Does the membership share responsibility for the cult?

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Core Issues > Does the membership share responsibility for the cult?
Page 1 2

Author	Comment
member108 Registered User (9/8/02 5:22 am)	Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? What responsibility does the membership have for Yogananda’s organization getting so far off track, the treatment of the monastics and employees, the deceptions and the damage done to Yogananda’s work? If they do share responsibility what can be done at this point? I feel it may be best to just let SRF dry up and blow away but I am not sure. The membership has treated SRF as if it were a cult, not a powerful organization representing a great yogi like Yogananda. The unthinkingly believe what the organization says, worship who they are told to worship (Faye) and generally sacrifice their will and sadana to others (the bad ladies). These are not the powerful yogis which will be drawn to Yogananda in this new age. This is cult Kali thinking. Has the acceptance of all this cult mentality helped make SRF what it is today? I think it has.
gardendiva Registered User (9/8/02 8:39 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? In many ways, I think I would have to agree with you. You might say the same were true for a person living in the US, buying into material, capitalist, culture (with no awareness of the consequences of their choices) is also responsible for the divide between rich and poor, and the pitiful states of the lives of those who live on street or in severe poverty. First, people have to become aware. If people do some investigation, see what the organization (SRF) has done/is doing, begin to understand what giving up their own power and discrimination actually means, see that they are idolizing others (when it would be better to see the divinity within themselves) and THEN continue to support the organization, well for sure, they are also responsible for the sad state of things. I think it becomes very complex, when trying to figure out why people do what they do. We are all responsible for the consequences of our actions, no matter how inocuous those actions might seem. Why do people put Faye up on a pedestal, why do people buy into the Avatar myth regarding PY, why do people feel the need to even be in an organization at all when spiritual development is supposed to be such an individual thing? There are different reasons for everyone. I respect the choice of those who wish to remain in SRF...although I don't have much to do with them anymore. I had to make the choice to leave, not because I saw (at the time) that the organization was rife with unethical, non-compassionate behavior, but because I knew deep down that the teachings weren't helping me along in my spiritual journey. Sometimes it takes a long time for people to wake up, and, as well, I can't make the judgment regarding what works for anyone else's development. It would behoove anyone considering SRF teachings as a path, and PY as a "guru" to do some serious investigation first. When I joined, some 20+ years ago, the resources weren't available for such investigation...I think the same is true for many members. For those that are in the thick of it, all kinds of issues are raised in looking critically at the organization. Many people simply wouldn't be ready to do so. So, I guess in response to your question, sure, I think that the membership carries some responsibility for the "cult." What should be done about it? I don't know and I really don't care. It doesn't actually concern me anymore. Things will take their course as they will. Maybe the organization will dry up and blow away, but maybe it will always be there for those that are at a place where it fills some need.
srflongago Registered User (9/8/02 10:57 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? As a non-profit RELIGIOUS foundation, there is no accountability to the STATE. As a CORPORATION, there is no accountability to the MEMBERSHIP, only to the Board of Directors. The whole endowment and all the property and all the rules are under the complete and total control of the Board of Directors. Without any rights whatsoever to control, I say that the membership bears no responsibility whatsoever for the institution or its customs. With an utter and absolute lack of power to influence, the only alternative for one truly seeking enlightenment and whose spritual goals are not being met is to emigrate and begin again with nothing. For citizens of many nation states, the only way many citizens' aspirations can be met is to emigrate. The original nation state always blames the citizen leaving for being unpatriotic and ungrateful, and says things will be better if they stay, but this is not to be believed if contrary to personal experience. In this case emigrating means returning to a secular life with many perils and no resources. One is a stranger in one's own country. But this is better than being a stranger in some one else's country. And most such emigrants find their life improved if for no other reason than the enlightenment gained when one controls one's own destiny.
username Registered User (9/8/02 3:35 pm)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? Can can a brainwashee be responsible for being brainwashed? Especially if part of the brainwash is "Do not read any literature except what I publish".
srflongago Registered User (9/8/02 4:21 pm)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? Brainwashing in the Second World War was a term applied to conditioning prisoners with no means of physical escape. In cults pschological conditioning of people otherwise free to leave does happen. It is hard to say that they had no choice, or that they were unwilling, or that they bear no responsibility for their OWN fate. Perhaps it is best to say that they did not know what they were getting into, flies in a spider's web. This STILL does not make them responsible for the policies of the cult doing the "brainwashing".
wholetruth Registered User (9/9/02 6:48 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? Great point, srflongago, and it bears repeating: We have only two choices. Either go along with the Board of Directors and accept their dictates, or walk away. It's as simple as that. To think the membership can change the organization is pure fantasy because they have no power and no control.
