Response to an email received by the SRF WALRUS - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Life on the Inside > Response to an email received by the SRF WALRUS
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
srfwalrus ezOP (4/20/02 9:43 pm) Reply	Response to an email received by the SRF WALRUS Open response to an email I received……… Thanks for the email. It is certainly different than most we get, but all views are welcome. Please feel free to debate any of these points on the board itself. We long ago decided to just let the board drift where it would, so there are certainly views of all kinds I will admit to that! To address your specific points. The board does not have "one" identity. It does not claim to present all opinions or represent all devotees, monastics, or ex-monastics. People should also realize that some devotees, monastics, ex-devotees, and ex-monastics do agree with the negative views expressed about the organization (not Master). That side of the debate has been hidden a long long time from the membership. Sorry about your experiencing nausea when reading the Walrus board, I feel the same way. Probably because I believe many of the negative stories, but it is still nausea. Sorry to offend the reputation of the current SRF leadership. I do think their actions are shameful. I also disagree that they were given Master's spiritual mantle but I understand that SRF has told you that. Where would we be without all their service to the organization? I too wonder where we would be, but again, probably for different reasons. "Isn't being a monastic or a householder a completely irrelevant issue?" Yes, it is completely irrelevant. "Don't you think there is a good chance that these people [monastics who have left] would have had very similar problems had they remained in society?" Actually, no I don't think they would have. The ashram is a closed environment which proposes to be something good and caring and kind. People come to it openly and give up their lives to serve it. They are then mistreated. I believe the ashram environment is much more abusive than the outside society. "Again, a spirit of honesty is a good thing. But it should be a positive and uplifting honesty; not one that attracts the skunks." Honesty is honesty. The things that happened happened. If SRF is ashamed of them they should be. They have done their best to hide them from the membership and we feel it is time for a little honesty. Edited by: srfwalrus at: 4/20/02 9:45:43 pm
motlom Registered User (4/23/02 5:48 am) Reply	Re: Response to an email received by the SRF WALRUS *Quote:* "Again, a spirit of honesty is a good thing. But it should be a positive and uplifting honesty..." I love this! When I'm honest, am I being positive or negative? Or am I simply telling the truth? Vernon Howard wrote something in 50 Ways to See Through People that I think is pertinent: *Quote:* "Some students of human nature are reluctant about exposing falseness and weakness in others. They think they should not see so much badness. The opposite is right. You should and must know all about hurtful human behavior, for only exposure of the wrong can invite the right. The real peril is to not see things as they are, for delusion is dangerous to the deluded. Believing that a shark is a dolphin is both foolish and unnecessary. When a wise man sees a shark he knows it is a shark. Since when is it wrong to see right?" Chief Brody, after spotting a fin from the beach, exclaimed in Jaws, "Get out of the water now!"
AumBoy Registered User (4/24/02 1:03 pm) Reply ezSupporter	Re: Response to an email received by the SRF WALRUS Motlom, I agree with what you pointed out in that quote. *Quote:* "Again, a spirit of honesty is a good thing. But it should be a positive and uplifting honesty..." On a website devoted to bringing out the descrepancies with 9/11, one person wrote something to the effect: "I can't believe you would post this information in a time that we need to stand united as a nation." Oh, really? Is it time for orwellian Newspeak? Or politically correct (read: "social marxism") speech in all levels of society? Do we only speak the good truth as opposed to the bad truth? I thought it was, simply, Truth? I could be wrong. (Oh, and for those of you who might wonder what some of those descrepancies are: 19 hijackers died, right? How come 7 are alive and well in foreign countries?) Some of you may have heard that Dr. James Dobson encouraged parents to take their children out of public schools in California, followed by Dr. Laura Schlesinger, and many others. Well, I'm assuming that in keeping with "spirit of honesty" (whatever that means) and only informing people of "positive and uplifting [things]", this person would unthinkingly endorse the following: New Jersey recently adopted a new set of history standards for New Jersey high schools dealing with American history which will now fail to mention the names of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson. Furthermore, "war" ("honest", but obviously not "positive" or "uplifting") had been removed from the textbooks and in its place we have the word "conflict," (feeling better?) and there would be no discussion of wars. I guess the American Revolution never really happened. It was simply a “conflict” between the Colonies and the Crown. What’s next? Replace “conflict” with “disagreement”, “Colonies” with “camp sites”, "Crown" with "Hat"? History has been cleaned up, yet again. The Walrus forum messages may conflict with the "sensibilities" of some people and may force them to rethink their comfort zone which most are comfortable in. So what do most people do who are pushed out of their comfort zones? Go back. Similar to what Bro. Anandamoy says on one of the tapes regarding the perfect sculpture in the marble block. Big chunks come off? People glue them back on! Someplace on the board is a thread containing a quote from, if I remember correctly, Mukti Mata. Apparently in a satsang "difficult" questions were asked, which Mukti Ma answered them. After the satsang, one person asked Mukti Ma if the questions were appropriate. She replied, "If they were one their minds, then they were important." (Not a direct quote. Did not locate the thread.) So, are we to assume based on criteria that truth only be "positive and uplifting" that there are taboo subjects and thoughts and questions? Would the individual that wrote the email know what is "appropriate" and what is not? Is there a list we could read? Who writes the list? "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" uh-oh...
redpurusha Registered User (4/26/02 10:33 am) Reply	Re: Response to an email received by the SRF WALRUS Aumboy, I missed your posts on the 9/11 discrepencies, you say there are 7 hijackers alive and well in other countries? I'm sure your aware that the 9/11 hijackers, almost all of them, used several if not dozens of aliases/different names, this fact alone could explain how can there be people of the same names alive and well today in foreign countries. Don't you think? Also, do you know if Atta is one of those alive today? because if he is, then the public needs to know and he shouldn't be allowed to run around free. But I doubt he survived the crash into the towers considering he was the pilot and there's video of him getting on board. Also, what other main discrepencies have you noticed?
AumBoy Registered User (4/28/02 11:03 am) Reply ezSupporter	Re: Response to an email received by the SRF WALRUS "Positive and uplifting honesty" (paraphrased) is somewhere in the Lessons or SRF writings. Does anyone know where the exact quote is and the context of the quote? Also, RedPurusha, I'll post some 9/11 "issues" in the CatchAll section.

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Life on the Inside -

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