>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > SRF Teachings and Ideals
        > Cold Cold Heart: Tara Mata's influence on SRF 		New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Author Comment
Raja Begum
Unregistered User
(11/24/01 2:23 pm)
Reply 		Cold Cold Heart: Tara Mata's influence on SRF
Tara Mata has been set aside for separate discussion because her temperament is distinctly different from the other Matas. Her influence is to be felt all throughout SRF, and today it is indelibly suffused with the published works of our Guru -- after all, she was his chief editor for many years.

I am also curious if Ananda Mata fits into the same category. Hard to tell since she's very invisible to the public.

According to the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Tara Mata would be an INTJ (I = introverted, N = abstact thinker, T = tough-minded, J = judgmental / result oriented)

The INTJ is what Keirsey calls "The Mastermind" -- a subtype of the Rationals. Individuals with this typology strive to become the power behind the throne. They are strategic in their thinking and not very empathic as human beings. They can put an ideal an ideology or a system above human needs. Their keen analytical abillities make them masters at spotting blemishes and glitches in a system which they take great pleasure in correcting, And they are experts at bending words to fit their agenda.

Note that they also lack empathy for others. People who cannot make the grade are considered useless. They can often harbor an arrogant disdain for the common man and for common human problems. Do we have any reason to believe any of these attitudes made it into the SRF lessons?
Or, more subtly, do you think the lessons and teachings were skewed in favor one class of individuals over another? [hint: monastics vs. householders]


KEIRSEY QUOTED:

"The way Rationals reach their objective of maximizing efficiency in systems is by analyzing systems in search of inefficiency, which is to say, they look for error in the order or in the organization of systems."

"They can become single-minded at times, which can be a weakness in their careers, for by focusing so tightly on their own pursuits they can ignore the points of view and wishes of others."

"...because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they drive themselves, they often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy. Their fellow workers often feel as if a Mastermind can see right through them, and often believe that they find them wanting. This tendency of people to feel transparent, and even incompetent, in their presence often results in working relationships which have some psychological distance. Colleagues may describe INTJ's as unemotional and, at times, cold and dispassionate, when in truth they are merely taking the goals of an institution seriously, and continually striving to achieve those goals.... indifference or criticism from their fellow workers does not particularly bother Masterminds, if they believe that they are right. All in all, they make dedicated, loyal employees whose loyalties are directed toward the system, rather than toward individuals within the system. As the people in an institution come and go, these NT's have little difficulty getting on with their jobs."

"Masterminds are certain that both internal and external consistency are indispensible in the well-run organization..."

"In general, Masterminds rely on their head and not their heart to make these choices, and at times, therefore, they may appear cold and calculating. Even in more casual situations the may appear cold and may neglect to observe small rituals designed to put others at their ease.

"They have a strong need for privacy"

"Above all else, Rationals want to be coherent in their arguments, and so they try to make certain that each phrase and clause advances the argument, introducing nothing that doesn't logically belong, and leaving out nothing that is logically required. This style produces carefully crafted communications..."

"The basis of coherence in Rational though and speech is deductive inference....While we cannot observe deductive thought,...we can observe the language that makes it possible. Defining words to limit their usage is a deductive process, so too is arranging words in logical order to control coherence, and so too is choosing words to control shades of meaning. Thus the coherence, reference, arrangements, and choice of words tend to be done deductively by Rationals."

"Rationals are unsually exacting about definitions....they assume that their distinctions enable them to control arguments and, it might be added, enterprises. The way Rationals see it, whoever controls categories, controls useful operations."

"Many Rationals are dictionary readers, even specialty dictionaries..."

"[They] also tend to enjoy playing with words"


Raja Begum
Unregistered User
(11/24/01 4:55 pm)
Reply 		Down with being human --- Tara shows us how
Again Keirsey writes...
Quote:
"Making matters worse, Rationals tend to ratchet up their standards of achievement, setting the bar at the level of their greatest success, so that anything less than their best is judged as mediocre. The hard-won triumph becomes the new standard of what is merely acceptable, and ordinary achievements are now viewed as falling short of the mark. [Rationals] never give themselves a break from this escalating level of achievement, and so constant self-doubt and a niggling sense of impending failure are their lot."


This ought to prove that, with Tara Mata, a Rational, as editor and compiler of our Guru's message, the teachings now reflect a high degree of black and white / either or type thinking. I am convinced -- and so are others -- that the SRF lessons and publications have an elitist tone to them: they favor monastics over householders, they have contempt for the common human nature -- its foibles and problems, there is a great deal of contempt for the world, and they are always asking us to be "on" and perfect at all times. There is always the sense that unrealized man is lowlife who is lazy and not too smart. That would mean every new member of SRF!! Not a great way to help the newcomers develop a sense of dignity!!

No doubt Tara Mata zeroed in on the portion of Guruji's message that appealed to her and therefore was the one she believed should be followed by everyone else.

Musicman
Unregistered User
(11/29/01 3:00 pm)
Reply 		Bingo
From what I have read and heard, Raja's description of Tara Mata (so-called) is right on the money. This throws into even sharper relief, however, her OWN foibles, especially, if true, her having had a child out of wedlock. One can forgive or overlook most moral lapses, but when they are papered over with holier-than-thou deceptions, it's time to expose the naked emperor. Where else will that happen, if not on this board?!

mangomoy
Unregistered User
(12/11/01 10:03 am)
Reply 		Tara Mata
Yes, Musicman. It is true. Laurie Pratt (maiden name Beauvais), later called Tara Mata, took monastic vows in 1937. Later she had an illegitimate daughter named Mona Pratt on June 20, 1938 in Los Angeles county, while serving as SRF editor.

I wonder who was tenderly mothering baby Mona while Laurie strutted around in her ochre renunciant's robe, savoring her power as editor-in-chief? I'd guess that Laurie wasn't a very nurturing mommy to her little baby.

However, this was all played out in front of Master, and today SRF pushes the "lore" that Tara Mata, the pontificating, ham-handed blowhard of a writer (in the early SRF magazines), was something special.

XInsider
Unregistered User
(12/11/01 12:15 pm)
Reply 		Facts on Tara Mata?
If her maiden name was Beauvais, what is her connection (referred to in other parts of this board) to the well known Mormon Pratts? Also, what evidence does anyone have about what kind of mother she was? Only her daughter could testify to that.

And what leads you to believe, Mangomoy, that she was "strutting around in ochre robes." As far as I know, no one was wearing the ochre saris until many years later.

I do not doubt that Tara Mata had her faults, as we all do, but I am offended by the "yellow journalism" style of your post. I suppose it is inevitable, but it would be nice if this site did not become another tabloid.

KS
Registered User
(12/11/01 12:27 pm)
Reply 		keeping on track
I second the Xinsider comments. I believe the mata’s all took their titles after Master left. The dress codes, the focus on the monastic order, all the people taking all the vows, that all came after Master. The urge for sarcasm and exaggeration is a strong pull. Let’s identify it as such when we use it and keep this board from getting weird. The Board can’t help if it is unfair and just turns people off.

witness
Unregistered User
(12/11/01 3:45 pm)
Reply 		Falling Through the Cracks
Musicman raised this legitimate question above:

"One can forgive or overlook most moral lapses, but when they are papered over with holier-than-thou deceptions, it's time to expose the naked emperor. Where else will that happen, if not on this board?!"

But as so often seems to happen, no one seems to pay much attention to edgy comments like this one. Similarly, and I suppose understandably, the posts are often more concerned with personal issues like struggles over meditation practice or how to hold on to one's faith in the guru than with taking a long hard look at SRF as what is has become -- a highly secretive cult whose members are still receiving appeals for money, and/or working for low wages, while remaining completely in the dark about the financial abuses that are draining tens of millions from the organization's coffers.
And then there are those troubling "moral lapses" that -- as noted above -- have been "papered over with holier-than-thou deceptions." For years I was told, just like you, that intercourse outside of marriage is contrary to Yogananda's teachings. So Laurie Pratt's child is simply not discussed, especially by anyone in a robe. As I've stated before elsewhere on this board, this kind of thing leads one -- at least it leads ME -- to wonder if this sweep-it-under-the-carpet approach to sexual matters involving those in positions of authority was either condoned by Yogananda, or even more unpalatable to consider, directly linked to his own lifestyle.
How, and please, please will someone answer this post -- how can one simultaneously hold the thought that Yogananda was an avatar, a perfected being, one with Godhead, and that he personally betrayed his own teachings and, even worse, continued to represent himself as a celibate spiritual leader?
Isn't this a core question, which has far-ranging metaphysical implications? Such as, why do virtually all "spiritual leaders" have strict prohibitions about sexual behaviour, when so many have been revealed to have been secretly breaking their own rules? Why in the name of all that's holy don't they just tell their followers that it's a natural act in which they, like most other beings, enjoy?
One obvious answer is control. Inserting oneself into the bedrooms of the faithful, metaphorically speaking, is a powerful tool that can help ensure the most intimate bonding is between the guru figure and a follower, even if that follower is married. The list of highly regarded Eastern gurus who have been revealed to have had active sex with their devotees lives includes Swami Muktananda (see the extensive article in a November 1994 issue of The New Yorker); Swami Rama (founder of the Himalayan Institute, now deceased after being forced out of the US after damaging lawsuits); Muktananda's designated successor (until his sister Gurumai ousted him); the head of the Kripalu Yoga ashram on the East coast, whose followers spent years following his example of celibacy until he announced (just before some female devotees did) that he had been having sex all along -- the list is shockingly long, and includes some of the highly regarded Tibetan Buddhist leaders currently cutting such a swathe in America (the Dalia Lama has commented publicly on this).
And I won't even mention the Catholic Church.
So if Yogananda did, as now seems not only possible but provable, how can anyone who retains any common sense at all (something that is sorely tested if one has spent any time near the power players of SRF) overlook the fact that -- thank you, Musicman -- indeed, "it's time to expose the naked emperor."
I know, I know, a lot of you think, don't rush to judgment! So why aren't you close to the gates of Mother Center storming them, shouting "We demand a DNA test that conclusively clears our guru!" After all, Yogananda isn't in a body and can't do it himself.
Instead, it seems that this matter -- surely at the very heart of the of the guru-disciple relationship, and issues like abuse of trust, and truthfulness -- just gets lost in the soup of what monastic did or said what to whom, and how to restructure a viable personal life after staggering away from the train wreck that is the present-day organization.
Any thoughts? Anyone?

SRFWalrus: Edited at author's request.



Edited by: srfwalrus at: 12/11/01 6:53:29 pm
witness
Unregistered User
(12/11/01 4:01 pm)
Reply 		Sorting Out the Scoundrels -- Help, Walrus!
Walrus, please use a couple of your siddhis and help me correct an error in the above message I mistakenly wrote "Rama's designated successor (until his sister Gurumai ousted him)" when it should read "Muktananda's designated successor..."

What would we do without you? Then you can, with my blessing, delete this post.

P.S. Is there any other way to contact you?
[SRFWalrus: I have email. srfwalrus@lycos.com. I don't check it a lot. I don't check here a lot either until the last week. Posting here may be a good way unless it is a private message.]

Edited by: srfwalrus at: 12/11/01 6:57:05 pm
Gray beard
Registered User
(12/11/01 6:28 pm)
Reply 		Re: Falling Through the Cracks
Hello Witness,

That is a great post filled with good questions. I'm mainly interested in the one you posed regarding the validity of PY's 'Mastership', what some call avatar or others perfected being and the possible complete betrayal of all of that by the questions that've been raised as to his sexual life (celibate? yes or no?)

I've thought about this very question quite a bit lately, although I admit I'm no nearer to reaching a conclusion that I was when I first read that article in NTLA. But what I've been able to deduce is to follow the trail of the disciples who lived with him and knew him intimately. That is, would J.J. Lynn, who was after all a very well known multi-millionaire at a time of very few of them and who had much to lose from his association with anything Eastern (the 1930's for goodness sakes) both in terms of the world of business and respect from other's have risked everything to associate with someone who didn't practice the teachings he preached? Would he have allowed himself to be duped? Why did he stand by PY, even during the charges that were publicly made by Nerode? I think the answer is that he satisified himself that it was bunk, and that Yogananda was the real deal, and even if he did lose business and possibly the resultant respect that what Yogananda was, and what he offered was worth all of that and much more. Read Durgaji's book to see the trouble he went through with his wife and how he had to keep his association, the extent of it anyway, with PY from his business partners, particularly in the early 30's. Yet he stayed, if anything, becoming more and more involved with PY and his organization until, of course, he became its second president.

Read Brenda Lewis' book about her father and his early involvment with SY. How her mother didn't have the same view of this strange Indian man that her husband did, particuarly when he asked Dr. for money, money that came from their family budget and without any concrete plan for it's replacement. Yet Dr. gave it and more. He took on the hard work of starting and maintaining a Center in Boston, heading it for years and years, even during those Nerode allegations.

Well Durga herself was no fool. She'd been someone who had seen Yogananda's goodness in her own life, eventually giving her own to him, and it can be said to be truthful that she worked more closely, more personally, with him over the years than any other disciple. She knew everything, and yet when those allegations surfaced she never flinched. She became his sole confidant, his go-between for funds with Lynn, and I believe that if she'd seen him as a sex-crazed individual, or someone who was a fake she'd been on the first bus out.

I have to go but I think that's pretty close to my thinking these past few days. Will look for your reply to continue this important discussion.

Shanti

KS
Registered User
(12/11/01 7:44 pm)
Reply 		Falling through the cracks?
Musicman and Witness… Questions about the Laurie Pratt incident and the mystery child, and the possibility of Master fathering a child?

Faith. What a word. What does it mean? Where does it come from? I have posted a number of things on this board and I think I have shown myself enough for people to know I am not a bliss bunny.

I have had faith in people who have let me down. I was sure the mata’s were great beings at one point, but have seen some pretty disappointing stuff. Yet I can’t look at Master’s picture, or pick up an AY, without feeling something. I think Master is the real thing.

There are many explanations possible for those two events. Laurie Pratt may have had a baby and Master still kept her around. It is fairly politically incorrect to think that having a baby, even out of wedlock, is something you should be burned at the stake for. Besides, people were failing Master ALL THE TIME (look at the current batch of “loyal” disciples). We don’t have many facts on this Laurie issue and I don’t think her behavior reflects on Master anymore than Daya Mata’s does. It doesn’t mean that Master approved of the behavior or was part of it or lied about it.

Master a father? There are so many other possible explanations there is not much to debate on this subject. A woman gets pregnant by someone other than her husband and tells her family it was Master? Why not Elvis? The mailman? Someone else in the ashram? I can come up with several reasons someone might blame it on Master without too much hard thinking.

We can search through events in the 1930’s and blame a bunch of them on Master, but what is the point? I am not interested in tearing down Master. My faith in him, and the ideals that he expressed (and he was not the first or last to express them), do not depend on any human quality of his.

The “sweep-it-under-the-carpet approach” is what? We see the matas do it. We see politicians do it. It is a cowardly act. I see no evidence of Master acting cowardly in his life. He made mistakes, yes. Cowardly, no. Master was no coward. He didn’t do the “sweeping” we see today. If I had failed him, he would have taken me back and worked with me immediately. I feel sure of this. If Laurie had a baby, put it up for adoption, and wanted back in to help, he would have taken her back in. No question in my mind. He was not moving through life looking out for his image and reputation. He knew why he was here and how valuable a good image REALLY is. He knew. He really knew.

Just faith? I don’t think so. I think I know Master well enough to know what might have happened and what didn’t.

Just my opinion.

mangomoy
Unregistered User
(12/12/01 3:18 am)
Reply 		Tara Mata
Objection:
XInsider and KS, it's inappropriate of you both to have smeared my 11 Dec posting with your negatively loaded categoric labels like "yellow journalism", "tabloid", exaggeration", and "sarcasm." That's not the way to conduct an exchange of differing viewpoints.

The madien name:
According to "The California Department of Health Services Office of Health Information and Research vital Statistics Section"
(searchable at userdb.rootsweb.com/ca/bi...arch.cgi), the facts are that Laurie Pratt bore Mona Pratt in L.A. County on 20 Jun 1938, and it reports Laurie's maiden name as Beauvais.

I have no information about why the LA County records show Laurie's maiden name as Beauvais in connection with Mona's birth. Many possible explanations could be speculated, e.g.; Laurie might have mis-stated her maiden name to the folks who filed Mona's birth certificate, or it could be an error by LA County, or mabe Laurie Beauvais became Pratt via some early marriage that ended, or mabe Laurie was born Beauvais and adopted by Pratt, or . . .who knows? I have no factual info except the LA County records.

In regard to XInsider'squestion: "what is her connection ... to the well known Mormon Pratts?"...I don't know anything about that subject.

The kind of mother she was:
XInsider, you are correct that my comment on Laurie's degree along the nurturing scale was based on nothing more than my general association with all the other information about Laurie I've absorbed along the way during my 35yrs as an SRFer. Apologies.

The ochre robe:
Contrary to XInsider's comment that "...no one was wearing the ochre saris until many years later," the fact is that Tara Mata is shown wearing a sari, not street clothes in the photo linked below.

The photo is b&w, so I erred in assuming it is ochre. Apologies. I am a loyal SRFer, in absolutely no way involved with A n anda, and it honestly pains me to do this, but the only location I can find for Tara's photo wearing her sari is at their site, (you'll need to substitute an 'a' in place of the dash) www.a-anda.org/aplacecalleda-anda/power.html
[SRF Walrus: see photo on this page]

"Yellow journalism":
No, XInsider, you do not have a point in smearing my post with this label. I've read the old SRF magazines in which she really does pontificate all over the place, arrogating to herself the bombastic voice of theee planet's authoritative explainer of the yuga cycles, & other mattters. My 11 Dec comment about Laurie writing in a pontific style is valid, at least from my humble point of view.

"Exaggeration"
No, KS, my comments are not exaggeration. She really did have a baby after taking renunciant vows, she really did wear a sari, she really did write in a dry, heavy handed pedantic style, and there's nothing exaggerated or "yellow journalistic" about the point of view which I posted above on 11 Dec 01.

This subject isn't worth bantering further. I suggest that we let it pass.

Edited by: srfwalrus at: 10/19/03 6:29 am
Musicman
Unregistered User
(12/12/01 10:30 am)
Reply 		Healthy debate
This series of exchanges, at times heated, represents exactly the kind of healthy debate that would refresh and invigorate SRF, if it were allowed to take place openly. It will come as no surprise that I hugely enjoy posts like those of Witness and Mangomoy. Let's see if I've got this right: for 25 years I've been lied to, manipulated, brainwashed, and ceaselessly plied for donations to support programs, policies, and lifestyles that were concealed from public scrutiny because of the hypocrisy and incompetence they would expose, but I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE IN TO SARCASM? Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuse me! If ever a band of bandidos deserved a superheated blast of nuclear sarcasm, it's the Gang of Four on the Hill.

I've said from the beginning that Master is not sacrosanct in this whole affair. Indeed, he is THE source of everything we're discussing. He is the source of the SRF Nile. We are like the British explorers of the 19th century in search of that true source, crossing scorching deserts, limitless savannahs, and hacking our way through impenetrable jungles of obfuscation to reach it and see it for what it really is. This is exhausting labor, all the more painful because we once believed so sincerely the myths dispensed to us by the paternalistic pashas of SRF. I believe we can and should be excused for giving in to disgust and disillusionment on occasion.

I also think Tara Mata is fair game and should remain firmly in our sights. There is some confusion about her love child, though. Other posts and the 1999 New Times LA article put its birth in Pennsylvania. If her maiden name were Beauvais, it would suggest that she was at one time married to a Pratt. She herself was definitely of the Pratt tribe. It's possible that the birth accessed in the LA County records is not the right one. At any rate, there is little doubt that she had a child out of wedlock after having "renounced the world." That she did not leave the ashram in order to assume the role of full-time mother to that infant is also obvious--and damning, in my view, considering the moralizing tripe she loftily dispensed. I should also remark, while I'm on the subject (and here I'll really gore a few oxen), that she was the burbling font of every manner of pseudo-scientific, superstitious hogwash, bafflegab, and poppycock known to Oriental despotism. I was once informed at the print shop (by a monk) that she had proclaimed the "grand center" around which the sun revolves through the cycle of yugas to lie in the Pleiades constellation. I called the Griffith Observatory and was informed that the sun is headed AWAY from the Pleiades, and that at any rate that group of stars is at such a distance from us that a circumnavigation of it would require 24 MILLION years, not thousand. So much for little Laurie and her crystal ball. Don't get me started on $800 astrological bangles.

In any event, I would add to our intriguing list of swamified sexual abusers "Swami @#%$," Mr. Please-Give-Me-A-Backrub-With-Your-Clothes-Off. If you haven't read about his sexcapades, dial up the Rick Lake website so thoughtfully added to the Board recently (it features both New Times LA articles as well). Here's the question I have posed before, without receiving a satisfactory answer: can we not gauge the caliber of a teacher (by his own claim, God in the flesh and omniscient) by the quality of his students? I believe we must. Even if Yogananda was himself squeeky clean in all ethical and moral respects, how is it possible that his handpicked and personally trained disciples behave so abominably? Is it even remotely conceivable (and here I appear to be defending so-called Daya Mata, formerly known as Marie Antoinette, though I am not) that these problems only came into existence in 1952, or 1955? The argument has been advanced that we can dismiss the credibility of charges against Yoganada by virtue of the fact that he was surrounded by high-caliber disciples who wouldn't have tolerated any hanky-panky (assuming they knew about it). When I read some of the posts of "@#%$'s" followers, how they continue to believe in and follow him despite the overwhelming evidence of his moral failings and the cultish nature of @#%$, I am reminded that some people will insist on seeing only what they want to see--especially when they have invested large sums of money and time in the project. I don't say Yogananda is guilty of anything, but I say it's possible. We should persist in our quest for the source and not settle for more sops and pabulum.

Why am I not storming the gates of Mt. Washington, demanding answers to the question of paternity in l'affaire Erskine? Well, the fact that I live over 1500 miles away has something to do with it. But I agree that every opportunity should now be taken to embarrass SRF into exposing itself for what it has become, or perhaps always was--a cult, in the worst sense of that word.

Musicman
Unregistered User
(12/12/01 1:59 pm)
Reply 		Oooooops!
PS In the heat of creative passion (something oddly germane to the discussion here), I got the website wrong. Rick Lake is no one of consequence that I know. The correct address is www.rickcross.com.

Say, while I'm on the subject, I believe my idol Witness is British. The word naivety (used in a post elsewhere) is a British spelling of naiveté. This would also account for the extraordinary literary style of his/her postings, something more typical of them than of us colonials (though we boast some fine writers on this board).

I will without fail check out Hitch on the Dalai Lama, someone I had hoped was above the sordid muck and primal mud of conventional religiosity, even of the Eastern type.

peer345
Unregistered User
(12/12/01 2:46 pm)
Reply 		website address
try www.rickross.com

Rick Cross seems like a nice real estate guy tho!

Musicman
Unregistered User
(12/13/01 8:30 am)
Reply 		Oooooooooooooooops!!
Thank you, Peer345! I'm going to get that name right if it's the last thing I do!

Iam
Unregistered User
(1/25/02 11:38 am)
Reply 		Do you believe in Jesus?
"Here's the question I have posed before, without receiving a satisfactory answer: can we not gauge the caliber of a teacher (by his own claim, God in the flesh and omniscient) by the quality of his students? I believe we must. "

Do you believe in Jesus? and he had gather his 12 deciples to train them?

When Jesus hand picked his deciples all by himself to train, why did Judas betrayed him? As per your above statement, do you mean Jesus has betrayal tendency?

I don't think so. In either case it happened based on their past Karma (or actions).

Why did Jesus liberated a soul on cross next him who was a thief? As per your thery, was Jesus a thief or had qualities of thief?

I don't think so. He had forgiveness in him for he himself is God (or son of God, you may call).

How many of us really following teaching or preaches of Jesus and Yoganada in our lives?

Jesus had closely moved with a prostitute? Does it mean he had affaire with her? He had taken all souls who came to me and forgiven their sins.

Yoganada did the same. For he himself is the God realized soul. He wanted to show the path to other souls what he had realized.

If at all Yoganada wanted to have sex with women, does he need to US? He only saw the Divine Mother in women.

The guy (who claims to be Yoganada's son) ever asked his mother, who his real father was? Did his mother ever tell him the truth? No. She could not lie to her son as she lied to her husband.

rayuna
Registered User
(1/25/02 12:20 pm)
Reply 		Keirsey
Is there a "good" Keirsey type? They're all so negative.

Edited by: rayuna at: 1/25/02 12:20:41 pm
username
Registered User
(1/25/02 1:38 pm)
Reply 		Jesus
I don't mean to offend anyone but

If Jesus could forgive sins, could he then sin and forgive himself. Or is it - that the only way he could forgive sins was that he himself was without sin.

cjmagorian
Unregistered User
(1/25/02 6:02 pm)
Reply 		Jesus
Dear Username,

I don't know what the answer to part of your statement would be, but I read in the Bible where Jesus stated, "Don't call me good. Only one is good, God in heaven." I can find out where that is in the gospels, but to me it implies that he was not without sin. He was not perfect. A certain Swami told me that no one on earth is 100% perfect, that only God is perfect.

In Recovery
Unregistered User
(1/25/02 6:30 pm)
Reply 		Jesus and Forgiveness
I can only say that the longer I live, the more goofy things I do, and the more tolerant and forgiving I become of others' goofy behavior.

Gerald Jampolsky's book, "Love Is Letting Go of Fear" has a great quote, which goes: "The Love we give to others strengthens the Love we have for ourselves." I think this applies also to forgiveness.

Perhaps Jesus remembered enough of his past foul-ups, bleeps, and blunders (in present and past lives) that he was able to cut absolutely everyone some slack.

Free
Unregistered User
(2/11/02 9:45 pm)
Reply 		Tara Mata' behavior and speculations on why no correction
A couple of years ago a friend gave me a book he thought I should read because I was so serious about this Yogananda stuff. The book was by Roger Burke, published by his St. George Press, sort of his Autobiog. Sorry, don't remember the title. Roger was a monastic(?), living in LA in about 1960. Subsequently he went to Anandamoyi Ma, and later became an Eastern Orthodox monk. Now he has an unaffiliated Orthodox monastery in Nebraska.

As I recall he told the story about Tara Mata writing a book that was supposed to be in an Indian language. It was about to be printed in India when Don Walters/K arrived, on SRF business. He actually speaks Bengali, and I suppose speaks Hindi and reads Sanskrit. Anyway, he realized this book was just nonsense syllables and feared that it would reduce SRF's reputation in India. He insisted that Daya Mata actually come to India and so quashed that publication. I also recall a story about Tara Mata claiming that she had obtained cosmic consciousness before coming to SRF, and a story about being knocked into samadhi for 2 weeks at meeting Master, which I think was Tara Mata. All this must be checked, as I am going on memory.

According to Roger?s view it was this that led to K?s explusion. (And this seems to be possibly corroborated by the story that Tara Mata on her deathbed confessed ?Maybe I was too hard on K.?) I was surprised at this view because I had assumed it was his sexual escapades that have since been patiently not pointed out by SRF.

(BTW, Roger also tells of being told how Yogananda would scold people, but knowing this couldn?t be true of the loving guru of his heart, checking with the folks who ran the restaurant and having his suspicion confirmed. He also tells the story of giving a book on some yogic practise to a monastic, having the practise catch on and hearing of a ban on giving monastics books(!))

Anyway, perhaps some of you would like to look this book and this guy up?

Question. I wondered why Yogananda would allow someone who would be in the leadership and were behave this way. I would not question that a spiritual leader would accept someone in who had gotten in trouble in the past. But why allow a loose canon leader?

Any similarly, why would Daya Mata not deal with it? They eject others? What damage could be worse than a loose canon leader?

Now I have an hypothesis now that I have heard about Mona. Anybody know what the color of Mona?s skin was?

Of course I never knew this woman, and so have no axes to grind with her. Nor is it any joy to me to point out anyone?s foibles or shortcomings. (I forgive sins and yet perceive shortcomings.) Nor do I feel comfortable in speculation or conjecture, but I feel called upon to make probablistic conclustions. The point of telling you this is 1) it was instrumental to me in putting together the picture of the probable skeleton in the closet and 2) giving you another source for your considerations.

May she be blessed and also everyone else. She did her best. Let us do ours. We must see the truth, speak the truth, walk the truth ? as well as we can. TRUTH doesn?t change.
Namaste.

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving 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.