Ma's Writings - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Core Issues > Ma's Writings
Page 1 2	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
In Recovery Unregistered User (12/10/01 7:48 pm) Reply	Bro. @#%$ I support the above description of Atmananda. He is one of the very few seniors by whom I felt unconditionally accepted.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/10/01 9:50 pm) Reply	Emphasis is everything Dear Schuppe If you say to your wife all day long: "Dear, you should do this you should do that," " My love you forgot to do this and you should do it," "you must remember to always do this first and that second" "You have to do the laundry Christina." Then, when she looks overwhelmed and depressed, and she says "Oh dear Schuppe, I can't do so many things" Then, out of your "infinit compassion" you respond "just do your best and give it to me -- your god" Dear Schuppe, you will loose your wife despite your last "compassionate" should -- Emphasis is everything! Rigiditananda
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/10/01 11:55 pm) Reply	To pschuppe Yes you got it right. That's exactly what we're up against. We want to see SRF reflect the universality of its founder because all types of devotees come to him through the organization, not just one type.
AumBoy Registered User (12/11/01 12:30 am) Reply	"Have to" or "want to" A bell just went off in my head. For year's I've listened to friends say: I have to meditate I have to go to work I have to get to the temple I have to find God I have to realize God etc. And I would wonder: Is someone else compelling them to do this? Do they want to do this? Are they resisting? Is this a compulsion? When I used that terminology on myself, it would inevitably cause stress. I was never able to keep up. There were so many things I HAD to do. So many things I SHOULD do. Who is forcing me to do this? This was an enlightening question: Who is forcing me to do this? No one. I want to do this. I choose to do this. I want to meditate. It is, I think also, a matter of personal responsibility and maturity. I'm speaking for myself, although it may apply to others: When I choose to meditate I take full responsibility for my actions. If I have to meditate, I'm not in as much control. It does not seem to be my choice. (Of course, God is pulling us back...) If I have to meditate and I don't, I feel like I have failed. I'm not in control. There is no amount of introspection that will help me analyze this. If I want to meditate and I don't, it is my responsibility and no one else's. I don't feel like a failure but at the same time I can honestly look at my behavior and see where the fault lies. In this respect there is no ducking my shortcomings. I hope this is clear. Approximately one year before I found SRF, the thoughts, "I have to find God" and "I have to realize God" surged through my mind very strongly. I felt this was God and Master calling me home. This compulsion to find God, a blessing really, came from within but was outside of my control. Now I want to find God. I choose this. My choice. No compulsion. I choose to do the best I can each day because it is a choice. I have not been too aware of the language in the lessons until this thread. I do not think we can completely avoid haves and shoulds but they can be minimized. Part of the process is the personal responsibility we accept for our own behavior. Does this make sense?
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/11/01 4:22 am) Reply	Have to? Dear Aumboy Have tos or shouds is the same. I have to, I should to, I ought to, I must, is all "bossy language'." When your mind takes hold to that language and starts "shoulding" you all the time you are in deep waters man. In fact, in psychoanalysis this is seen as a grotesque balooning of the "super ego." And it may take years of therapy to get read of those voices. It is not a small problem it leads to serious mental imbalance. And, in its mild forms it can make your life misserable anyway. The way you mention you talk to yourself Aumboy, doesn't ring to me as very compassionate -- but if it works for you keep doing it. How can you force an "I want?" You can think "I want" but can you feel it really? Sounds to me more theory than reality -- or perhaps wishful thinking that one day, by affirming I want, you will really want. I do not believe shuch a thing is possible. Feelings -- especcially deep wants -- are not that easily to force into existance. Do we really need to want to have God in order to have it? Many teachings including SRF are into this idea. It is quite a painful and exhausting idea, because you can't force the heart. I rather think that God comes to the devotee for no reason whatsoever. Nothing we do, feel, or think can really create enlightenment. We just practice -- the rest seems to be completely beyond our control. I agree that few shoulds -- like an extremely strong spice in a delicate dish -- have their place in comunicating a spiritual sadhana. But, consider this. If you have to "shoot" an animal, you find the right caliber. You do not use a 22 mmm with a lion or an elephant. You do not use a 45 mm with a little bird. You can use a shot gun for almost anything, because it will kill anything. Similarly, SRF would do better choosing the right caliber when "shooting" a devotee. That caliber depends on many variables that obviously SRF does not take in consideration at all. What about this caliber: You should meditate six hours every day morning and evening! Might be the right caliber for one in a million living in a cave in the Himalayas. Spiritual development, age, duties with your family and the world, lifestyle, good or bad health, ability to concentrate and focus the mind and so on, are only a few of the variables to consider before you "shoot" someone into a cetain spiritual practice. But, SRF believes in the recipe paradigm -- one size fits all. A concrete mixer as Br. Anandamoy says. So, 90% of the time, or more, SRF indiscriminate "shooting" in the lessons and books is off. Result, 90% of the devotees feel inadequate. So, what to do? If you will "should" millions with countless differences and idiosincracies, you better leave those people plenty of freedom to follow their feelings-- that's the solution. But, SRF does exactly the opposite. SRF is the very culture of the shoulds and the disconnection from feelings. Feelings do not count! And consider the shot gun case -- it kills any possible animal quite effectively. So, SRF does an indiscriminate shot gun type of "shoulding" -- and thus, yes, it is killing quite effectively.
AumBoy Registered User (12/11/01 9:49 am) Reply	Re: Have to? Rigiditananda: we're on the same page. I agree that have to and should are the same. My 'wanting' to meditate is a yearning for God. It is rather difficult to express in words. Thanks for the response.
pschuppe Registered User (12/11/01 7:28 pm) Reply	Re: Emphasis is everything Dear Rig, If I spoke that way to my wife, I wouldn't have one! I may not have learned much about being a husband, but I have learned this: he who is boneheaded enough to speak that way will soon be wearing a frying pan in the shape of his head. And if my wife spoke to me that way (I believe Master's technical term was "nagging" in the lessons), she probably wouldn't see me very much. Not to get too personal, but how's your marriage (to SRF) doing? Sounds pretty rugged. ps
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/13/01 12:27 am) Reply	My marriage with SRF Dear PSchuppe It seems from your response that you took somewhat literally my metaphor. I was talking figuratively -- I do not know anything about your marriage obviously. But anyway, you ask how my marriage with SRF is going. That is a good, but tough and painful question as you can see from my postings -- a love/hate affair could you call it. A dysfunctional relationship! A friend of mine says "if I'm able to stay with my wife to the end, God will give me a reward" I'm sure God will give him something, because such a thing cannot go unnoticed. But, I do not know if it will be a reward or a strong sermon on self-respect. Who knows -- everything is possible when it comes to relationships. That still is a somewhat mysterious subject for me. But SRF is an abstraction, not a human being; not even a pet! Let us keep that in mind. And this is very important because organizations are created to serve human beings (or animals) and not the other way around. However, a few days ago I met a friend - not the one married to that saintly woman -- another one. Let us go for a coffee I said. And he answered: "yes, but only if we do not talk about that ..... (the SRFwalrus)." I had sent the e-address to him a few days ago. So I said, "we better leave it for another day then" -- I wanted to talk about the walrus or nothing! Then he began his attack. You have sided with very dangerous and resentful people... bla, bla, bla, ... Then he added. "We are not here to be pumped by SRF, our needs do not count -- we are here to serve them!" I took my sword out and gave it to him too. But later, that infamous sentence came back to my mind: "we are here to serve them!" Ahhh! I know Raja Begum, who is the artist on Myers-Briggs already guessed my friends typology (which I will reveal at the end). You need to have indeed a very special personality typology to say such an aberration. But let me analyze this thought a little -- it is worth some thinking. Do you remember the story of Master not helping the devotee who wanted to brag doing Hatha Yoga postures in front of the public (Anadamoy's story?). "Master didn't care for his personal prestige as a teacher he put first the benefit of his disciple who needed correction" said Anadamoy. But Master didn't care for his organization's prestige either at that moment -- the individual was first; the human being was first. In the Autobiography, Babaji says to Lahiri M. "The office was created for you not you for the office" paraphrasing the Bible". Here we see the same point! Organizations are for the human being -- NOT VICEVERSA. Paradigms -- teachings -- are also created for the benefit of human beings -- not viceversa. To help him/her be happier. But, followers of certain paradigms have historically become so singulate (obsessed) about their little formulas that they forgot this. They have even kill millions for the sake of their paradigms -- nazism, fascism, communism are just a few examples. What we see now about SRF is also singulate behavior. They are willing to sacrifice the human being for the sake of the organization and for the sake of the "purity" of the paradigm. They are putting the chariot before horse. My friend -- an INTJ -- it could not be other than an NT ("NT" people worship systems), has fallen prey of the same mistake. But if we like his way of thinking, we can offer our blood to be sucked out by SRF and may be God in the end will give us a reward -- or, perhaps He will just give us a strong sermon on self-respect. Rigiditananda
KS Registered User (12/13/01 7:45 am) Reply	Perception The wonders of perception. Interesting comment by your friend. I think of SRF management as dangerous and resentful people. People fearful of change, fearful to the extent that they will hurt people. Fearful to the extent that they will put people in charge who hurt people and then turn their back on loyal devotees. Did your friend read the story about the loyal devotees who came to Encinitas to help, giving up their jobs and moving, only to be fired for petty control issues? I think we should arrange for him to get more closely involved with mother center.
pschuppe Registered User (12/13/01 9:42 am) Reply	Re: My marriage with SRF Well said. No, I wasn't taking your image literally, I was just having some fun. The phrase I, and it sounds like we all, at least aspire to follow has been mentioned here before but maybe bears repeating: "People are more important than things." I once chewed on that statement to try to come up with a situation in which a "thing" could somehow be more important than a person or group of people. I couldn't, except perhaps in the extreme case of someone like a true martyr, who chooses to be burned at the stake rather than give up his faith--and that's only if you consider faith a "thing"; a dubious assumption. But to reverse the case and try to impose such a sacrifice on another or others without their free choice--that's pretty close to murder. ps
Gray beard Registered User (12/13/01 3:05 pm) Reply	Re: Nice but doesn't acknowledge what Rig is saying Just a short point in this wonderful discussion. We only have the printed words of our Master (those of us who don't commune with him in meditation everyday and thus get our inspiration and spiritual direction directly from him) to facilitate our spiritual sadhana. Those who were direct disciples (lucky ones!) had the EXAMPLE of his life to direct themselves accordingly. For instance a direct disciple has told a story of Master doing the EE's while at the desert retreat just before his demise. Did he need to do the EE's? Please. But as other Master's have done so, he was using his own behavior to teach the disciple. And not having that physical connection has meant all the world's difference, in my opinion. We are left with his words on printed pages. And we use those words as someone has said according to our state of awareness. Thus if someone has low self-esteem, especially, he will then pick up most readily all the shoulds, oughts (I know from experience) and end up as Rigiditananda so beautifully explained (thanks!); worrying more about our daily obedience expressed through the practice of the sadhana while pushing God further and further away through feeling like a loser. A great discussion. Very helpful! Peace

Page 1 2

<< 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 - Core Issues -

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