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
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (11/29/01 2:25 am) Reply	Ma's Writings This is the beginning of a detail analysis of the language in our SRF teachings. Ma's writings are the most judgmental of all. So, I begin here presenting concrete examples from her writings. Ma's judgementality has pervaded all the lessons and books. Ma is a wonderful lady, possibly a great saint, but her writings are extremely judgmental and damaging too. “The behavior of others SHOULD not be allowed to rob us of our peace of mind.” Daya Mata/Only Love/How to Change Others/ Page 47/ First line. Then she keeps going in a very judgmental language explaining the issue -- loaded with other “SHOULDS” and “ALL NOTHING THINKING” -- please read that first paragraph. Now, do you realize the caliber of the above “SHOULD.” Who is beyond offense from others? The way she presents this ideal is not conducive to healing but to increase suffering. Why? Very simple. The next time someone hurts you, on top of your hurt you will recall this “SHOULD” located now in your memory. And you will say to yourself -- “I SHOULD not feel hurt; what’s wrong with me?” So, you felt hurt and now on top of that you feel inadequate and guilty, and your self-esteem goes down. The same ideal could be communicated in a non destructive way using the language of “basic psychology 2001.” “The behavior of others affect us only through our own thoughts. If our thoughts stay objective and positive, despite vicious attack of others, in theory, no one could hurt us. Such is the wonderful power of your mind computer -- through our thoughts we can neutralize any painful external situation. However, the path to such perfect mind control is long and requires the right understanding of the mind and how it works. It requires the right techniques to deal with the distorted/negative thoughts that naturally arouse in the mind of normal human beings, under the fire of vicious criticism. In the meantime, when you feel the hurt, if you can not shake out the pain producing thoughts, go paradoxically -- embrace your feelings and thoughts fully. Talk to yourself in this way “ I accept this feelings, I accept these thoughts. Paramahansa Yogananda says that all feelings are Bliss, so this feeling is Bliss too.” Let us look at a whole paragraph now. Notice the judgmental language she uses here: Daya Mata/How to Change Others/ Page 48/Third Paragraph of that talk. “Be an example of what you want others to be. If you are inclined to lose your temper and fight back or speak harshly; if you scold the children unreasonably; if you are nervous and easily upset, shouting and speaking unkindly -- change yourself! That is the best way to change those around you. It is hard to do but it can be done. One’s effort ‘SHOULD’ be directed toward making himself a person who is respected and looked up to; whose word carries weight. He ‘SHOULD’ speak from true wisdom and understanding, NEVER from anger, nervousness, jealousy, or desire to retaliate when hurt.” Notice the following here: 1) How judgmental is the general tone 2) In one little paragraph we find two “SHOULDS” and one “NEVER” 3) Imagine a poor man with all those symptoms: inclined to lose his temper and fight back or speak harshly, to scold the children unreasonably, to be nervous and easily upset and to shout and speak unkindly. There are millions in those conditions and much worse. Thousands go to therapy because of problems like these -- and for much less than this too. Think how healing would be to say to such individual -- CHANGE YOURSELF! A therapist who shouts such a "SHOULD," may loose his/her license in the spot. Don’t you realize dear Ma that these are symptoms of mental disorders? It can be depression, ADHD, an anxiety disorder, an impulse control disorder, and so on. And, these labels are also symptoms. Of what? Brain disorders! I suggest you Ma read the best seller “Change your brain change your life” by Daniel Amen -- it might change your mind very quickly! 4) So, this poor man, who is suffering from some or all of these problems, which could be you, dear reader, or me, or any devotee around the world, who is most probably affected by a brain disorder, the next time he gets angry will remember Ma’s sound advice and will say “Ok, I SHOULD NOT feel this -- this is wrong! Will that stop the feelings? -- of course not. So, in addition to his painful anger now he will be angry with himself -- guilt! See how irrational is all this advice based on SHOULDS AND NEVERS? Conclusion: Please read the SRF lessons and books. Note the countless “SHOULDS,” “MUSTS,” “NEVERS,” “ALWAYS” and so on. Think of the effect that judgmental language creates in the poor devotee. Introspect and see how it has affected you. If this language didn’t affect you, is because you didn’t take it seriously -- it can not be otherwise. But, many do. Many, many took and still take this language very seriously. And many got very sick as a result. I invite everyone to find more examples and upload them -- there are thousands!!!!!