Gitano no divino Registered User (9/9/02 8:46 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? *Quote:* One is a stranger in one's own country. But this is better than being a stranger in some one else's country. And most such emigrants find their life improved if for no other reason than the enlightenment gained when one controls one's own destiny. Mirabile dictu, srflongago. I've always thought the real genius of SRF teachings was that they got members to BRAINWASH THEMSELVES. All those hours spent visualizing the guru in the spiritual eye, wearing his visage around one's neck, posting his picture in one's car and throughout one's dwelling, and chanting "Om, Guru" over and over had to produce something like a washed brain. After 10 or 20 years of this on a regular basis, one becomes convinced that there really is an avatar inside one's head, watching every thought (is that spooky or what?). It's easy to see why, when presented with evidence of PY's less-than-perfect behavior (and that of his principal disciples on the BOD), there would be a virtual epidemic of cognitive dissonance among the cultists--and massive denial. I concur with Wholetruth absolutely. There are only two choices available to us: get with the SRF program, or get out. Actually, on that point the SRF leadership is probably in absolute agreement with us. They seem to appreciate a good "housecleaning" from time to time. I think the least we can do is to make their job easier, after all they have done for us! Dust bunnies of the world, unite! Edited by: Gitano no divino at: 9/10/02 12:11:05 pm
aVulcanThinker Registered User (9/9/02 2:28 pm)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? Add my voice echoing this point. Realize that it is their organization, not yours. This dichotomy is intentionally and forcefully created and vigorously maintained by the SRF leadership. Any benefits, of any kind, that any person derives from association with SRF are wholly incidental to the actions and intent of those who control the organization. Any of you who still harbor illusions about trying to "help" or to change things must understand this. These people know very well the state of things, because they intentionally have made them that way. There is no misunderstanding or confusion on their part, nor are they simply misguided. They know exactly what they are doing, and they intend to keep on doing it.
srflongago Registered User (9/9/02 2:42 pm)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? There are those in leadership positions, and those who wish to be at almost any cost, who have earned by loyalty a supposedly free ride through life on an already established endowment. But is it really a free ride? Many of them have no skills to cope with earning a living in the secular world, or have lost those skills over the years, and therefore feel (falsely) that they have nowhere else to go. They are destined to spend the remainder of their days in endless backbiting and bickering for petty power over one another and others. Should we not all distance ourselves from them for fear of being pulled into this same miasma, but nevertheless feel pity for them as creatures who once started on a path to enlightenment and then followed others down an unseen path into the morass of Maya? Somewhat like the fate of Gollum in Tolkien's Ring. His descent turned out to have a fateful purpose. I hope theirs does too. Edited by: srflongago at: 9/9/02 3:02:16 pm
KS Registered User (9/10/02 6:08 am)	Ring Wraths I like the Gollum analogy but the Ring Wraths are probably a closer example. Many of the monastics have been given a Ring of Power. The Ring in this case is something that feeds the ego. Their Ring might be their position in the organization, speaking at Convocation, their being worshiped by the membership, etc… The ego can’t be satisfied and this of course corrupts and steals their souls. While the monastics were once kings (i.e. true seekers in a position to make real progress in their advancement) they were tricked by Maya and were corrupted. They are now pawns for the dark side and trapped by the power of their Ring. They don't have the will and moral courage to break free. I do however disagree that the membership is powerless. Money is one key. Quit donating, quit serving, quit worshiping them. Quit buying Faye’s books and tapes. The place is a poorly run business at this point and will react like a poorly run business. Of course I can’t see that the organization is really even needed anymore so what is the point? We are probably seeing the last years of this disappointing side track of Yogananda’s message. It will be a minor footnote in history.
srflongago Registered User (9/10/02 8:59 am)	Re: Ring Wraths I would question whether this cycle will ever end. Dhirananda leaving in 1929 was accompanied by a loss of half the membership, Nerode's leaving in 1940 was similar, there were great losses after the deaths of Yogananda and of Lynn. In every case, the disillusioned left, and were replaced by new naive devotees. The young do not believe in the lessons learned by the old, and in this case cannot find them anyway. Many new members will enter, destined to repeat the mistakes of past members. There are always those entranced by surface looks, chants, images, and candles. Perhaps the Christian iconoclasts, and also Mohammed, forbade the worship of graven images (now photographs) because this leads to ritual obedience, not sprituality.
crogman1 Registered User (9/14/02 1:27 pm)	Re: Ring Wraths Hell yes the members share in the responsibility of the current state of SRF! Not only do they send in money, but they buy into the Daya god-realized thing as a guru replacement! That single concept allows SRF to act as it will without question! Who questions what SRF does these days? Who even knows what SRF does these days? I see posts of firings, layoffs, poor treatment of members and monastics…….. who is watching this stuff? No one is. Hell yes the members must share the blame. A time will come when members will be asked how they let this happen. SRF will crumble and before it can be rebuilt to really help people years and years will pass. A whole generation has missed out on knowing about and getting involved with Yogananda’s teachings. Edited by: crogman1 at: 9/14/02 1:45:41 pm
chuckle chela Registered User (9/20/02 3:48 pm)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? This is a great thread! I think that any SRF member, whether sympathetic to the Walrus or not, should seriously consider the issue raised here: are the members morally responsible in any way for the actions of SRF leaders and the outcomes of those actions. My own point of view is that they are. I'm not persuaded that they have no moral responsibility either by reason of "brainwashing" or the fact that they have no direct control over the actions of the leaders. First, aside from those who lived in the ashrams, I think it's difficult to establish that any real brainwashing has occurred among members, in the more classical sense of the word (I can't comment on those who lived in the ashrams; former monastics have made comments previously that touch on this matter). I don't think we can argue that members were stripped of their free wills or their abilities to reason. Yes, they may have been misled, misinformed, deluded . . . whatever, but they were not mentally compromised to the degree that they stopped acting as moral agents. Neither is ignorance an excuse, and even an authority such as the Gita (much esteemed in SRF) makes this clear. SRF members, as any other humans, are morally accountable for their actions, and they are specifically accountable for their support of SRF leaders and policies, and for any enabling behaviors (placing leaders on pedestals, relinquishing autonomy, and so on) that contributed, however indirectly, to the problems within the organization. To deny this is to miss an important component of the delusive dance between members and SRF leaders that has contributed to the problems. Yes, SRF leaders may have made mistakes, but their ability to do so has been fostered and enhanced by the willingness of the members to give up their autonomy, their rights as members (to see financial records, for example), their critical thinking and analysis. If SRF leaders have slipped into miasmas of delusion, that slippage has been lubricated by the actions and inactions of the members. This is a point "rolling into one" was making before being banned from the Walrus. I initially disagreed with him, but began to see his point of view; now I'm forced to conclude that the members are morally accountable for any failings in the organization. They may not have the same degree of moral responsibility, but I do feel they have a significant degree of accountability. Second, just because SRF Church, Inc. is not legally or corporately beholden to the State or its members to disclose information or to seek managerial approvals, does not therefore mean the members are morally off the hook. The members provide most of the funds required by the organization. The members provide umpteen hours in dedicated and unstinting service. By doing so they tacitly offer moral support to the organization and its actions. As KS so rightly pointed out, these are critical forms of "input," and they can be withdrawn should members decide to do so (members can also choose to withdraw their membership entirely). If enough members decide to do so, this would have a significant impact on the organization and its behavior (the chances of this happening, however, are an entirely different matter!). My guess is that you guys are right that mere verbal and written protests by members would be fruitless, unless hundreds and hundreds flooded Mother Center with phone calls, letters, faxes, and emails. And as you said: not likely that it's gonna happen. So, I feel the members do have a moral obligation to be aware of what's going on, to examine the behaviors of the organization, its leaders, and its members. They have to continually make critical decisions regarding their support of the organization and its policies. Such reflective efforts are morally mandated. It's funny--yama/niyama is repeatedly held up as the foundation, the sine qua non of the yogic path--yet we paid virtually no attention to examining (let alone discussing) our own moral behaviors as members of a spiritual organization. Possible answers to why this is so are liberally sprinkled throughout the Walrus board. To top it off, SRF heralds itself as the model for spirituality in the New Age (is there something wrong with this picture?!). Finally, members should consider whether their lack of involvement in such morally critical reflections enhances or retards their own spiritual growth.
srflongago Registered User (9/21/02 2:14 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? Holding members responsible for their own inactions and actions in supporting unsupportable behavior is justified by all earthly systems of morality. But this does not detract from the responsibility of the President and the Board.All have added to their Karmic burden by holding tightly to a world of illusion created by a cult of personality, far from the Kriya path. Kriya is not renunciation of personal will to the will of another human being or to the will of an organization. We should all remind ourselves that Kriya is the Yoga of Action. Many have strayed from following its path of renunciation of illusion, giving up all desire for the consequences of actions.
