found this board, I had no one to talk with, because I didn't know who was suffering from their experiences in SRF. If someone left SRF, no one talked about it, in fact, no one even knew they had left. They suffered alone.




Parampara
Registered User
(2/25/03 12:23 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Chela2020,

I have read the writings, even the old Lessons. That does not take away anything I said though.

As for the karma issue, I don't understand what you are writing about that to me. I wasn't even close to talking about hellfire. My point was, responsibilty means that your actions don't just touch someone who is ripe for that, or who needs that according to his or her karma. What I meant is that you, and any of us, are contributing to mass karma besides individual karma. So that means that persons who would not generally come into contact with something might because of mass karma perhaps would. That is why Master spoke of that example.

Why are you in a state of suffering then, Chela? Because of SRF, and everyone has to know that? I don't understand this point. I have known SRF as well, and it has been good. Mainly perhaps because I practiced what Master taught inside of myself, and I didn't let the smile or frown of a monk there make or ruin my day. Not to say you do this, just to say that having done it that way, like Master said, to practice in your own local life, it has been good. Like I indicated, I am sharing my experiences, just like you. In doing that, however, I find it very, very important to not stain the Master or his work.

Edited by: Parampara at: 2/25/03 12:24:08 pm
chela2020
Registered User
(2/25/03 12:32 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Parampara,

I am no longer suffering. It hurt me deeply a few years ago when I found out the changes that they made to Master's writings, because it hurt to know that they would do that to him--that they would stain his work.

Speaking about us gathering up negative mass karma by being on this board is about as equivelent to threats of hellfire. That is all I am saying. Unless I misunderstood your intent.

This is really all I have to say on the matter. I have appreciated your feelings and your comments. You have a right to feel the way you do.





Parampara
Registered User
(2/25/03 12:48 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Chela, it is good then. Indeed I did not intend that with my talk about karma. I just meant, if there is talk of karma, and there was, it is worthy to be noted that we are part of that completely. And that this points toward everyone's responsibility. That is really all I meant. No hellfire there.

I know about the changes in writing. Especially where Master's poetry is concerned this is very inexcusable. Agreed. I know there is more though. Purity indeed is important, and being interprative is something best left to each individual. Agreed. That is why Master's image is important. Or do we want to drive everyone into the arms of Ananda for Kriya? We also have to protect and contribute to SRF. Certain discussions are better done privately.

Of course still remains the question what we truly need... the validation of another, or the contact with Master. It hurts me to see this happening. And so I speak. That is all on that for me.

Edited by: Parampara at: 2/25/03 12:49:15 pm
chela2020
Registered User
(2/25/03 1:14 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
parampara,

I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

It hurts me, too, to see some of the postings on this board, especially those that are anti-Yogananda. It hurts me also to read of others' sufferings due to the injustices done to them while they were in SRF. It hurts to know that there is even a need for Walrus. It hurts to know that some of his direct disciples were hurt by SRF. It hurts to know that SRF doesn't recognize Ananda members as worthy of taking Kriya from them, and the list goes on.

I understand only full well that it would be better to not have an open forum, but then people who are hurt will not find each other. This is where we have to be responsible ourselves. If we wish to not read anything negative about SRF or Yogananda, then we should just not read it. To suffer alone is a far bigger crime than being on this Walrus board. So, yes, it is important for others to have the validation of others, to know that they are not alone in their feelings. In turning to Master, how would you not know that he didn't lead each of us here? Even he was against dogma and intolerance.

I also see nothing wrong with people leaving SRF to Ananda, or to Eugene Roy Davis, or to Mother Hamilton's group, and so on. I see nothing wrong with them leaving to go to another organization that is all together different, as I have. God leads us each to the path that we need to be on at any given moment.



username
Registered User
(2/25/03 1:18 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Parampara:

Have you read Astral7's post? You seem to think the same. I was wondering what you thought of Astral 7's posts?

Parampara
Registered User
(2/25/03 1:47 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Maybe its better if I just come by and go again. I wasn't planning to linger around. I merely wished to put down some thoughts. And I have, so that desire is fulfilled now. It doesn't resonate well with me to stay.

username: I have read some of that person's posts, although I couldn't answer you very clearly if I think like him. Maybe on some points, I don't know.

Bye Walrus... Too much shed skin on the rocks. I'm going to deep sea. ;)

Borg108
Registered User
(2/25/03 4:50 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Good observation, username. Not only are Parampara’s ideas similar to Astral's, but the writing style is surprisingly similar as well. I remember thinking when Astral was booted that he’ll probably reincarnate every once in awhile under another name, try to stir things up, then quickly disappear when someone starts to pick up on his being here again.