Spi Unregistered User (11/29/01 2:39 pm) Reply	Ma's writings I have always wondered why we need Ma's writings. I understand it raises her stature in member's eyes, but does she think she is adding things that Master has not given us? Why don't they get out Master's words, then we can hear what various monks, nuns, and even lay members have to say if we want it. I am also reading a lot of messages here about the extent that we are seein editing of Master's writings. I am concerned and don't really understand the extent of it.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (11/29/01 11:46 pm) Reply	Irrational standards Grotesque Bossy Language (from Lesson 99) "Thoughts 'to rememeber'" As a human being you are different from animals, and as a human being you MUST (1st “SHOULD” here) make use of your unique powers of intelligence and reason. DO NOT (2nd “SHOULD” here) remain in ignorance and suffering. TEAR ASIDE (3rd “SHOULD” here) the veil of delusion and know things as they really are..... RESURRECT YOURSELF (4th “SHOULD” here) from the consciousness of human habits and human thoughts. Live (5th “SHOULD” here) EVERY SECOND (ALL NOTHING THINKING) in the consciousness of God. QUICKEN (6th “SHOULD” here) your understanding; QUICKEN (7th “SHOULD” here) your efforts. DO NOT (8th “SHOULD” here) keep your soul burried under ignorance, bad habits (9th “SHOULD” here), animal instincts (10th “SHOULD” here), and a mortal consciousnes (11th “SHOULD” here). RESURRECT IT (12th “SHOULD” here) in everlasting freedom. Notice the following: 1) In a small paragraph we find 12 “shoulds” and one “all nothing thinking.” 2) Can you percieve the judgmentality behind the text? 3) Can you percieve the pressure she puts into normal human minds to self control themselves to such irrational degree? 4) Can you see that all these “Shoulds” are not only the so called “SRF’s standards,” but they are simply IRRATIONAL STANDARDS? 5) Can you see that she is requesting from us many things here that are way beyond our will power? Can you, or anyone here resurrect yourself? Tear aside the veil of delusion? Live every second in the consciousness of God? and so on? I have been in the path more than twenty years and I know I can’t do these things. Can You? Can a poor devotee in his or her second year in SRF (this is from Lesson 99) do such things; even just one of them? 6) Result: After you read this, you try,and you fail, if you try again, you fail again. Then you read more of this tye of s... Result, you feel constantly inadequate and stupid. 10) Not all the lessons are so bossy. However, the language in this whole lesson (please read it) is quite similar to that of Daya Ma in Only Love. Did she write this Lesson 99? Who the hell wrote this garbage?
peer345 Unregistered User (12/8/01 6:22 pm) Reply	some more general observations Rigiditananda, I think these are very good points and really underline the mindlessness of not just the language but also the culture of SRF. I always found it scary but thought that was my problem. Your unpacking of the language begins to demonstrate why it is scary - it is very dangerous in its implications!! I certainly found no place for my occasional moodiness and difficulties with the everyday. I know someone here wrote brilliantly about SRF and Disneyland - the language reflects that relationship. It simply ignores and skims over serious issues intent on conforming you to its pattern, there is no room for difference here- Daya Mata's tapes are classic examples of this - I found the simplistic and holier-than-thou attitude dumbfounding when I first heard them - do the Mata's really speak like that? Likewise the tape by Bother Mokshananda - who remembers the Guru he never met, what is going on there?!! You don't quite find that simplicity in Yogananda - that is, what we take to be Yogananda and not the editors - he has a much bigger, less simplistic view and he really does have something to say!! Sometimes he is way too flowery for me in his language but there is something there that moves me and I listen to that - there is a real energy there in his message, he is generous, he uplifts and doesn't judge. Everything about SRF's public image is so clean, so simplified, so concerned with public appearance that it becomes obvious the language they use would reflect that as well. Is this a cultural thing learnt from the land that has spawned Disney, Reader's Digest and Norman Rockwell? peer345
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/9/01 3:34 am) Reply	Let us all help Thanks peer345 for your words. To continue analyzing the language (the “shoulds” and the “black and white thinking”) is crucial. This section will become a concrete proof that there is something very wrong in the way SRF communicates Master's insights -- which is damaging. So, I invite all of you, to look in the Lessons and books and find those incredible "shoulds" and "extremist thoughts." And let us go on uploading that material. Together we can create an irrefutable and colossal proof that something is very wrong here. There are thousands of those “loaded sentences.” I agree with you Peer345 that there are many in the tapes too -- some are in fact grotesque -- they can be wrote down and uploaded in this section. Let us have fun hunting for them. -- Rigiditananda
pschuppe Registered User (12/9/01 9:57 am) Reply	Let us all help with what? Ok all, I've got my flame-resistant clothing on. Here's my politically incorrect response to the above on the lessons and language. So the lessons use the word "should". So what? If you're trying to convey to someone that they can live at a higher level than the one they're presently aware of, how else can you express it? "You'll need to, you should, you must, you ought to." These express the need for action. "Try this", would be another possibility, but how can you avoid using the above language eventually? And what's the use of finding 9 thousand more examples of it to drive the point into the ground? IMHO, it's partly a question of linguistic style (from a generation that became adults in the 1920's-40's) and partly a question of function. There was no such thing as "politically correct" back then as far as I know. If you wanted to convince someone to do something or try something, that's how you said it. If you don't want to do what she/he/they suggest above, then don't!(See, here I am using the same language ;-)) No one's forcing you to do anything. If the language offends you, then please re-phrase the words in some less offensive way and educate us all as to how it should be done, and/or show how and why the ideas expressed are invalid in the first place. And where is it written that psychology and the psychological approach to behavior/growth are the last word in wisdom? My eternal question in regards to this board remains unanswered. I've hinted at it in various posts, but maybe this is an appropriate time to ask it more overtly. The question is: "What are we going to do about it?" ("It" being whatever merits complaining about in SRF, etc..) Is anyone going to step up and create an alternative? That takes more chutzpah to come up with a positive option than to complain and offer no solution. ps
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/9/01 11:30 am) Reply	Advice for pshuppe A man of superior abstract intelligence is able to see what an average man does not. He is able to grasp connections which are not obvious to the ordinary man. Keep your mind constantly directed to the question of what constitutes a truth in any given situation. Guruji said this is the age of logic, so you must use reason just as much as feeling to solve problems. This is why psychology has become a necessary component to everyday life. Be always kind and loving with others, and get away from petty thoughts and smallness. We have to seek to maintain a higher consciousness for ourselves. If that lofty ideal is always in your mind, you will have no time to feel discontent. This is the only way to happiness.
pschuppe Registered User (12/9/01 1:55 pm) Reply	Re: Advice for pshuppe I agree with almost all of your post, though I'm not clear what your point is. As to your statement: Guruji said this is the age of logic, so you must use reason just as much as feeling to solve problems. This is why psychology has become a necessary component to everyday life. --------- I agree with what Guruji said, but not with your inference that therefore psychology has become a necessary component to everyday life.(?) It seems to me that God realization has become (and always was) a necessary component to everyday life. 20+ years on the path convince me of it all the more. Show me a psychologist, or someone who has faithfully followed psychology who is a realized being. Even one who is glowingly, radiantly, healthy and happy. I can think of numerous people who glow with realization (I'm not saying perfection; let's not get into trying to define perfection), who have nothing to do with psychology. What's so logical about psychology? Who are the rishis who re-discovered the ancient truths of psychology? What are said truths? ps
peer345 Unregistered User (12/9/01 3:11 pm) Reply	psychology - yea or nay Peter, I think it is a mistake to draw such a black and white line here re the uses or value of psychology. The fact is for some it is very useful as a tool on this journey to self-realization. It can be a dramatic aid to increasing self awareness. It cannot of course be an end in itself for finally it usefulness is totally dependant on its ethical base and world view. It is like anything in that there is good and bad and all the shades of gray in between. I have found some very good writings from a psychologists who were long time Buddhist meditators. I have found them useful. Jack Engler, Goleman and Mark Epstein immediately come to mind - please note they do not see themselves as enlightened rishis. I feel the point about the language of SRF is that its "shoulds etc" can be confusing. One must differentiate between the language of the matas and Yogananda, even if they don't. The point is even in its edited form Yogananda's writing illuminate and open doors to understanding - they are psychologically literate in this sense. The mata's writing and speech tend not to be - for them the book is written, nothing remains to be said, all can only be repeated. I for one do not believe that. Language does change, meanings of words do shift and psychology is basically just a tool in exploring that and understanding how we have used language to construct at times dysfunctional/ensnaring identities for ourselves. A classic case is in the use of the word ego. Is how it is used in psychology the same as when people use it in talking of destroying the ego in spiritual endeavor. I think the answer is no. In psychology, a healthy ego is that sense we have of ourselves as a self, that which gives us core shape, stability with which to function in the world in all its guises. In spiritual endeavor it relates to particularly our attachment and ensnarement with the world of identification/maya not just re pleasure etc but also negatively as in self loathing, hate etc. There is a subtle but crucial difference in both attitudes. There is strong support in some psychological circles that until there is a strong ego psychologically speaking it is almost impossible to begin to effectively transcend it spiritually speaking. peer
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/9/01 4:49 pm) Reply	Stating my intentions Peter, You missed the point entirely. I was creatiing an example of that "bossy language" Rigiditananda is talking about. I have no other point. I just threw ideas together without much thought, using Daya Mata's "Only Love" as a template. I'm surprised you didn't have anything to say about that. Perhaps this phenomenon is transparent to most people.
parvati Unregistered User (12/9/01 5:05 pm) Reply	raja begum Dear Raja Begum, I also didn't see the point of your reply to pschuppe at first. Thank you for clarifying it. What this discussion and the quote you gave bring to my mind is that what matters in the end is not so much the words but the consciousness with which they are said. I can imagine someone saying the paragraph you quoted, but with so much love that you would get a completely different understanding from it. The consciousness behind what the matas say is what reveals them for who they are. In my mind it is the same with the lessons, etc. Who is giving these teachings? What is their consciousness? Do they care about the people they are giving them to? Are they supporting them in their own unfolding Self-realization?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/9/01 5:45 pm) Reply	Further clarification No. What I'm saying is the opposite -- that responsiblity for word choice is as important as the consciousness behind them. Words are not arbitrary. They carry intrinsic vibrational energy. What you are referring to is the justification of context. Let me put it concretely: Suppose a mother lovingly makes her children drink a glass of water every day for their health. One day it is discovered that her children have a severe case of arsenic poisoning. She has no clue that the arsenic is coming from the drinking water. However, several of her friends, including the doctor, suggest she have the water's purity checked, but she doesn't see the need for testing the water. Being of folkish superstition, and having been told that the local water is curative, she continues in her ignorant ways to serve the water to her children, believing that, at the least, extra water will flush out the toxins. One fated day, her youngest child dies. She is baffled and considers it the work of the Devil. Moral: The path to hell is paved with good intentions.
pschuppe Registered User (12/9/01 8:16 pm) Reply	Re: Stating my intentions Dear Raja, Actually I could see that you were writing aphorisms in an intentional way, but I didn't find them particularly offensive in either style or content. To me the issue is more one of connection. In the case of Daya Mata, I don't personally have much of a connection with her. I've only seen her from a distance once in my life, and that was at a large public satsang in the early 80s. When I read her words (it's been a long time since I did) I just accepted them as coming from my elder on the path. I didn't feel that she was my Guru or my connection to Master, and I didn't particularly judge them one way or the other. They seemed helpful but not immediately relevant. In the case of the lessons, I studied them each time they came, but again, I wasn't offended by the content or style. If others are, that's ok too--but I'm genuinely curious to see what they can come up with to improve them. And I'm not saying that it can't be done either. I'm just eager to see something definite that actually improves them. Perhaps someone will create a new version. Incidentally, I hadn't noticed R's re-phrasing of a paragraph above when I first posed my challenge about showing a new way to write the passage. My sense was that it had changed the meaning and message too much. Later on you make an altogether different point about intentions. Your implication is that Daya Mata's writings may have the best intentions in the world, but perhaps because of her ignorance she's doing more harm than good--or she's somewhere lower on the spectrum or results than perfect at any rate. At least that's what I'm inferring. My point in response takes parvati's question a bit farther. Take a hypothetical case: If Daya Mata is your primary inspiration on the path--if her message and vibration is exactly what you need in order to progress spiritually--and if you do, in fact progress by following her words and guidance, then where's the contradiction? (I realize there are a lot of "ifs" there, but I believe my question is valid.) Are you saying that her teachings and/or guidance are so false as to be incapable of uplifting anyone? If so, I'm surprised and dismayed. How and why? And of course the opposite holds too. If her writings are not to your taste, or for your deepest benefit--if, in fact, she isn't your primary inspiration on the path, then why not find a truer source of inspiration that works for you--whether in your own heart in meditation or from wherever outwardly? You're unlikely to change her or her writings in any meaningful way at this point--I feel pretty certain of that. Om, ps
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/9/01 10:00 pm) Reply	Another Round on the Discussion Dojo Mat You and Parvati from @#%$ aren't you? My twenty plus years experience with the SRF lessons, SRF books and tapes, and the ways of the Daya worshippers are very different from both of yours. What I and others, such as Rigiditananda, are saying is that the lexicon being favored in SRF as well as the dominant monastic subculture in SRF have become indellibly grafted into each other as one. Somewhere else on this board Trombone Boy talks about the dangers of vegetarianism for certain body types. In a similar vein, I am discussing the dangerous effect of a specific cognitive diet on certain mentalities and dispositions. Therefore, the issue is not about choosing where to seek inspiration, it is rather about how to deal with a perpetually invasive psychological mindset should one decide to stay associated with the organization one's guru built with his own hands. You've stated quite eloquently and repeatedly that you have no problems with the language being used. In my mind, I begin to wonder whether that's because you are reading versions of the lessons edited by @#%$. I've never read those lessons; however, I am certain from what I read about @#%$ that he would be sensitive to this issue since he was once one of Guruji's chief editors and has an acute sense of the effect of language on others. I would like to hear from others as well. Anyone care to join in?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/9/01 10:02 pm) Reply	Turn off the word filter Please Mr. Walrus, turn off the @#%$ filter Why is that necessary? SRFWalrus: Sorry about the @#%$ filter. I want to keep the debate away from @#%$, away from criticism of @#%$ and comparison of SRF with @#%$. Some SRF people have a habit (and it is a habit) of reacting to the word @#%$ so I am filtering to prevent them being affected. A debate about @#%$ is not necessary for the goal of this board. I know the filter is weird, but I didn't know what else to do. Edited by: srfwalrus at: 12/9/01 11:28:13 pm
pschuppe Registered User (12/9/01 10:23 pm) Reply	Re: Another Round on the Discussion Dojo Mat Dear Raja, You must be trying to say "@#%$," and there must be some kind of filter on it that makes it print like a swearword, so I'm trying it myself just for fun. The lessons I got were the very ones SRF sent out circa 1980-1987--service readings and all. I still have them in my office to this day, and I have no idea who might have edited them, but it certainly wouldn't have been @#%$. It's been a while since I've studied them, maybe my environment away from SRF prevents me from seeing a mindset that's so all-pervading you can't escape it when you're caught in it. As to: "Therefore, the issue is not about choosing where to seek inspiration, it is rather about how to deal with a perpetually invasive psychological mindset should one decide to stay associated with the organization one's guru built with his own hands." I see two obvious possiblities and one dependent one (no rocket science here): 1. Change it. 2. Find what inspiration you can with those you can who see the issues clearly as you do. (Which will act to catalyze change also.) 3. If it can't be changed, create your own. I don't know where parvati is from. Sincerely, ps
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/10/01 1:41 am) Reply	"SHOULD" - the ugly word Dear friends I can see the difficulty in seeing the problem I'm trying to convey, and believe me, it is difficult to convey it. However, let me invent here a very concrete example that will sound quite familiar to you : You are the teacher now. You want your disciple to do the Energization Exercises everyday -- on top of his meditation that include a prayer, the 20-20-20- exercise, the Hong Sau tech, the Om tech, the Mahamudras, the Kriyas, the stillness period, and a final prayer; all this TWICE a day. So, now you say to your disciple: "Peter, from now on you SHOULD also do this exercises every day before meditation -- that means TWICE a day. Understood?" Peter has introjected from you a lot of SHOULDS already. So, one more -- not big deal! But two days later he wakes up a bit late because he had to work late the previous night to feed his family. He can't do the EE, he can't do the Hong Sau, the Om, and the Mahamudras. He barely does 14 kriyas and three Yoti Mudras (sounds familiar?). Then he has a strong bad feeling during the morning -- all morning! He doesn't feel right. During the afternoon he can't shake the feeling either. He says to himself -- Oh, my master is right, all those techniques that I didn't do are very useful, and make me feel good during the day. Today I missed them and look at the lousy feeling I have. True? NO, crab! Upon closer examination of automatic thoughts that have been silently running in his mind during the whole day, he would realize that the following thoughts are subconsciously creating havoc in his mental field: "you should have done the EE. "you should have waken up earlier" "you should have practice the Mahamudras" "You are not making it spiritually" "You are not obeying your master" "You are not good enough" "You are a looser" The next day Peter wakes up very early; but very sleepy too. He does the EE, the initial prayer, but during the Hong Sau he starts nodding. Angry with himself he jumps to do his Kriyas. This time out of compassion God sends him a little blessing and right after the Kriyas he feels some joy. He takes 20 minutes (longer than ussual) to practice stillness -- to "do not spill the milk." Then it is a bit late and he has to rush in the freeway to go to work. And on the way, he feels upset with other drivers that are not in a rush -- his joy is gone! During the day he is all the time repeating your name (remember you are the master here). But Peter has an intellectual type of job and he needs his mind to perform. So, he fails repeat your sacred name all the time. A few hours later, he feels uneasy again, and he can't understand why. Then, following your instructions for this cases, he "introspects" and goes through his (yours) check list. EE: OK Hong - Sau: Half Om: NO -- mmmmh! Kriyas: OK Stillness: OK Practice the presence: Not even half -- mmmmmh! I have control my emotions today: No I failed in the fwy. to control myself --- mmmmh! Peter doesn't know it, but his feelings do not come from what he didn't do, but from what he does -- to himself. For many years he has been introjecting (making his own) your thoughts, most especially your SHOULDS which you communicate very forcefully and quite often to him Quietly, silently, subconsciously, he runs through his mind in automatic mode all your "shoulds" over and over -- excellent master ah!. I should have practiced Om today I should have controlled my temper more I should have practiced the name of my master all day long as he instructed me (I love thee master, I love thee master). Countless situations and circumstances make impossible to Peter to obey your innumerable "shoulds" He is not in fact a happy fellow - despite his efforts. And he is most of the time quite dissatisfied with himself. He projects low self-esteem, is always in a rush and he can't thrive in life. He is in fact, of course, materializing his subconscious thoughts -- "I am a looser" Now is the million dollars question by pschuppe: Could this have been communicated in a less destructive way? Could Peter's master make him do all those practices without shoulding him and making his life miserable? Of course! It is getting late, so I leave this to someone else to figure it out -- I have to do my EE, my Hong Sau, My om, My kriyas, My Stillness, My ........ So, perhaps another day I will write something about it -- if I feel like, because I do not should myself anymore. But one thing I want to say I went some months ago to lakeshrine and there was a new brother giving the service (new for me, because I had not seen him before). His name is Atmananda. He gave a talk on meditation. It was absolutely great and his goal was obviously to motivate the audience to meditate. During the whole talk I never heard ONE SHOULD. At the end I went to congratulate him. And I said: " most especially I was glad to do not hear even one "should." He answered back: I never "should" people in my services or counseling. The same wonderful shift in language that we are seeing -- so delightful-- in the monk’s talks, has to happen in the written part of the teachings; books and lessons. When that happen, these teachings will be ready for the 21st century. If that doesn't happen they will continue to be 1930 teachings and eventually people will just laugh at them. And worst of all, the teachings will continue hurting people.
pschuppe Registered User (12/10/01 8:22 am) Reply	Re: "SHOULD" - the ugly word Dear Rig, Thanks for taking the time to give a wonderful and appropriately fruity example! I'll keep my reply short because I, too, have to get to work. Let me quote two people who haven't exactly seen eye to eye on spiritual matters, but both quotes seem appropriate here: From Anandamoy (a talk tape if memory serves): "Do your best and give it to God." And from him who shall remain nameless, lest his name print like a swearword (begins with a "K" in case you didn't get the hint): "If a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing badly." Meditation, mahamudra, EE, etc., etc., all fall into that catagory. Because even a little practice; even lousy practice, is better than no practice at all. If God accepts even a leaf if offered with devotion, then probably s/he'll accept my meditation offering, however crummy. Thanks again, ps
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/10/01 2:44 pm) Reply	Nice but doesn't acknowledge what Rig is saying Peter, Those are helpful quotes, but they don't represent the majority of the language in the teachings. It might be said that self acceptance is an afterthought or reaction to coping with so much "bossy language."
fromLA Unregistered User (12/10/01 4:55 pm) Reply	Bro. @#%$ Bro. Atmananda is not new although he hasn't been seen in public as much as some others. He is one of the "good guys." For that reason, he is an outcast in the eyes of the leadership. He was at the center of the effort, through the monks' spiritual life committee, to awaken and renew the organization. That effort was completely shut down and outlawed. I know from my experiences with him that he is of great integrity, sincerity, and is a true disciple. He is what I imagined a sannyasi of Master's order would be like. Very sadly, he is a glaring exception.
pschuppe Registered User (12/10/01 6:53 pm) Reply	Re: Nice but doesn't acknowledge what Rig is saying Dear Raja, I agree. And apparently, since I admittedly don't have direct "inside" experience the SRF culture, I can't easily see how much of an issue it really is. But it has been made obvious to me that you and numerous others here do see the issue clearly. My post above was an attempt (since I was offered as the example ;-)) to show how I would approach the scenario Rig outlined. I wasn't trying to contradict. Here are two aspects to it I wanted to touch on and didn't have time to get into earlier: Devotees everywhere have to face the fact that they aspire to God Realization and are not there yet. There's an inherent (and, I think, necessary) element of challenge involved in dealing with that. I wanted to offer an attitude or approach that might be meaningful to any devotee who faces that universal challenge. Master said "If you practice one one-hundredth of what I've offered you, you'll find God." Looked at from that end of the telescope, the view is a bit different. But that still doesn't address your point. We're individuals, and Master would train each individual according to his/her nature. Not that he would alter the basic teachings, but he would adjust the emphasis according to each one's varying needs. It sounds to me like what you're saying is that that isn't happening now in the same way, or maybe at all. If your "type" isn't adjusted to the mental or physical diet offered, then you're out of luck. If that's the case (and I'd like to know if I got that much of it right) I don't have an answer, and I'm not qualified to offer much more of an opinion than I've offered already. I would like to know what solution you (all) see. ps