djali123 Registered User (9/21/02 6:40 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? Sure if members live where there's injustice they should speak up, but most of us live far from the big temples. So even if injustice happens there we can't do much about it. We have only the word of the people who write here on this board who say to have been mistreated. That may be true for them but that's not enough evidence for us on the outside. So yes the members share responsibility if they see these injustices and don't do nothing about it. But for us far and outside of it this is just speculation on political matters, which we have no control over and which takes our attention away from the purpose why we are taking the SRF Lessons.
X Insider Registered User (9/21/02 11:59 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? This post by djali 123 supports what has been my contention for some time. SRF is not on the way out, as some disillusioned former members contend. There are plenty of people like djali who do not want entertain the notion that we are telling the truth. They will continue to support SRF financially. And why not? They are not near Mother Center and can avoid hearing the stories of the wounded first hand. Most importantly, they can avoid being wounded themselves. Thus they can continue to enjoy their group meditations and their sense of having found a spiritual home. To them, Daya Mata is in control and all is right with the world. And after Daya Mata will come another good, even Godly leader. Responding to the Voluntary League appeals with their donations assures them that they are pleasing their guru, who will always take care of them. SRF makes life more bearable for them. And they are willing to pay for the mental and emotional relief this brings.
KS Registered User (9/21/02 7:13 pm)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? SRF will dissolve from within not due to a lack of money. The monastic order they have created and warped the work to depend on is experiencing a giant flushing sound. Faye has set things up where she is considered realized but keeps out of the public so no one knows the truth. Since she knew Yogananda people easily believe it. The whole organization is larger now and those who will take over will obviously NOT be realized. Their claiming the crown will look funny and the decline in the public’s eye will begin. The monastic order is already having problems holding people. This will continue and get worse. My understanding is that there is no longer even a waiting list. Staffing is way down. More are leaving the Kali Yuga organization than joining. Big surprise. Yogananda’s work will not disappear. It will grow and develop as he wishes. I suspect that is not with a disappointing cult at the helm.
wholetruth Registered User (9/22/02 5:51 pm)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? KS: Another way to look at the issue is that the Kriya Yoga teachings will survive and that PY and SRF will be considered just a phase in their history--one chapter (with a not-too-happy ending) in a much larger story. Perhaps Yogananda attached too much importance to SRF and himself. Edited by: wholetruth at: 9/23/02 5:26:32 am
srflongago Registered User (9/22/02 6:16 pm)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? Remember that Kriya regards personality as just another illusion that has to be overcome. This includes our personalities and Yogananda's as well.
redpurusha Registered User (9/26/02 8:49 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? A world without personality? I think Yogananda and "the kriya teachings" discuss how the identity with the body, ego personality or 'son of man' must be killed, in order to make room for the divine personality or 'son of God' to be expressed uniquely in each devotee. This is not the overcoming of the illusion of personality but realizing ones true personality by removing the false. Quote from Yogananda: "I killed Yogananda years ago. Only Spirit (God) dwells in this temple now." -from J. Walters. When you worship the great saints, or Yogananda, what you are actually doing is worshiping God expressed in human form. If you don't think that divine personage is really expressing God (God realized) than don't worship him/her or worship God directly in your soul, or don't worship.
Gitano no divino Registered User (9/26/02 10:41 am)	Re: Does the membership share responsibility for the cult? *Quote:* When you worship the great saints, or Yogananda, what you are actually doing is worshiping God expressed in human form. If you don't think that divine personage is really expressing God (God realized) than [1]don't worship him/her or [2]worship God directly in your soul, or [3]don't worship. Redpurusha, I am indebted to you for such a cogent and lucid summary of the options available to me. I choose number 3. I sincerely hope you will continue to be as happy with your choice as I am with mine. I have come to the conclusion that I would be a fool to view Yogananda as anything other than a remarkably gifted but deeply flawed religious leader. Divinity in the flesh? Well, SRF would love to have you think that, and put your money where your bhakti is! I'll take my chances with Linus on October 31, waiting for the Great Pumpkin to materialize in the pumpkin patch. You see, as a vegetarian, you can do something with a Great Pumpkin that you can't do with a guru/avatar: COOK AND EAT IT.

Page 1 2

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Commands

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to: