>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Core Issues
        > Self-destructive monastic thinking		 New Topic    Add Reply

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
srfwalrus
ezOP
(1/19/02 8:17 am)
Reply 		Self-destructive monastic thinking
[ Editor's note from SRFWalrus: I am moving this message to the CORE section. The thread below is a thoughtful one and discusses several issues related to the monastics, SRF, and renunciation. However, the original thread also contains many messages discussing Ananda and so has been moved to the Ananda section.]

----------------------------------
pub78.ezboard.com/fsrfwal...D=14.topic
Message below from Chuckle -- Reply to Should Free et al -- 1/19/02

The more I think about this thread (this is my third revision), the more I realize how right Should Free appears to be. I don’t want to comment on the Kriyananda quote or the
Ananda/SRF differences--they are tangential.

At first, Should Free, I thought your remarks were bizarre, as my understanding of renunciation (gained from Master’s writings and the occasional Convo) were so different from the ones you mentioned. But after re-reading what you and username posted, I began to understand how you guys in southern California really appear to be getting some awfully strange ideas from the monastics. The more I think about it, the more I see your point that SRF monasticism, both in and of itself and in how it interacts with the laity, is proving to be damaging, particularly in its espousal of renunciation.

The whole interaction of how these ideas get ingrained in your minds from the monastics is terribly saddening. I think that many SRF members who do not live in southern California may have a hard time believing you, as I did initially. We just don’t get the same kind of education that you guys do who get exposed to the monastics on a regular basis. (This is one reason why I think change in SRF is going to come slowly, if it comes at all). I think Peter was showing you a different perspective (one that I could relate to--a more positive one, which you finally alluded to in your list) and there was a bit of misunderstanding between you and him. Fortunately, you both seem to have gotten
beyond that.

I think the list of positive suggestions you posted was excellent. What an interesting contrast they make to all the negatives you guys seem to hear endlessly. I think you may be right: the monastic model we’ve developed in SRF and given so much power to is proving to be detrimental, both to the monastics and to the laity, who look up to the monastics for guidance.

Been There wondered whether there were any good monastic models around. I can’t answer definitively but I do know that a number of the Catholic and Buddhist orders are more democratic in their operations than the SRF order appears to be; the Catholics, for example, have their Chapters where all community members have an equal voice in the running of the monastery, and the Abbots and Abbesses are not chosen for life. Some orders have adopted many of the principles of liberation theology, which preaches equality and respect for all members. They have their faults and challenges, of course, as would any large group living and working closely together.

One suggestion. Along the line of what username posted: perhaps monastics should be chosen from those older than, say 45 years, and not, as it currently stands, from those who are quite young with very little experience in the world (educating themselves, establishing a vocation and avocations, developing a family, becoming involved in the community, and so on). Kind of like our wise elders. If we expect our monastics to provide us guidance, then it seems axiomatic that they should have some experience in the world. If we don’t expect the monastics to provide us with guidance (conducting services, providing counseling), then monastics could be chosen from any age group and
they could lead lives which have relatively little bearing on ours. We could have our own lay ministers and counselors.

Edited by: srfwalrus at: 1/19/02 8:18:07 am
oldtimer
Unregistered User
(1/19/02 10:24 am)
Reply 		Good idea
The last point, about taking in older people, is excellent! Master writes frequently about the Vedic plan for life, but SRF doesn't follow it. And look at the results! Think about how different it would be if:

You take "in" young people, for some bounded period of time, with the understanding that it's a period of training and learning. They have to leave by a certain age. They never give talks or anything like that. They don't change their names--even if there are two with the same name. (Where did that absurd custom come from?)

People are eligible at some later age--I would suggest 50 or 55, rather than 45--for the 3rd stage. They would remain completely independent and self-sufficient, but would participate in all kinds of training and discussions and get more involved in the administration. I would see these people as the ones who basically run the organization. They would be experienced in all kinds of fields. It would not take full time from them. They would also, at least some of them, the ones qualified, be lay ministers.

Then, the 4th stage, sannyasi, would occur naturally and self-evidently for those few souls who manifest obviously to everyone the qualities of that stage of development.

This stuff was figured out a very long time ago. Why try to make it up again?

chuckle
Unregistered User
(1/20/02 11:01 pm)
Reply 		reply to oldtimer
Good points, oldtimer. Age has brought you great wisdom! As you said: "This stuff was figured out a very long time ago. Why try to make it up again?"

<< 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 - Core Issues -



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