Fear fear fear - www.ezboard.com

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Core Issues > Fear fear fear
Page 1 2 3	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Spi Unregistered User (10/16/01 7:25 am) Reply	Fear fear fear When all the smoke clears, and the side issues are cleared off the table, what the heck is it that the bad ladies are afraid of?
rigidityananda Unregistered User (10/31/01 1:14 am) Reply	Fear of Contamination They are affraid of the teachings becoming "contaminated" by other ideas like the inner self acceptance Raja Begum talks about. But, because such pardoxical approach to feeling control is so effective, and becoming more and more popular, I do not know how they will succeed. I understand their fears in the light that they sincerely believe it is their reponsibility to keep the teachings pure, but this rigidity may backfire you know.
rotten Unregistered User (10/31/01 1:26 am) Reply	Rigidity and fear I agree with Rigidityananda. Above all, they fear "contamination" of the teachings, But, fear is a magnet and self-defeats itself. By the way, I really liked your name! In regard to mine for those who may be curious it means, according to Webster's, "morally corrupted."
Spi Unregistered User (10/31/01 6:23 am) Reply	Where is link? I don't see the link between the contamination of the teachings and their abusive behavior, the distain for employees, the lack of organization, the wasteful practices, etc... They treated Dr. Lewis' wife, after he passed away, with such calousness! How did that protect the teachings? They hold down pay raises for employees. How does that protect the teachings? You see the stuff on this board. on and on
Raja Begum Unregistered User (10/31/01 11:52 am) Reply	Reasons why HTML Comments are not allowed [From SRFWALRUS: I am not sure what causes the above error message. I believe if you cut and past into here from an HTML editor you may see this problem. Use Word or Notepad to create your text then cut/paste it in. Please repost, you always have good thought provoking ideas!] Edited by: srfwalrus at: 11/1/01 7:15:21 am
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (10/31/01 10:56 pm) Reply	Fear Dear SPI Perhaps we have to separate between how people are treated (or mistreated) by the organization and the issues underlying that. The issues you mention are quite important and interesting, and always very sad and puzzling for me. In my modest understanding however, still they are symptoms. The causes I think have to do with THE TEACHINGS! There are elements in the teachings, and in the way the teachings are being "protected from contamination" that are responsible for the interpersonal difficulties you have described. If the teachings promote rigidity, or the way they have been presented to us promote rigidity, then, such rigidity will affect our interpersonal relationships. It is our philosophy of life, our core belief system, what determines how we get along with others and not viceversa. For example, if we believe that to move forward in life, or to find God, we got to be "tough", and we have contempt for diplomacy and empathy, it will deeply reflect in how we treat others. You can see in the monastic philosophy how they believe in toughness, and have contempt for being vulnerable. Our beliefs are very powerful. They control our lives, and, unfortunately, the act mostly "from the shadows. " Our deepest beliefs are silent, subconscious, for the most part. Greetings to you, and thanks for answering my message -- Rigiditananda (I hope some day find Ananda by following the path of rigidity, because by making me sick all over it is showing me the importance of being flexible).
Pragmatic Unregistered User (11/1/01 2:14 am) Reply	The Teachings Are Sacred Rigiditananda is now shooting at the teachings. We didn't have this before. This is too much for me! The teachings, the Lessons were written by an Avatar -- no less. They can't be wrong! And they are wonderful. In my opinion Rigiditananda, you have a serious EGO problem. If you think you know how the teachings should be, you should create a successful organization like SRF and teach everyone how to live life with your crazy, "flexible", ideas. Do not come here to shoot arrows to the SRF teachings. Edited by: srfwalrus at: 11/1/01 7:00:00 am
srfwalrus ezOP (11/1/01 6:09 am) Reply	Re: The Teachings Are Sacred I edited the above post to take out a personal attack. This board is about SRF, change, and discussing our experiences, not about attacking each other for sharing opinions. We are of course, criticizing SRF Management, but they are fair game due to the position they have put themselves in. I agree with Pragmatic that the teachings, especially those thoughts outlined in Master’s new Gita interpretation, are wonderful and complete. I also agree with Rigidananda that the dogma and interpretation by the current leadership is flawed. He is right about the attitude toward taking “training” and being tough and it is a core problem. In any case, I think the discussion is great. Let’s explore ALL ideas but leave the emotional attacks on each other’s ideas off the board.
Jaded Unregistered User (11/1/01 8:45 am) Reply	The teachings This is a core issue. Sorry, Pragmatic, but the Lessons were not written by an avatar. They were compiled, many different times, over the years by different students. Mrinalini has worked to revise them, and we have been told (by her and by Daya) that they are done, but still no one sees them. And this is the core issue: is the current leadership living according to Master's teachings? If you insist that every action by every agent of SRF is a direct manifestation of God's will, in a different way than every event being part of God's will, then, yes, you will see many attacks on "the teachings" on this board. You should probably stay away.
Shadowman Unregistered User (11/1/01 12:08 pm) Reply	Prove it My concern is, if you continue to criticize the SRF leadership without moving towards an examination of causes, you may end up giving the impression that you are basically in this to smear former employers, supervisors, and heads of the organization for personal reasons. First off, very few have substantiated their complaints. From the angle of an outside member, it doesn't put you in a favorable light if you liberally toss around terms like "abusive" and "bad ladies" but keep us in the dark about the details. With this tack, you set yourselves up to be percieved as complainers (Labels are subjective judgments. What one considers abusive, another might deem tolerable), OR others may wonder if you are using them to fuel a personal vendetta. The last possibility is the one that worries me the most. Playing people off one another by spreading misinformation or exaggerated information may be one way to deal with imbalances of power, but it is a soul-corrupting endeavor. If the intention of this board is to reach out and inform members outside the SRF work environment of real problems then you are working at cross purposes when you critically label without substantiation and then respond to those requesting proof that you either can't give it (because it would jeopardize your identity) or you don't see the need to prove a point to someone who didn't work or live there. IF YOU MAKE AN ACCUSATION, YOU CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
Musicman Unregistered User (11/1/01 4:25 pm) Reply	Infallibility I admire, even envy, Pragmatic's passionate conviction that the teachings are complete and perfect, because they emanated from an infallible source. The Catholic Church has promulgated a similar idea for some time, and it's called the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The Pope is supposedly incapable of error in all matters of doctrine and faith. This is one of several reasons why I am not now and never have been a member of the Catholic Party, er, I mean, Church. Look, this is an imperfect world, and even avatars can slip up. The teachings are no invitation to check our discriminative intellects at the door and passively absorb everything they say. They need updating, and some things are undoubtedly suspect. For instance, ideas about the health benefits of sunbathing have changed in the last few decades now that we know more about the definite link between UV and melanoma. Some of the attitudes they express about marriage, gender roles, and sexual conduct seem rather quaint, even irrelevant, these days. I was dismayed many years ago to discover that there are fundamentalist SRFers, just as there are fundamentalists in every other religion. "Every word of scripture is literally true," etc., etc. This may be comforting, but it's false. God gave us a brain intending for us to USE it. History is full of examples of what happens when people let someone else do their thinking for them. Our species has survived as long as it has precisely because of our ability to adjust and adapt what we have learned to new conditions. We learn from the teachings, but we have to adapt those lessons to our own experience and circumstances. There is no one-size-fits-all set of teachings, and there is no infallibility. And there is no unitary, universally accepted interpretation of any set of religious teachings, including those of SRF. Besides, as others have capably pointed out, the "teachings" did not emanate solely from Master. Like so many scriptures, including the Koran and Bible, they were a group effort and reflect multiple authorship. I was thinking recently how I, like thousands of others, got into SRF by reading the AY. And like many others, I was surprised and a little disappointed to see that the lessons were not written at all in that same engaging style. They are prosaic by comparison (even the AY is largely indebted to the literary gifts of Laurie Pratt, aka Tara Mata). How many of you have had the experience of asking two different monastics the same question and getting two radically different answers? I remember years ago listening to Bro. Turiyananda expatiate on the evils of the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark, how we shouldn't see it because it was too violent. I mentioned this to Bro. Achalananda the next day, and he snorted contemptuously at the very idea. He thought it was a great movie, and especially enjoyed the scene where Harrison Ford casually shoots his sword-wielding opponent. Two people, both steeped in the same set of teachings over several decades, had completely different interpretations of the movie's merits. So, to the fundamentalists I say, "Nuts. You're going to have to think for yourself, whether you like it or not." That's the, uh-huh, uh-huh, God likes it, uh-huh, uh-huh.
Concrete Unregistered User (11/1/01 7:51 pm) Reply	DOUBT, BELIEF, AND FAITH DOUBT, BELIEF, AND FAITH Transcript of talk by Paramahansa Yogananda; Circa early 1930's. From "Journey to Self-Realization", page 300. Everything in the Lord's creation has some specific utility. All matter, however insignificant, has a particular purpose and effect. This is true also in regard to the thoughts or sentiments that present themselves to our consciousness and then pass away. We little know what effect such notions produce in us, or in what lies their utility for which reason they were created within us. If you think of a piece of copper, you know its usefulness. But when you consider a single thought, what is its utility? Analyze that query. As the world is composed of atoms and molecules, so the inner being, the nature or character of a person, is composed of "atoms and molecules" of thoughts. If you wish to understand the quality of your inner light, trace the growth of every thought and in the balance of your judgment weigh its relative utility. (Big article deleted... people can read the book! SRFWalrus) Edited by: srfwalrus at: 11/18/01 1:57:11 pm
oldtimer Unregistered User (11/1/01 8:42 pm) Reply	Copyright Concrete, do you have permission from the Mother Center at Los Angeles, California to post on a public internet site copyrighted material? This is exactly how the pure teachings of a world avatar can be corrupted. How do we know your entire posting is an accurate one? In fact, I would like to know where you got this text. It doesn't look like you keyed it in manually, word by word. Are you scanning the printed material, against the copyright? Are you downloading it from some non-SRF site? What do you think the SRF-authorities would think? Or....could it be?.....no, I'm just an intellectual, what could I possibly know? It would be paranoid and foolish to think you are a member of the organization, and so have easy access to all the works in electronic form, and are deliberately trying to discredit and destroy this forum. Shame on me for being so nasty.
Concrete Unregistered User (11/1/01 9:18 pm) Reply	oldtimer Your forgiven oldtimer. Blessings, Concrete
Concrete Unregistered User (11/1/01 9:35 pm) Reply	The "SRF lessons" Dear Brothers and Sisters, The SRF Lessons are a four year correspondence course compiled under Paramahansa Yogananda's supervision from his writings and lectures. They form the core of teachings that students and disciples follow. Yogananda had said: "When I am gone the SRF Lessons will be the Guru." Paramahansa Yogananda: "Every student of Self-Realization-of all centers everywhere-who wishes to attain final emancipation, should be connected with the Self-Realization Fellowship headquarters directly by taking the priceless Self-Realization lessons.... the blind cannot lead the blind. Only a true guru can lead the devotee." Paramahansa Yogananda, public meeting in 1948, quoted in SRF magazine, Spring, 1986, pg.60. "These lessons are not to be considered as ordinary correspondence course lessons, for they are impregnated with the spirit of great Masters. If you study them with reverence and deep attention, along with the practice of deep meditation, you will be in touch with the divine link of our Masters, and will be lifted into the kingdom of Cosmic Consciousness." SRF Lessons, 1956 copyright, K-19, pg. 3,4. "The Lessons must be considered a portal leading one to the Infinite." SRF Lessons, 1956 copyright, K-19, pg. 4. "...It is much easier to reach God through the link of true masters with whom you are connected as a member of the Self-Realization Fellowship." SRF Praecepta Lessons, K-17, pg. 3. (MORE DELETED LIKE THE ABOVE -- SRF Walrus) Edited by: srfwalrus at: 11/18/01 1:58:59 pm
Crog Unregistered User (11/1/01 10:36 pm) Reply	Bad Ladies Concrete, Please print out your messages and send them to: Bad Ladies Self-Realization Fellowship 3880 San Rafael Ave Los Angeles, Ca 90065 Sign it or not, that is up to you.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (11/2/01 12:35 am) Reply	The Teachings Dear Pragmatic and Concrete I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings by questioning the teachings. I can see that you were quite upset with my message. But please forgive me; I insist in my theory that there are problems in the teachings. With my respect to your beliefs: I agree with Pragmatic that the teachings are sacred and wonderful. If I were young and at the beginning of my path I would sign for the Lessons again -- despite all the limitations that I see in the lessons. They are wonderful teachings brought to earth by an Avatar, but I agree with musicman that even avatars make mistakes and Master made many. This of course does not take one iota from His divinity. Without having to deny his falibility or fanatically defend his infalibility, I can have greater faith in him. Examples of outdated or dangerous materials in the teachings: 1) The nutritional advice in the Lessons is dangerous. The Kriya Lessons reads in two places: "eat very little or no meat at all, and never eat beef or pork." No good, affective nutritionist could agree today with such an over-generalization and reckless advice for the general public. Yes, the vegetarian diet is a great ideal, but we better approach it carefully or we can badly hurt ourselves. Many of my SRF friends were hurt by their abrupt change to vegetarianism and had to go back to eating meat. Master told DR.. Lewis to eat meat. Why? Because, as He said, DR. Lewis could die if he didn't! I suspect with solid basis today, that becoming a vegetarian for some of us may take several lifetimes. Other nutritional advises in the Lessons are also questionable; and definitely wrong when offered to everyone indiscriminately. 2) The way the meditation posture is presented in the Lesson to meet the crucial second step of Patanjali (assana) is a hazard to the devotees's meditation efforts and spiritual development. The excessive emphasis on straight "military" posture, ends up for most being at the expenses of relaxation. No deep relaxation is possible while obsessing about a straight spine, chest out, chin parallel to the floor, stomach in. But the way the Lesson 3A is written is an invitation to obsess about these things for years. 3) Above all, the psychology embedded in the teachings is not healthy. No psychologist in his senses could ever agree to such dangerous approach to mental purification. There is a clear abssence of self-acceptance and an obsessive emphasis on self-control. This imbalance leads most people to low self-esteem and depression -- or worse mental pathologies However, I agree that the techniques and devotion to the Ultimate Goal are wonderful. So, SRF would improve its image and results by staying focus in these two areas, and humbly suggesting devotees to get information about the rest in other sources -- professional sources! To that goal it would be a must to REMOVE most the written material in reference to diet, modernize the psychological parlance used in the lessons and books, and teach students effective methods to relax the body at the beginning of meditation. This is my humble advice to the BOD after more than 20 years in the path. (If anyone can bring them this message I thank him/her in advance.) Dear Pragmatic and Concrete. Considering the content of your messages, I suspect I have more gray hair than you both have together, so I will allow myself the "egotistical priviledge" to give you a humble advice: Follow the teachings enthusiatically, but not blindly. Do not discard your feelings and thoughts as worthless. Do not let other people think for you. Believe me, you will pay a horrible price -- I’m still paying it! And, I deserve it! For years I didn’t listen to God. He humbly and silently talks to us, directly, through our feelings and thoguhts, and secondarily through lessons, books, talks, and couselors Love to you both -- Rigiditananda Note: Thanks ezboard op. for editing pragmatist "personal" attack (which I’m sure it was just a reflection of his/her youth and religious zeal.) I think it is a must we all avoid such low class behaviors. I have read attacks here at this ezbord, that are really a shame, especcially when they are a direct or indirect threat to reveal someone's true identity. The individual we are threatening may in fact be an SRF employee or even a monk! Especcially sad I found Mr. Jonathan Ward’s case, who I think deserves an apology he hasn’t recieved yet. You may like to open a new subject at the main page -- "Are the Teachings Safe?" Thanks for keeping this wonderful debate alive.
Shadowman Unregistered User (11/2/01 12:37 am) Reply	RE: "Doubt, Belief and Faith" article "Everything in the Lord's creation has some specific utility. All matter, however insignificant, has a particular purpose and effect. This is true also in regard to the thoughts or sentiments that present themselves to our consciousness and then pass away. We little know what effect such notions produce in us, or in what lies their utility for which reason they were created within us. If you think of a piece of copper, you know its usefulness. But when you consider a single thought, what is its utility? Analyze that query......" Blah Blah Blah .... Aw Guruji .... shut up! Will ya? YOU THINK TOO MUCH
Musicman Unregistered User (11/2/01 10:30 am) Reply	Sacrosanctity of the Teachings I can't help noticing that the fundamentalists participating in this thread have resorted to arguments that weren't arguments at all. What they did is what fundamentalists usually do, i.e., they cited someone else's ideas and words because they have precious few of their own. They have made the conscious decision to let someone else do all their thinking for them, and when pressed to express an opinion, all they can do is resort to quotation. This is known as the fallacy of the argument from (or appeal to) authority. The teachings, we learn, are "definite and scientific." How come they seem to breed fallacious, unscientific responses like these? "Truth" may not be afraid of questions, but it apparently resorts to stonewalling, fallacy, and evasion in response to them. If we take the "definite and scientific" claim at face value, then we have to have the moral courage to recognize the obvious: teachings need revision over time. The world is in constant flux, and things change. I have known for many years, however, that this is profoundly frightening to people who want pat, unambiguous answers to all of life's problems. Such individuals need someone out there to have all the answers all the time and never to be wrong. This has always struck me as immature. It's the stance an infant adopts towards a parent. There comes a time when the maturing child lurches in the opposite direction and rebels, but the fully mature adult neither sees nor expects to find perfection. We simply accept others, and ourselves, as we are as a basis for improvement. This applies to the guru, too. Is there any other stance that is really healthy?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (11/2/01 12:54 pm) Reply	Thanks again Musicman SRF Fundamentalists!! Yeck! We already have enough fundamentalists in this world! No one need stone another with quotes from the SRF teachings. Those who do betray an intense immaturity. Thanks, Musicman, for your -- as always -- articulate responses. Countless are the ways the SRF organization and lifestyle threaten to keep us in an infantilized state. Your comment about people going into SRF wanting simple answers to complex problems underscores my contention. Sure, God is simple. But life isn't, and God isn't afraid of facing life. How can we expect to be "one with God" while being too afraid to face life with all its enigmas? I don't see a whit of expansion in a fundamentalist viewpoint. All I see is contraction, rigidity and fear. I agree that the SRF teachings require revision. Surely Guruji founded the teachings on universal principles, but he spoke in the vernacular of the times --- which is already almost a century ago. You'd think Guruji just spewed every brilliant idea infallibly out of his spiritual eye like the Oracle at Delphi. But he didn't. He relied on the ideas of his time. And, on the anvil of his brain, with help from his intuition, he forged a system for us to utilize in our search for God. Case in point: The Energization Exercises were inspired by a book Guruji was reading in 1916 by a German physiologist name Miller. The idea of developing good muscle tone through concentration was Miller's idea, not Yogananda's. Guruji frequently borrowed from his contemporaries. Before publishing the AY he consulted Evans Wentz, who was an expert on presenting Oriental ideas to the Occident mind. Guruji was as much a man of his time as he was a man out of time. His use of contemporary information implies that he would always be the type to borrow the best ideas available in the present context. The underlying principles need not change. The vernacular, however, must and shall.
Rigiditananda Unregistered User (11/2/01 1:15 pm) Reply	Are the Teachings Safe? Dear Ezboard op. I want to formally request to you to open a new subject at the main menu: "Are the teachings safe? We got to move to the root causes. If you want people like Raja Begum, Shadowman, and myself, and others that we plan to bring to the debate, to continue participating, we need space to discuss deep, deep issues. The root causes of SRF problems are in the Teachings -- nowhere else! It may be painful for many of us to face it, because still we want to believe in Master's infallibility, but denial is not a choice anymore. And, we need to learn to love Master with his falibility! Even avatars make mistakes, and yes, their teachings become outdated. Were this not true, God would have sent ONLY ONE AVATAR AT THE BEGINNING OF TIME AND NEVER COME BACK AGAIN. However, He keeps coming and coming. Master left only 50 years ago, but during these "few" years, science, technology and and most especially social sciences have brought to humanity the most powerful paradigm shift in 3.000 years! It is not Master's fault, it is just the way it is. I'm sure the SRF BOD hardly know this, because they read little of psychology, science, technology and spirituallity (Aside from the strict SRF paradigm.) They keep thinking most things are like in 1950. But the truth of the matter is that this 50 years left our techings outdated in many, many crucial subjects. Not the essence, but very important aspects like advises on nutrition, marriage, couples relationship, and most especcially the psychology embeded in the teachings which is completely outdated. Furthermore, the advice contained in the Lessons on how to nourish the body, how to purify the mind psychologically, and how to relate to your partner are not considered safe today -- NOT TO MENTION THE HOW TO RELATE TO YOURSELF. We can see the effects as we learn of nuns with bulimia, monks with suicidal depresssion, and devotees with nutritional deficiences. SRF still gets away giving this unsafe advice to thousands, and reklessly plan to expand it to millions! However, this is unthinkable with the present state of affairs. This cannot last. Today, any professional who gives dangerous advice to their client or patient is liable. Unless SRF becomes much more cautious and takes appropriate meassures, it is not difficult to foresee that many will soon sue for serious damages to their lives. It is very easy to prove in court, lessons in hand, that many advises given in those lessons are dangerous for the devotee. Thanks in advance, and feel free to use this message to initiate that new subject in the home page Thanks -- Rigiditananda

Page 1 2 3

<< 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: