JUST ANGER - www.ezboard.com

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Core Issues > JUST ANGER
Page 1 2	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/1/01 8:52 pm) Reply	JUST ANGER After reading the New Times LA article I felt extremely angry. How is it possible that a single individual, a professor in math, was able to clear his father's name --Sri Nerode -- in no time, and SRF with millions of dollars, and expensive lawyers (but obviously very ineffective) has been unable to do the same for our Guru in years. Why ?????? Why SRF takes DNA samples from Master's relatives using A MEMBER OF THE BOARD instead of working together with an independent party -- even the same reporter that wrote the first article may have been willing to accompany Vishuananda to India to take the samples. Didn’t you think that, of course, the credibility of proofs obtained in such way is zero?! Are you so stupidly naive? Why SRF, through its lawyers, claims to have proofs that Master is not Erskine's father, but does not present those proofs openly to the New Times LA -- to clear ones and forever our Master's name? I'm fed up with SRF's secrecy through the years. SRF has been so ineffective at protecting Master's credibility -- it is a shame! Not only that; this extreme inefficiency is so difficult to understand that it reinforces the idea that in fact the organization could be hiding something -- which obviously increases the doubts on Master's integrity. Additionally, all this SRF secrecy culture that we have seen through decades, also increases the doubts that may be they are hiding something after all. It is time for this to stop! It is time to be transparent -- with us devotees and with the public in general. Master's name is being discredited here -- don’t you see it SRF board? Move your buttocks! Will you take a stand, be transparent and show clear proof that Master is not Erskine's father? Or, will you keep doing stupid moves, and evasive actions, that only contribute to feed the doubts about Master?
XInsider Unregistered User (12/1/01 9:41 pm) Reply	In reply I asked this question elsewhere on the board, but would like to ask you too. What if it is true? What if Master fathered a child? Obviously they have been hiding something for years, as you have discerned. How can a culture of such secrecy arise for no reason? There has to be something -- possibly many "white lies" adding up to a big smokescreen. And for what? If it turns out to be true, what does that mean for you personally?
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/1/01 11:18 pm) Reply	Not jumping to conclusions I keep a policy to do not let my mind jump to conclusions -- at least not too much!. I assume Master didn't fathered that man until the contrary is proven. What bothers me here is SRF ineffectiveness in dealing with such a sensitive issue. This, at least, is not jumping to conclusions. To me, it is already a fact Thanks for responding.
One for all Unregistered User (12/2/01 7:51 am) Reply	Unconditionally It doesn't change the way I feel...I love Him always.
oldtimer Unregistered User (12/2/01 10:31 am) Reply	to XInsider Why do you ask this question?
XInsider Unregistered User (12/2/01 2:51 pm) Reply	In reply I asked the question out of curiosity. I am interested in why people feel the way they do and how they see things. There is no hidden agenda.
In Recovery Unregistered User (12/2/01 10:43 pm) Reply	Mr. Erskine This might sound to many as sacreligious, but I believe this issue may do more to cement our relationship with Master (and our own souls) than perhaps any other issue. I know of many disciples (monastic and householder) who are shaken to the core to hear the mere suggestion that Master might have fathered a child? Why? Why so uncomfortable? Why do we NEED Master to be a certain way? What is it in us that NEEDS Master to be a certain way? If it IS scientifically proven to be true, how will our relationship with him be changed? If it IS scientifically proven to be true, then maybe we're closer to the Goal than we've previously been able to give ourselves permission to believe. Maybe we've taken this whole issue of morality and purity so seriously that it has prevent us from seeing what we already are. Master said love for God is what takes you through the door; and he said we already ARE what we are seeking. All we have to do is increase our knowing of our true identity. The spiritual stories of all cultures talk about how the Lord recognizes and rewards devotion over moral uprightness. Perhaps in the Lord's eyes, our little human drama and our little human desires are not as big an issue as we think they are, just as long we keep our hearts centered in that Love or Peace or Joy or whatever. If Ben Erskine IS Master's son, does this change our guru's ability to transmit bliss to his disciples? Does this change his ability to be there when we leave the body? No. I believe it will only change our concept of what a guru is and what is really important in God's eyes. I believe we will begin to allow him, ourselves, and each other to be both human AND divine.