But be that as it may, our new(?) friend has given us some issues to explore. I agree with him that if SRF can take your love of God, then you didn't really love God. There are, no doubt, those who bad mouth SRF or Yoganandaji as a way to justify their unwillingness to continue living a spiritually oriented life. But these seem to be in the minority, and they too are evolving in their own ways. Who are we to judge them or anyone else trying to find their own truth? I think most here on Walrus are sincere about living a spiritual life and are perhaps disappointed, frustrated, angry and/or concerned about the organization that they trusted and supported so deeply and for so long. It pains us to see those whom we thought were sheparding our Guru's work to be leading the organization in the wrong direction.

I spent many years thinking, "OK, SRF has problems, but all organizations do. Maybe Ma and the other wise ones here are just letting others in the organization make lots of mistakes so they can learn lessons and work out their karma." But common sense and conscience have to be given their due at some point - maybe after the organization runs itself into the ground and lays off dozens of loyal devotee employees
because, unknown to us, SRF leadership squanderd over $15 million of our contributions on lawsuits and accounting/control sytems of dubious value. I'm afraid the buck stops with the reverend Mother Daya.

It is SRF's negligent actions and inactions that do much more to destroy peoples' faith than Walrus will ever do. As we say in India... what to do? We could let SRF go on mismanaging the work entrusted to it by our Guru. Not too many would know about it, since the organization keeps everthing a secret. But wouldn't then the stones cry out with the truth? A senior nun leaves and emails her fellow nuns that being a party to all this is harming her spiritual life. Thirty other nuns agree and leave as well. A senior monk says that SRF is more in need of Guruji's teachings than anyone else. Another senior monk says that the organization is rotten to the core, should be disbanded, and started up all over again.

How can we just pretend these, and the many other things you read about here, just don't exist or are not important. When I cam to SRF in the 1960's, it was a small, quite, rather benign organization. It and Ananda were the only games in town for kriya. But then Swami Satyeswarananda starting shaking things up. Other kriya teachers, from India as well as the US, also started showing up. Couldn't this be part of the divine dispensation of God and Mahavatar Babaji to provide an alternative to an organization that once had a virtual monopoly on kriya but that has (and I hate to use a phrase coined by the "other guys", but it fits) lost its way? I believe Walrus is now part of that divine dispensation. Through it, we no longer have to feel isolated and estranged (not to mention crazy) for seeing things differently than SRF. We can process ideas and take part in intelligent discussions that help us see things more clearly. We can petition for change (this letter) and try to help others who may be confused or upset by mainstream SRF. We can find ways to follow our Guru outside the confines of SRF, and for those whose path is different but similar to our own, they can find pointers to other teachers and traditions. Everyone is where they need to be - SRF monastics, Astral7/Parampara types, Walrus types, and all other seekers. Let's try to help and encourage each other in whatever ways are helpful to us. One size does not fit all.

Edited by: Borg108 at: 2/27/03 5:28:22 pm
chela2020
Registered User
(2/25/03 5:14 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
Borg,

That was a great posting. I do question what you said about God, though: "I agree with him that if SRF can take you away from God, then you don't really love God." Perhaps, it is more that this person never understood God's love. I say this in my own defense, because when I was a Jehovah's Witness, and they kicked me out, I was told that I was "dead in God's eyes," and in not knowing God, in not understanding Him or His love, I decided there was no God. I had lost all faith in Him. In a sense they took that away from me. And yet deep in my heart I must have still loved Him very much because when I first read Yogananda's works, I was touched by His love for God and for us, and that was all I needed. So, I don't doubt that SRF or any organizaton can take you away from God if you don't have the right understanding. Unless I am misundering this statement. Still, I can understand why a devotee would say something like this, having been there myself.




Edited by: chela2020 at: 2/25/03 5:25:43 pm
Borg108
Registered User
(2/25/03 6:11 pm)
Reply 		Re: To: parampara
chela2020,

We all have our own conceptions of things. To me, loving God means to yearn for Her, to want to feel Her presence always. Someone once said that love is more of a verb than a noun, so that also means to practice that which makes you feel closer to God. If SRF, or any external circumstances, can shake you from that, then your love is not yet deep.

Edited by: Borg108 at: 2/27/03 5:49:33 pm
chela2020
Registered User
(2/25/03 6:47 pm)
Reply 		LETTER WAS SENT
To All,

I mailed the letter today.

Edited by: chela2020 at: 2/28/03 2:45:17 pm
Page 1 2 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving 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.