science versus religion - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > SRF Teachings and Ideals > science versus religion
Page 1 2	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
gardendiva Registered User (10/4/02 7:28 pm) Reply	yes, a catalyst... Gitano... I had also thought the at least there is a little bit more life around here since Fernsy's provacative posts!! Username.... I hope you read this. I wasn't able to send a private message to you, in response to yours. Please send another message to me, including your e-mail address!!
Lobo Registered User (10/4/02 8:40 pm) Reply	Re: science versus religion Laughing Devotee, Thank you for the news regarding Vishwananda's activities. I didn't know anything about that, but I am impressed by what you report of his analysis. That is a hopeful start, a breath of fresh air, at the very least a hint of the possiblity of new things to come. And as the bearer of such important news I humbly thank you!
Lobo Registered User (10/4/02 8:57 pm) Reply	Re: science versus religion Dear SRF LA, In regards to the earlier Precepta Lessons (pre 1935?). On another website I asked Anil Nerode directly if those were exclusively the work of Yogananda; or were they also of his father's and other minister's teachings? He replied that they were Yogananda, his father's, and others as well. He seemed to indicate that these are the Lessons that Amrita produces and sells. If that is so, then are the later SRF Lessons (those now mailed out to the members) exclusively Yogananda's, if you know? Thanks
member108 Registered User (10/4/02 9:55 pm) Reply	Vishwananda If true about Vishwananda this is very interesting news about what he may have said. Many monastics and employees have been seriously burned for saying the same things. Some have suffered greatly at the hands of SRF as a result. I wonder how he thinks a community with that kind of baggage can just call it even, claim to have changed and then move on? Words are cheap. What about the dead and suffering? Was it just training? Does his aim to right SRF’s ship include seeking out those they have hurt over the years and at least apologizing? I think not. Their courage and desire for change does not extend that far. Their humility doesn’t extend that far either. The bad ladies are just letting him run with this to attempt to repair their image. They know they are getting a lot of bad air time and feel, rightly so, that the membership will accept words of love and harmony once again instead of real progress. People are gullible. For that matter, will he publicly appoloize to the membership for what they have done to Master's teachings? I sure hope that this rumor is true. Can anyone confirm something like that was actually done? Any other details? It will be interesting to watch this.
X Insider Registered User (10/5/02 10:23 am) Reply	Re: the Vishwananda talk I would like to know more details about this supposed talk, such as when, to whom, etc. Every now and then devotees seem to get starry eyed over Bro. Vishwananda and every now and then he tells a devotee that he really, really, sincerely, wants to make SRF "better." But those who know him see him as one-pointedly devoted to the wishes of Daya Ma. What she says goes, and one can only imagine her tears and pleas to him to "keep Master's work pure," to keep SRF strong as steel inside ... Brother is also widely known for being chronically exhausted, and plugging into this line of the cult thinking (burn the body on the fire of service) pretty much guarantees you would not be able to think for yourself, even if you wanted to. So, unless I find contrary evidence, I would have to concur that this talk was damage control, some kind of spin. It was not so long ago that Daya Ma and Mrinalini Ma reacted with swift and unequivocal denial (save the lip service) to the revelation that there were real problems in the ashram and SRF. And this propelled many away. What in God's name could have possibly changed the BOD now? Nothing. And Vishwananda reveres them totally.
wholetruth Registered User (10/5/02 11:08 am) Reply	Re: Vishwananda There will no meaningful change within SRF until all the senior board members have left this world. The "iron ladies" of SRF are incapable of changing course. It would be easier for the sun and moon to change places in the sky. It might take the reincarnation of Yogananda himself to set things right. He did say he was coming back. That's what Bhaktananda used to tell us--something like "taking a seat in the back of the temple" or as a businessman. Does anyone recall? Edited by: wholetruth at: 10/5/02 11:11:22 am
username Registered User (10/5/02 6:44 pm) Reply	Re: the Vishwananda talk I can think of one thing that would make them change. A DNA test that doesn't come out the way they want.
chuckle chela Registered User (10/6/02 12:29 am) Reply	Re: Vishwananda I wasn't at the meeting, and I'm just reporting what I was told. Here's what I have (and I have no idea how complete it is): The meetings (there were several, evidently) were held in days around Sept. 20th (I don't know how many meetings or on what exact dates). Monastics, lay members, and employees were invited. Vishwananda outlined some of the history of the past decade (rapid growth which resulted in many screw ups because monastics ended up doing things for which they had no training. Lots of in-house fighting, etc. etc.). He admitted that the spirit of the work, the "only love" spirit, had been lost and needed to be restored. He spent some time outlining all the problems with administration; essentially, it was ineffective, counterproductive, and resulted in a lot of problems. Mrinalini Mata had evidently told him there was no road map; his response was to say, "There's no road in sight!" He felt there was a window of opportunity to change things for the better. He admitted this was a huge undertaking. Evidently, he outlined some details of administrative changes (who was going to be doing what), but I don't have these details. He pointed out he had spent the last several months talking with as many renunciants and others as he could. Some, including some monastics, told him things were too far gone. Evidently he stressed that he wanted open communication. He promised that problems and grievances would be addressed. He asked for patience, saying that the fundamental changes were going to take time, that the first focus would be to re-structure the internal operations at Mother Center. That's what I've got. I can't vouch for accuracy, since I wasn't there. Someone else will need to verify these notes. The person who conveyed these points felt it was a sincere effort to try and turn things around; evidently he fielded a lot of rather pointed questions. Spin and window dressing? Will it work? I can't answer either of these questions, obviously. Time will tell. Those of you who have responded, particularly those who've "been there," can answer better than I can. Moreover, I think you all raise valid and important points. If he doesn't have the support of the senior nuns, then his efforts are fraught with difficulty at best, and doomed at worst (and any battle, should it prove serious, could wipe out SRF altogether, I would think). Maybe he is just a stage guy, set out there to make things look good. And why would there be a change of heart now? Good question. I've heard from one person that there's been pressure from a number of the monks. One monastic admitted to me that the problems were indeed serious, that there were many more who wanted to leave but chose to stay, and that questions were being asked. I have no idea to what degree, if any, this might have been an influence, so all of Vishwananda's stuff might be, as you guys suggest, just spin. It will be interesting to see how much openness actually manifests. In that spirit of openness, how does one confess faults before members who don't have a clue about what's been happening, and who still think the leaders are perfect? How does one avoid seriously fracturing the entire membership? As member 108 so rightly asked, how do they apologize (and I think they must)? How does one apologize to someone who's been badly burned and has lost a job or monastic vocation or had their heart ripped out? How do they explain how all this mess came about? Indeed, how does one explain? I've heard the "this all resulted from rapid growth in the 90s" explanation more than once. But any thinking member is going to say, "But why weren't you prepared? What was it in the make up of those leading the work that allowed such problems to develop?" Will the spirit of openness allow such questions, and will it allow a genuine spirit of inquiry to lead to places where people might fear treading? It seems to me that serious questions are going to need to be answered, if SRF is to learn from its errors and get on track. Even more, serious changes at many levels (which will be tough to pull off) will be needed. I just can't shake off wholetruth's assertion that things aren't going to change until a lot of ascension ceremonies have taken place.
srflongago Registered User (10/6/02 2:58 pm) Reply	Re: Vishwananda and then what? Perhaps it is an appropriate time to suggest what SRF could do to make itself again into the flagship Western institution for Yoga. This is intended to start a discussion. Of course, we have no influence, but why not be positive? We would all prefer striving toward an ideal world. 1) SRF should drop its doctrinal insistence on the Uniqueness of Yogananda, and treat him instead as one of a pantheon of those who have sought the same goals based on the Gita. Recent figures include Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and Lahiri, the spiritual father of the Kriya tradition that was the basis of Yogananda's accomplishments. 2) SRF should encourage all forms of advancement in physical, intellectual, and spiritual powers, whether obtained from other schools or from books. 3)SRF should encourage understanding the whole historical background of all branches of Yoga, of Kriya in particular, and its own history as well. 4) SRF should encourage its members to evaluate the spiritual advancement of all its teachers for themselves, and to pay attention only to those who demonstrate in person by living example their spiritual stature. Those who emphasize ritual as opposed to spirit would fall by the wayside. 5) SRF should welcome those of all religions into its non-religious folds. Kriya Yoga is compatible with all religions. 5) SRF should encourage membership by householders such as were Black, Lewis, and Warnack in the old days. 6) SRF should replace its Board of Directors by outside householder members of the same character as Black, Lewis. Like Enron and Worldcom, SRF suffers from self-perpetuating leadership with a direct conflict of interest Their way of life depends on maintaining control over the organization. The Board should hire administrators and handle all finances and all external activities, such as evaluating and using law firms. 7) Nuns and Monks should have no administrative positions. They should be devoted to attaining the unity of self with universal consciousness. Desire for, and exercise of, power distract them from their road to enlightenment as stated by all the classic sources from which Kriya Yoga was developed, back to the Gita. So this possibility should be removed as an earthly temptation. Edited by: srflongago at: 10/6/02 4:18:16 pm
X Insider Registered User (10/7/02 4:50 am) Reply	Re: Chuckle Chela's post Thanks for the post. After reading this and hearing more about Vishwananda and the latest musical chairs game otherwise known as changes in the SRF management committee, it all falls into place. The same old place. The problems are due to rapid growth in the 1990's? Repeat that over to yourselves, folks. Now say it once again. How many more ways can you spell denial? If anyone out there believes that sanity is prevailing at Mother Center, I would invite you to move in for awhile or get a job there, so you too can watch the wheel go round and round again and again. Nothing more can be said, at least by this voice. I think it is time to retire. All you folks with ideas about SRF's bright future can have at it without me around to rain on your parade. I don't have the stomach to daydream a better world for that organization. The smell of reality is too much with me.
Gitano no divino Registered User (10/7/02 7:32 am) Reply	Re: Vishwananda and then what? It is significant that Vishwananda convened a meeting, not to get feedback and allow people a safe forum in which to present their grievances and suggestions, but rather to tell everyone how things were and how they were going to be (hopefully) in the future. Here, of course, is the nub of the problem: elitist monastic authoritarianism. Although I agree completely with srflongago's prescriptions, I find myself feeling X Insider's cynicism. The more things change in SRF, the more they stay the same. This reminds me of the recent problems in the Boston archdiocese. Some people there believe that Bernard Law should be allowed to carry on as archbishop so that he can have a chance to set things right. "After all," the reasoning goes, "the problems erupted on his watch, and he should be allowed to solve them." That he had decades to solve them and did nothing until put before the klieg lights of public scrutiny casts doubt on his capacity for reform. The same is true here with Vishwananda. Only now that SRF is hemorrhaging monastics, members and--MONEY--is the administration getting serious about reform. It may well be too little, too late. There is another dimension to this. Vishwananda is undoubtedly devoted to the senior matas. But his admission about the sorry state of SRF sheds a very negative light on their leadership, which in turn casts doubt on their stature as enlightened beings in a state of cosmic consciousness and perfect attunement with the disembodied avatar. This in turn, as I have said ad nauseam, should cause us to examine in a critical way the teacher and teachings that produced all of this in the first place. Once one comprehends this chain of causation, the notion that the problems arose only in the 1990s is laughably absurd. (There was a brilliant post by Chuckle last year analyzing the subscription statistics for SRF Magazine. Subscriptions have not increased in thirty years--they're at the same level today as they were in the early 70s! What "rapid growth"?) Srflongago is absolutely right: SRF's ONLY hope for salvation is to get lay members involved in a meaningful way, and give them real power within the organization. I might also add that the only way people in hell will get any real relief is for a cold front to move in. By definition, that ain't gonna happen. PS Didn't someone post on here last year that Vishwananda stated at Convocation that SRF was "squeaky clean" and that the next generation of monastic leaders would carry on in the tradition of Daya Mata et al.? If true, he's done something of a volte face. Or perhaps, as he did with New Times LA in the matter of Daya Mata's million-dollar pad in the burbs, he was LYING. Or maybe he was telling the truth and is lying now. Maybe he was always telling the truth but doesn't know his anus from a hole in the ground. Or maybe he's a pathological liar. Maybe I need an aspirin . . . Tylenol? . . . no, make that a Valium, and quick, before Vishwananda convenes another meeting! Edited by: Gitano no divino at: 10/8/02 8:34:58 am
A voice in the supermarket Registered User (10/7/02 10:08 am) Reply	Re: science versus religion Hey Fernsy, You wrote: ------------------------------- "To the rationalists dismissing things they have not seen or heard as absurd just because they don't seem likely or even possible in their own conception: maybe a little bit of humility, a little bit of wonder, a little bit of faith?" - Fernsy ------------------------------- You rightly said above, if I interpret you right, that in the science versus religion debate, humility is a boon, and so is wisdom (implied). There are many sorts of religion, though. Here is a saying that speaks volumes: "I am a Millionaire. That's my religion." - George Bernard Shaw. It has to be considered. It deserves that. When it comes to science, we have the testimony of notables like Werner von Braun on it: "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." And the above shows to me that - ah - there is room for nuances. CONFORM HUMILITY MAY BE VERY OVERRATED What people like to call humility is often the outward garb of merely social, strategical calculations. That is not much worth compared to sincerity and perhaps plain dealings as well, in my socially calculated humble opinion. Yes, I poke fun here. Books about Mulla Nasrudin - Hodja Nasreddin in some versions - throw some more light on the value of friskness against conformity pressures. I think that where calls for humility smell of demands for conformity, those involved may not have progressed a bit. Sincerity is good, however. We also have the American notion that "Luck is better than science." It is a proverb. Another is: "It matters not what religion an ill man is of." Still another is the telling: "Twin fools, one doubts nothing, the other, everything." I trust these clean, Amerian proverbs may enlarge the horizon still more. There is much to be said for faith too, and guessing is not exactly it. Hence we should "Put no faith in tale bearers." I have to presume that that is not the faith you call for either. As for me, I find this to be good, "Open your eyes to the facts." ------------------------------- "Do you . . . distrust your friends when they do something for which you can see no immediate rational explanation, or claim to have done something which you think unlikely?" - Fernsy ------------------------------- That would depend on what their claims were. See a story: -------------------- John Cremony was a famous Western figure. He told one story of a desperate flight from pursuing Indians. "I had a fine horse and managed to keep far enough ahead so their arrows couldn't reach me. I picked 'em off until my last cartridge was gone. Then I headed up a canyon. It ended in a sheer wall. I was trapped like a rat with a dozen Apaches closing in on me. And me without as much as a penknife to defend myself." "What happened, Colonel?" someone in his audience would invariably ask. "Why, they killed me! Damn them, sir, they killed me!" ---------------------------- To "wise up" in this context, is stop believing in the yarn. ---------------------------- "Wise up - you'll have to eventually. In God," - Fernsy ---------------------------- Yes, aren't you! Lots of good will to you from A voice in the supermarket
chuckle chela Registered User (10/8/02 4:29 pm) Reply	Re: Chuckle Chela's post I think X Insider is right. Time will tell, but it may be that Vishwananda is responding to calls for changes from some monks and employees. He will do what he can but the senior nuns and some of the senior monks probably aren't going to change. Net result: same old, same old. I was surprised to see that Vishwananda had done a mea culpa (because last year he was insisting that SRF "knew what it was doing"), but, as X Insider points out, in blaming the "growth" of the last decade, he's avoiding the real issues. The "growth" isn't to blame, it's the leadership and the culture that has been established. As X Insider suggests, you can get a job at MC to find out for yourself, or, far more easily, read Merton's Contemplation in a World of Action . See what he says about renewal; he doesn't pull any punches. All the good ideas for change that we've proposed are, as X Insider insists, a waste of time. Without the fundamental changes, all the rest are meaningless and won't solve the problems. A question for X Insider (or anyone else who might know) regarding "growth." One area where there was real growth in the 80s-90s was in the amount of office space, particularly that used by the nuns. We had the construction of the membership services building, and now it has been outgrown. A friend who worked there said that initially she had lots of space around her desk. By last year, it was crowded and cramped. What the heck do all these nuns and employees do in there, anyway? Maybe there's been some growth in membership numbers in Europe and South America, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of growth Stateside (indeed, the numbers are flat at best, and probably show negative growth, as evidenced by mag. subscriptions and Convo attendance). So, what kind of growth was there? Growth of paper pushers? Growth of micromanaging everything in finer and finer detail? Growth of ambitious projects and plans? Growth in the number of counselors answering letters? Nah, it can't be that since it still takes three months to get a response.
X Insider Registered User (10/8/02 9:28 pm) Reply	Re: science versus religion What do they do in those buildings? They constantly reconnoiter, that's what. It gives the illusion of actually doing something. Imagine if you will, a population of workers convinced that they are serving a world mission of vital importance, the religion of the new age. Every new crisis, whether born of incompetence in management or actual necessity, provides the adrenaline to keep things moving. Their isolation prevents them from seeing any greater reality, so they just keep on, from crisis to crisis, working non-stop and exulting in the dharma of it all. And remember this, Gitano, when you ask if poor Vishwananda is simply lying: There are no lies if Daya Mata says there is no lie. After years in the ashram, one is trained to disregard conventional reality and conventional morality. As has been stated on this board, "the work" is above all that. And as long as one is in that environment, nothing will convince one otherwise, even the reality of perjury in a court of law. This is all just my humble opinion, of course ... I am not accusing any particular individual of anything heinous. Edited by: X Insider at: 10/9/02 5:25:27 am
wholetruth Registered User (10/9/02 7:18 am) Reply	Re: science versus religion X Insider: I would have to agree with you that only Daya Mata's version of reality and morality matters in SRF (and before that it was Tara Mata's, which set the tone and direction for the Daya era, as her intellect and forcefulness must have easily dominated all the others), and it bears no resemblance to conventional reality and morality. I don't believe that those who serve under her, like Vishwananda, even have a clue what the truth might be. That's why SRF is in such a deep hole. Even when she and all the original Matas are gone, how will SRF be able to destroy all the myths that have been created and that the vast majority of the membership has blissfully and enthusiastically believed? What and who would be left? Edited by: wholetruth at: 10/9/02 10:01:55 am
srflongago Registered User (10/9/02 10:59 am) Reply	Re: science versus religion Do rememebr what happened when Russia collapsed. Radical changes, such as the death of a dictator or economic collapse, create instability, but also opportunity for change. All the totalitarian regimes of eastern Europe collapsed. Some became democratic, like Poland. Some degenerated into petty tyrannies and wars, as in former Yugoslavia.

Page 1 2

<< 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 - SRF Teachings and Ideals -

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