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/3/01 1:59 am) Reply	Sending letters to SRF If Master fathered that man, it is possibly true that he also was "fathering" with his female disciples, as he was accused during those years. A man that likes to "father" while lying to everyone saying he is celibate, cannot be trusted a group of young girls under his roof and being himself in a position of tremendous authority -- would you trust your child? And, if that is true, we could have a serious case of incest here. I say incest because those female disciples were very young when they trusted Master as their father, Guru and God. Such sexual abuse could be behind their traumas, and the rigidity and secrecy we all behold astonished in SRF. So, as you see, this is not only about ERSKINE. Plus, how Master dared to preach celibacy and at the same time go on "fathering?" This may sound hilarious, but I honestly think that the issue is very serious, because it will most probably have unexpected effects, if it is proven that Master was "fathering" with Erskine's mother. Not to mention the moral implications related to the dreadful effects that such "fathering" had in that family -- let us not forget that Erskine mother was married and according to the story the affair with Master destroyed her life! So, I hope that eventually will be proven that Master was not "fathering" with anyone. And in the mean time I assume this is all a lie. In that assumption SRF is responsible for grotesque ineffectiveness to prove Master's innocence -- and this is where we could focus our energy more effective (the rest is speculation). I suggest here that we start sending letters to SRF complaining for their inefficiency in dealing with the issue, and requesting them to fire those lawyers!!! A good number of letters will do the job.
SOS Unregistered User (12/3/01 9:00 am) Reply	Reply to Rigiditananda All of us hope Mr. Erskine's report is false. But did you see the point of In Recovery's post? It did not mean to excuse any abusive behavior. It called us to consider how we could use any such revelation to deepen our relationship with Guru, rather than letting it weaken our faith. I thought it was a very thoughtful post.
Musicman Unregistered User (12/3/01 12:39 pm) Reply	Swami's satyriasis I'm somewhat behind the power curve out here in the heartland, and I only figured this out today. If you haven't read the extensive article on l'affaire Erskine, you owe it to yourself to do so. www.newtimesla.com is the place to go. The evidence is circumstantial and anecdotal, but in my opinion, it's fatal. References in recent postings to Faye's million-dollar pad were a mystery to me, but they're explained there as well (as is the reality of "Tara Mata's" love child, possibly fathered by PY as well). She's been living in San Gabriel since 1968, in a million-dollar mansion bequethed by a wealthy devotee. Sis, Virginia Wright (so-called Ananda Mata [question: how much bliss WILL $1,000,000 buy? Who'd like to be a millionaire? Try the bad ladies!]), also lives there. They tool to work in a pink cadillac, like the late Mary Kay (though the last Cadillac I saw Faye in was green, but that was years ago). What makes it worse is that the reporter was told repeatedly and insistently by Vishwananda that Faye lives at Mt. Washington. Only by pursuing his leads did he discover the truth. (No wonder they don't give a s--t what happens with the monastics on the hill. "They can't get by on $40 a month? They're spoiled! Let's cut it to $20. By the way, while you're at it, make sure to wash and wax the Cadillac before we go home tonight.") Vishwananda, as you know or will learn, was the one handling the blood samples extracted from relatives in India and brought back for examination. I'd say he's someone not to be trusted. This whole situation is so corrupt, venal, degrading, and infuriating that I hardly know what to say. In response to Rigiditananda's understanable anguish, I would say that SRF is guilty of many things, but not incompetence. They haven't established Mukunda Lal Ghosh's innocence because THEY CAN'T, AND THEY KNOW IT. THIS IS THEIR WORST NIGHTMARE, AND IT'S COMING TRUE. Actually, I think they have managed their affairs quite well up till now. They stonewalled, jerked people around, lied, deceived, concealed evidence, and did everything they could to hide their dirty little secret about "swami's problem" (shades of JDW). But the dam has burst, and the little Dutch boy is running for his life. Rigid is pee'd off at SRF, but my indignation goes beyond the Gang of Four and their cohorts like Vishwawhatever. Something is rotten on Mt. Washington, and it's been that way since 1925. I'll never be able to look at the Last Smile the same way again. Someone IS going to have the last smile in all this, but it won't be SRF or "Yogananda." I quoted Shakespeare before and I'll quote him again: "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds." There's an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well, shame on me. A third time, though, is out of the question. Thank the cosmos for an independent press. I have awakened from my 25-year dream, like some Rip Van Winkle. What a load of crap!
KS Registered User (12/3/01 3:06 pm) Reply	Sliding by the truth Actually there is some exaggeration in the New Times article. The prez does have a Cadillac, but it about 10 years old and navy blue. Another donation by a rich friend I believe. That doesn’t bother me much. And their house, while it may be called a million dollar home, is not some giant Beverly Hills estate. It is fairly middle class. I doubt the million price tag is accurate. Of course, next to the $40/month digs of most of the monastics it is really something, but the New Times article exaggerated for effect. In another post I do question the need for it, so I agree it is weird.
In Recovery Unregistered User (12/3/01 7:14 pm) Reply	Mr. Erskine Thanks, SOS, for the kudos. To Rigiditananda: Were you objecting to my post? Or were you just sharing your concerns? I wonder if you misunderstood my thinking. I wasn't talking about possible sexual abuse by Master. That's a completely different issue, and it is one that he is not accused of. Master is merely being accused of having a child to one lady. Already this is a "What if" situation, but I'd prefer to stick with the issue at hand and not let the "what if"s get out of control.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/3/01 11:56 pm) Reply	answer to in recovery Dear in Recovery I was mostly presenting a fact which happens to somewhat contradict your idea that we could improve our relationship with Master through this issue. I repeat here: If Master was "fathering" with that lady, considering that at the same time he was constantly surrounded by many young girls, under his roof and strong authority, and considering the bad record of most gurus that "father" with their female disciples, it makes quite probable that -- in such case -- he may have not limited his "fathering experiences" to Mrs. Erskine. Under such sad situation, we could rightly suspect that he was "fathering" with his female disciples as most Hindu "gurus" do. So, as you see my friend "in recovery" there is a chance that we may not recover here! On the other hand I think that your point has validity. I do not have much quarrels today with human frailties. However, tolerance -- though a good thing -- also has limits. Every principle does. Perhaps you will be able to integrate that Master had an affair with Mrs. Erskine, but could you integrate and accept that Master was "fathering" a good number of his young female disciples? However, I insist, first it has to be proven that he was with Mrs. Erskine -- that is the big interrogation mark? Let us not jump to conclusions. Hopefully, SRF will act diligently and not keep delaying this whole issue. I hope they will fire those lawyers asap too. In regard to your posting Music Man, I think you are understandably upset as I am too. However, I insist, hard proof is the only things that counts now -- the rest is speculation. Finally, I want to insist in the need to send letters to SRF complaining harshly for their inefficiency to clear up Master’s name. Even letters to newspapers pointing in this direction could help. Furthermore, we all need to know the truth -- we deserve that minimum of respect.
Musicman Unregistered User (12/4/01 12:58 pm) Reply	Hard evidence "In regard to your posting Music Man, I think you are understandably upset as I am too. However, I insist, hard proof is the only things that counts now -- the rest is speculation." Thanks, Rigiditananda, I needed that. I've come a bit unglued since reading that article. KS makes it clear that New Times has exaggerated things for effect, and there really is no hard evidence one way or the other. We'll just have to wait to see what happens next. A friend of mine has said that if Erskine's claims are substantiated, then SRF is finished. I think that's probably true. By the way, I have received on inter-library loan both Dhirananda's 1935 article from Modern Review in which he talks about Yogananda, and also the LA Times clippings from the same period detailing the suit Dhriananda won. Evidently, there are allusions in these to hanky-panky on the Hill, but I haven't read enough yet to know for sure. I will be posting excerpts from both of these soon.
Witness Unregistered User (12/4/01 8:05 pm) Reply	Romancing the Swami Is it hanky-panky or is it the most profound betrayal of trust imaginable? When a charismatic robe-wearing, silver-tongued spiritual leader not only claims that he is celibate, but requires his monastic disciples – and in essence invites the most devoted of his lay followers --to also give up physical intimacy, he has laid a powerful claim on their lives. (Check the Lessons, where he states that ideal householders would raise their children to be celibate.) And the ripples from that central commitment to celibacy extend to many,many areas of existence beyond the merely sexual, with profound emotional, social, psychological and physical consequences. These consequences are far better understood and written about now – at least in the West -- than they were in Yogananda’s day. But just cruising through the Walrus board gives one a pretty good idea of what it means for a man or woman to take a vow of celibacy, possibly for decades, and then end up in “the world” – that nasty place we were all supposed to avoid -- feeling betrayed, lied to, used, and abused. Not to mention being on the receiving end of the contemptuous disapproval of the above-it-all authority figures one was desperately trying to emulate, and the cold shoulders that are turned by a lot of “disappointed” lay members when the natural and healthy need for intimate human connection finally shakes one loose from the loopy thought that loving another person is somehow antithetical to “seeking God.” So – the damage that may be caused by a celibate lifestyle can be seen both in the sour, cramped souls like Anandamoy and Ananda Mata (who is now out of the picture due to Alzheimer’s, which one can only hope was the cause of some of her more outrageous abusiveness over the years) still in the ashram, and in the “walking wounded” who left but are still in recovery from their SRF experience. Sure, celibacy can also help create a calmer, quieter inner world, but so would spending twelve hours a day floating in an isolation tank. And anyway, who says we’re here to all be calm and quiet? A look at some of Yogananda’s letters (compiled by Durga Ma and published against SRF’s wishes) suggests he spent a lot of his time in a state of high agitation over chronic money shortages, a problem frequently self-created (as he admitted) due to his rather helter-skelter approach to spending large donations. Obviously, whether or not to choose a celibate lifestyle is a large issue, and going into the pros and cons isn’t my intention here. Rather, I want to address the HIGHLY RELEVANT issue of Yogananda’s possible sexual liason(s). Musicman, your initial reaction to all this was right on. I was almost sorry to see you pull back and start to rationalize (or maybe just deal with the pain). But I do understand. However, my own life-shattering knowledge about SRF holy men who take off their pants and then lie about it (while simultaneously slandering the woman, a la Clinton) has forever ended my ability to go through mental contortions that might preserve a comforting belief system. Surely that belief system has gotta go, folks, if Yogananda did indeed take advantage of the faith and trust and devotion and obedience the women and young girls who surrounded him so loyally gave him. I was once a glassy-eyed cult ninny of the first order, but eventually – after an embarrassingly long time, in fact – reason reasserted itself in the face of self-serving monastic lies, betrayal, and cold-hearted soul murder. I feel for those of you who are willing to overlook even the most egregious betrayal of trust at the highest level; but let’s face it, the fact that Faye Wright has spent over thirty years living in daily upper-middle-class comfort far from the madding crowd pales in comparison with the very real likelihood that Param(a)hansa Yogananda was sampling plenty of earthly delights while whipping his devotees for the smallest human frailties. One final thought: the way top monastics – both direct disciples – reacted to repeated reports that Brother Arjunananda was, as stated in the first New Times article in 1999, having a protracted sexual relationship is a clue that they had seen it all before and if their guru was doing it, it must be alright to turn a blind eye.
gray beard Unregistered User (12/4/01 8:24 pm) Reply	What does it mean? Xinsider, Very good questions. I asked myself this upon reading the first NTLA article with original allegations. At first it just blew my mind, how preposterous! Master? No way! Then I read the article again and again with the result my inner resolve began to crumble. And I finally came to the crucible. Maybe, just maybe, he did have sexual relations with Mr. Erksine's mother. O how sad I was. Crushed, completely crushed. How could this be? He had 'killed Yogananda long ago." He was a complete renunciate, effortlessly battling the well-known snares of sexual enticement that has captured many lesser 'guru's' in the recent past. Completely liberated: An Avatara!! But SRF has been so secretive. They have put out a lawsuit contract upon Kriyananda destroying him with his sexual escapades (to their complete disgrace I say, no matter K's behavior). So the closet at SRF is empty. Nothing in there. But I believed the story. How angry I was, lashing out on various boards for SRF to come clean, stop messing with our lives and tell all. More reflective devotee's helped me to see, through their posts, that yes, SRF is full of secrets but that doesn't mean my relationship with the Guru is over or altered. Unconditional love, that's what he promised as I did. Not perfection, and I'm trying to understand that he doesn't expect perfection of me either. What I'm trying to say is I will be totally surprised if this turns out to be true. But I will always follow, practice, and attune myself to Yoganandaji as my guru, wholeheartedly and unreservedly. Until my inner guru arises to tell me different, he is my path through his teachings. Peace
oldtimer Unregistered User (12/5/01 8:04 am) Reply	Keep in mind... Not going to get in to the discussion of "did he or didn't he?" What I do want to point out is that the behavior of the SRF leadership tells you nothing. You can use none of the usual reasoning or deductive tools one would normally use to infer an unspoken reality from public words and actions. I say this from many, many years of direct involvement with these specific individuals. So, for example, in any other context, the pattern of lying and deception would lead me, also, to conclude there is a indeed something to hide. What you have to understand is that they only know how to lie. This is not an exaggeration. They do not know how to interact in a normal, human way. This is the sad paradox of the deep, deep dysfunction: where there is no problem, their own pathological behavior creates, on its own and out of nothing, the very problem they imagine they are preventing. This pattern has been repeated for as long as I have known SRF. Sadly, this behavior is so pervasive and so powerfully associated with "the teachings" and with PY that it is difficult to separate them. FWIW, I'll share my own conclusion and way of dealing: There is no reason to think this message and this avatar and the historical development of the "work" in the outer world should be any different from all previous messages. Any institution or organized activity that follows is flawed. There will be true, sincere disciples that come after and are "channels," though they will not call themselves such. (St. Anthony, St. Francis, St. Teresa, for example.) They don't come that often. While they are not here, there is such a large body of spiritual teaching, from every tradition, that it isn't difficult to figure out how one should act, and what a life "on the path" is like. And God is there for each of us, if we open ourselves to her/him. The rest is foolishness.
In Recovery Unregistered User (12/5/01 9:24 pm) Reply	Rigiditananda Dear Rigiditananda, I'm confused with your reply. I quote you saying: "I was mostly presenting a fact which happens to somewhat contradict your idea that we could improve our relationship with Master through this issue." But you are basing much of your argument on "what ifs," i.e., what if it is proven inconclusively that Master had a child. Also, you are reasoning that if he DID have a child, then he was capable of sexually abusing his female disciples. I say this is a HUGE leap in reasoning. Do you have children? And if so, does that make you a prime candidate for committing sexual abuse on some trusting minor? Later on in your reply, you say that hard evidence is most important and that all else is mere speculation. I'm finding it difficult to understand where you're coming from.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (12/6/01 2:13 am) Reply	To stay grounded Dear "in Recovery" I think it is better we keep it simple: We need hard evidence here -- that is the only true thing. Like you say, and I said it too, the rest is speculation. It can be with more bases or less, but still it is speculation. So, let us wait for hard data. And we deserve to have it, after so many years in SRF. So, let us hope that SRF will clear our Guru's name, asap. In the mean time I keep cultivating my relationship with my Guru. At this stage, jumping to conclusions could be deadly to that relationship -- and I value it. In that line of thinking I appreciate very much your thoughts "oldtimer." It is interesting to think that if the nuns are acting in a paranoid way -- which seems to be a habit there -- they are creating a problem where in fact there is none. Very insightful! Rigiditananda
KS Registered User (12/6/01 7:49 am) Reply	incompetence The bad ladies see everything with such fear and paranoia, and they handle things with such incompetence, that they do create problems out of thin air. The place could be so wonderful. It could be such a blessing to be involved with them. Hundreds of loving caring people have come to them to help either as monastics or employees. With this overwhelming good will to start with they have managed to turn it into the disappointing abusive place we know it to be, turning away all these people coming to them to help. No matter how you define it, that has to be incompetence. This “father” situation won’t be the last they fumble and it wasn’t the first.
Gray beard Registered User (12/7/01 5:16 pm) Reply	The Hard Evidence? How will the board allow this 'hard evidence' to become public. Through a press release, or a spokesman? A statement from the president to be read at the services and mailed to the members? I just can't see how that would happen. To do so would acknowledge the issue, thereby creating more questions of long-ago lawsuits and charges from former devotee's. I can't understand how that would play out to SRF's favor, a prime factor for their motivation it seems from reading these posts. I, for one, hope that this 'hard evidence' isn't released to the devotee's the way the last 'evidence' was, Michael Flynn esq. threatening a lawsuit and 'protecting the reputation' of Master in a stormy, bombastic letter posted on the anti-@#%$ website. Any comments from those who've worked with the braintrust?

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: