SRF has no social activities

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > SRF Teachings and Ideals > SRF has no social activities
Page 1 2 3	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
soulcircle Registered User (5/25/02 10:41 pm) Reply	Re: SRF has no social activities gardendiva, *Quote:* After all, is God any less present in someone who is not part of SRF? hmmmm By shutting people out who aren't devotees, do the people who do this push a part of themselves away, and delay a consciousness of oneness? By pushing people out of the ashram and lay people out of the good graces of the BOD for 47 years has Faye Wright kept divine mother consciousness at bay?! Edited by: soulcircle at: 5/25/02 10:42:15 pm
srflongago Registered User (6/26/02 4:03 pm) Reply	Re: Monasticism has always been an introverted activity Monasticism may be a traditionally introverted activity, but... Yogananda was in the early days extremely social, providing social gatherings which included insiders and outsiders, indeed cooking for them and entertaining them on the harmonium, either singing himself, or accompanying others. SRF after was very different.
Gitano no divino Registered User (6/27/02 12:04 pm) Reply	Re: Monasticism has always been an introverted activity This is a fascinating insight. At what point, then, did SRF change? Perhaps when it became SRF! When Master was here as an individual representative of a spiritual tradition, there was a different atmosphere, is that right? I've been thinking lately that despite my attacks on SRF, its leadership, and even PY, some of the finest people I know are SRF devotees (indeed, I'm married to one), and they continue to be among my closest friends. I'm coming to think more and more that it's this institutionalized monasticism that causes the problems (witness the Catholic Church). The autocratic control, elitist attitudes, and removal from ordinary society and the mainstream of modern life (though SRF monastics aren't all that removed) create an environment that is not conducive to healthy development, one in which changes cannot be made without overcoming the inertia and conservatism of entrenched authority. The only way to invigorate SRF would be to democratize the power structure and get lay members much more involved at the upper levels of administration. Fat chance that will happen. But maybe if things get bad enough (meaning, if they start to run out of cash) . . .
X Insider Registered User (6/27/02 5:39 pm) Reply	Re: Monasticism has always been an introverted activity Yes, only bankruptcy could ever stop the SRF machine. And Only Money, or the lack thereof, can every gain the attention of the ladies at the helm. It was only when it was brought to Uma Ma's attention that the medical bills were out of hand that anyone thought to ask if the monastics were ... happy. Otherwise, suffering is de riguer, so never mind. Poor Uma Ma may be unable to think independently at this point anyway. In my perception, there is behind the eyes only blind obedience, denial, and the memory of the person whom she feels loved her. Of course, most of her stories about Master lead one to wonder what her definition of love is. Gitano, you are not negative. Good Lord, you sound like a well-programmed SRF choirboy! Snap out it, man! Edited by: X Insider at: 7/1/02 9:44:15 pm
Gitano no divino Registered User (7/1/02 9:21 am) Reply	Re: Monasticism has always been an introverted activity Thanks, X Insider, I needed that. I love to read your posts, and they are the main reason I got back on this board. Only a person who's actually been there/done that vis-à-vis the ashram can speak with such authority. I must say, though, that reading the recent VL appeal upped my respect for SRF propagandists. I mean, to read that thing you would think everything is just totally okay on Mt. Washington. The way they spin the whole debacle with the master plan is just priceless. My wife and the members of our local group are still completely hoodwinked by SRF. And, yes, I've been programmed enough that I really don't want to tell them what I have learned from the Walrus (and what I know as the result of working for SRF and leaving near the temples for years). One part of me does not want to disturb their sleep, and the other part of me doesn't want to bang my head on a wall of denial. But the truth will out, and when it does, there will be a lot of tears. When I was accepted to enter the ashram over 20 years ago (I stopped short of going in once I got a better view of things), there was a considerable waiting list, and it often took years for someone to get in. I was pleased to read in another post that that list is history. They are running out of monastics, and once prospective monastics get downwind of this board and the testimony of X Insider and others, the situation will get desperate. So, money and slave labor are the oil that lubricates the SRF machinery, and we're in a position here to deny them both.
srflongago Registered User (7/2/02 3:43 am) Reply	Re: Monasticism has always been an introverted activity Reply to Gitano No Divano: Why did the social life end? Yogananda liked to be with people. He was always a social creature. He loved company. He was the centerpiece of conversation at the parties and dinners given in conjunction with his huge extremely well attended lectures around the country. In California and elsewhere he liked giving lectures with his friends. In the early days, the three honorary vice presidents of Yogoda, Yogi Hamid Bey,Br. Jotin (Premananda), and Sri Nerode, gave long series of higly advertised JOINT lectures with him. His immediate successor and financial sponsor Lynn did not share this social trait. He preferred an isolated existence on the seashore at Encinitas attended by Ma Durga (Florina Darling). The Encinitas retreat he bought and paid for as a gift to Yogananda. It appears that later management did not share this social trait with Yogananda either. I hope this helps explain that perceived lack of social life there is a function of who is in charge, not of philosophy or religion. Edited by: srflongago at: 7/2/02 3:45:59 am
Gitano no divino Registered User (7/3/02 10:05 am) Reply	Re: Monasticism has always been an introverted activity Brilliant, srflongago. These vistas of early SRF are very refreshing. For someone who declared that "solitude is the price of greatness," PY obviously enjoyed the company of fellow humans. Of course, one could argue that greatness was already his and he no longer needed solitude as much. But in the AY one sees that even in his youth he loved to surround himself with people, do things with others, and had many friends. Again, though, his monastic training was not like the training one gets in an SRF ashram. He had considerable freedom to come and go, get an education, see his family, etc. The rigid, autocratic, and very institutionalized sort of monasticism practiced by SRF (the word penitentiary comes to mind) seems out of step with the kind of thing he was reared on. And he had direct physical contact with his guru, something SRF monastics do not (DM could perhaps fill that void, but she seems contemptuous of most of the monastics and obviously prefers the suburbial airs of Sierra Madre). Lurking just behind your observations, however, is the suggestion that PY was also prone to narcissism, craving to be the center of attention and controlling others in the process. He was a natural-born leader, with all the strengths and weaknesses such people usually have. Then, too, he grew up in an upper-class household with servants waiting on him hand and foot. He enjoyed luxuries few Indians could afford, such as a motorcycle and expensive vacations (even to Japan) financed by dear old dad. This would have led naturally to a sense of social superiority and entitlement. Interestingly, his introverted successors (Lynn and Faye) had humbler origins and were not really social at all (Faye's shyness was painful, and Lynn withheld himself even from his own family). When one reads Durga Ma's book, it becomes clear that Lynn had a sense of his own superiority, in social station and intellect, but in contrast to PY, he acquired wealth and status not through birth but through dint of hard work and self-application. He was all business. Such individuals are often extremely self-contained and stoic, and they don't care to advertise their origins. Faye gained her station in ways that aren't entirely clear to me, but obviously some connivance and intrigue were involved once Rajarsi was out of the picture. The Mormon mafia on Mt. Washington moved quickly to fill the void and freeze Durga Ma (Rajarsi's Girl Friday) out of the action. However, I am struck by how often PY apparently discouraged among devotees just the sort of socializing he reveled in. On one of her videotapes, shot on the grounds at MC, DM relates how she was upbraided by PY for taking part in little popcorn parties after Friday-night meditations. The celebrations were not consistent with a serious search for God! Oh, well, if I could understand the ways of a Master, I would be one. I must say, though, that her audience on that occasion consisted entirely of lay people, and the net effect was to lay a guilt trip on them about harmless simple pleasures. She does say at the end of the story that this was part of a monastic's training and didn't necessarily apply to them. So what was the point of the story? To focus attention on the severity of her training and how Master was grooming her early on for her current role? That would seem to be the case. In fact, throughout her talk PY only appears in a supporting role as someone who helped her achieve greatness. She really does talk mostly about herself. So, despite the shyness, there was/is a person inside of her craving adulation and validation, not unlike her erstwhile teacher. I suppose both the shyness and the craving emanate from the same font of insecurity and fears of inadequacy (life script of Faye Wright: a shy little Mormon girl from Salt Lake, without the aid of a fancy college education or movie-star good looks, goes on to become a world-famous spiritual leader. Wealthy people and celebrities beat a path to her door just to take the dust of her feet. That’ll show ’em back home!). The need, then, for prominence is so great still that she just can't let go of the reins of power, can't step out of the limelight. Only death will get her offstage. Her repeated (ad nauseam) protestations that leadership holds no appeal for her and she never really wanted this job seem laughable. Faux humility is so tiresome. Naturally, this is not the way a devotee would be encouraged to look at the situation, but it's fun to speculate. By the way, if you’re not writing a book on SRF long ago, srflongago, I hope you will consider doing so. It would make for fascinating reading. Only a Walrus type could write such a book, so that it didn’t turn out as propagandistic, fairy-tale tripe, like Mejda.
gardendiva Registered User (7/3/02 10:40 am) Reply	socialize or no... Yes, I have made note at how ironic it seems that PY would be surrounded by people (especially after reading Kamala's book) in wonderful fellowship, going to the beach for picnics etc., yet the idea of solitude is so drummed into the mainstream membership of SRF. Gitano, your reference to the popcorn parties was very appropriate. I was thinking about DM, her aloofness, her dogged protectiveness of PY, perhaps to the point of deceiving the membership as to his true personality (who knows...I wasn't there) and the general unpleasant nature of the BOD, and had an idea. In the same way that one reason the pedophilia issue with Catholic priests may have something to do with the fact that they never had a chance to become emotionally mature (owing to entering training at such a young age), perhaps as well, the reason why DM is the way she is has something to do with entering into the ashram at such a young age. Think about it, she never had the opportunity to know herself and then coming under the guidance of such a forceful personality as PY, that would surely thwart any emotional growth that normally takes place from the teen years on into adulthood. And I suppose it might not only be true for DM, but also for those others who entered in the high school years. There is the whole dynamic of an authoritarian male and submissive females to consider as well. For years I would never have even considered such ideas. I was happy to swallow the line that those direct disciples were karmically bound to the Master and oh so much more superior than I spiritually, that this course for their lives was just natural. Now, I can't think that way anymore... Edited by: gardendiva at: 7/3/02 1:48:47 pm
Gitano no divino Registered User (7/3/02 11:39 am) Reply	Re: socialize or no... Whoa, gardendiva, that's a dimension I hadn't thought through. The earlier you get 'em, the easier it is to shape (warp) their personalities. DM, MM, and UM all came into the ashram as teens, if I recall correctly. It's hard to imagine a more forceful, charismatic personality than PY's, and he just swept them off their feet. Now they are the guardians of his estate. Brides of Yogananda! Their existence is so far removed from ours, it's no wonder there's such a huge gap. The authoritarian dynamic explains why male monastics didn't prosper under PY's direction, and why the females now exhibit the same authoritarian tendencies and marginalize the men when it comes to wielding authority.
wholetruth Registered User (7/3/02 6:21 pm) Reply	Re: socialize or no... I don't feel qualified to try and psychoanalyze Daya Mata so in the interest of fairness I have decided to go ahead and delete my comments and questions in this particular post. Edited by: wholetruth at: 7/15/02 12:58:28 pm
wholetruth Registered User (7/4/02 8:20 pm) Reply	Daya Mata Quite honestly, though, I don't really know her. Does anyone?
srflongago Registered User (7/5/02 4:34 am) Reply	Re: socialize or no... Faye and Richard Wright were well treated by Yogananda They were among the most useful and functioning members of his fellowship as respectively his personal secretary and his Mt Washington hotel manager. Richard rented rooms as advertised in their brochures and magazines to visitors at that time for income for the Fellowship, Faye typed letters and ran errands for Yogananda and was with him all the time. My opinion by observation is that Faye, Richard, Virginia were dominated by their mother, as were many others. The mother had left her spouse and brought all three with her to Mt Washington in the first place. I did not think she had interpersonal skills. She is rarely mentioned. Faye and Virginia and Florina (Ma Durga) were, contrary to a remark in one of the replies, all three very handsome young women. Ma Durga was a mature women escaping from an unsatisfactory marriage when she joined Yogananda. Her chosen path at Yogoda, like that of Kamala earlier, was to be a Yogoda minister. By 1933 Ma Durga listed as Florina Darling is on the rather short list of approved Yogoda teachers along with the likes of Jotin, Nerode, Hamid Bey, and Ranendra Das. None of the Wrights were on that list. All indications are that Yogananda was quite social till his death, although there were too many people involved in the fellowship for many to participate. Remember that he died at a huge banquet! Remonstrance for popcorn after meditation was quite clearly intended to indicate that meditation is not like work, where you entertain yourself after work. You should carry its effects with you, rather than relaxing as if the daily chores of meditation were done. Edited by: srflongago at: 7/5/02 7:14:53 am
gardendiva Registered User (7/5/02 9:44 am) Reply	Re: socialize or no... Okay, I realize that I'm going off topic here, but since aspects of Faye Wright have been mentioned, I'd like to take this a little further... Is it treating someone well, when you are humiliating them by putting dunce caps on their heads and dumping water on them from a second story window? These seem pretty harsh tactics to be used on a disciple. If someone is shy, couldn't there be more humane ways of bringing them out of their shell? The modern thinking in child psychology would say that you build up a child's sense of self to get them beyond shyness and able to deal with situations in their environment. Using humiliation seems to totally strip an individual of any sense of self, and I ask, how can one find God if they have lost their self? How can you feel the love of God if you don't love yourself? Now, I am pretty uneducated in the ways of spiritual masters. I can't really question the dynamics between a true guru and her/his disciple. So, perhaps I'm out of line in even bringing these issues up. But I do know basic human decency and that is what I'm basing my comments on. The subject of the Wright's mother is very interesting. I find it fascinating that the three siblings could be domineered by their mother, while living closely with PY. How could she have so much influence in such an environment? Did she not consider herself to be a disciple of Yogananda? And if she was a disciple, how could he ignore her dysfunctional tendencies? Was the Wright's presence at MW simply to serve as worker bees for the "work?" If so, it's difficult for me to justify the spreading of the teachings when individuals were living in dysfunctional circumstances under the nose of PY himself. How is that spiritual? Does the end justify the means? It's one thing now, when PY is gone, to see that the organization could be crumbling under the weight of deceit, decaying from the inside like a rotting apple. But to think that families such as the Wrights lived with PY and worked hard for him, and he never intervened when their mother might be exerting cruel and unkind force in their lives and the lives of others! What kind of spiritual master would allow such things? I'm completely perplexed and saddened by such thoughts... Edited by: gardendiva at: 7/5/02 9:46:47 am
srflongago Registered User (7/5/02 11:09 am) Reply	Re: socialize or no... While you have a good point by our contemporary standards, some leaway should be given because child-rearing (and disciple-treating) was somewhat different in those days. Yogananda was a gentle tease (joker), as were several of the other Indians there I knew at that time. I assumed this was an Indian trait for males of that generation. If you prefer to apply contemporary standards, you are certainly right. But perhaps the incidents you quote were not taken as seriously by the recipients as they would be now. I would point more to Yogananda's use of channeling for control of behaviour of the nuns, mentioned by Ma Durga. Yogananda played alternately the bad guy, the Mother Goddess voice suggesting punishments for nuns who did not work hard enough at their assigned tasks, and the good guy, the Yogananda voice pleading with the mother goddess to be light in punishments. I can vouch that this happened regularly. It did inspire them to worker harder, faster, getting the publications out. It probably does not count as a social activity for the group. But it may be the natural precedent for the tactics the successors used to control the flock.
Gitano no divino Registered User (7/5/02 12:36 pm) Reply	Re: socialize or no... Gotta love this thread; it's a real education. In regard to this, "If you prefer to apply contemporary standards, you are certainly right. But perhaps the incidents you quote were not taken as seriously by the recipients as they would be now," there is an important point to be made. Judging the past by the standards of our own time is a trap historians often fall into, and it even has a name: presentism. We can only speculate about the effects of Yogananda's training on his followers. But no speculation is necessary about the effect such training has on people today. People vote with their feet, and the mass exodus of so many monastics in the last couple of years spells a landslide for the opponents of the BOD. A mindset seems to prevail at MC that whatever PY did is valid for all times and places. DM clearly believes that if this kind of training was good enough for her, it's good enough for anyone else. If people today can't "take it," then that's their problem. She and her minions are not going to budge. This resistance to change is doing much harm. The domineering mother would have provided a role model for Faye. I really warm to the whole channeling idea, that he controlled his charges by donning the persona of the Divine Mother. I mean, someone might not mind disappointing a Yogananda, but who would want to disappoint a god? Cute trick. SRFlongago, do you believe PY was what he claimed to be? Since you were actually there and knew him, it would mean a great deal to me and others to know what you think. I'm not setting up an attack, by the way. I respect your knowledge, experience, and the way you express your ideas. I would genuinely like your take on this. Do you believe there was an element of fraud in what he did, or do you agree with the Walrus that PY was on the level and a true Master but that SRF under the present regime has perverted his message?
srflongago Registered User (7/5/02 6:11 pm) Reply	Re: socialize or no... Reply to: Gitano: One has to distinguish between - the claims Yogananda made, -the claims made by enthusiastic disciples in his behalf while he was alive, -and the claims made by those who, after his death, for their own reasons, practically deified him as an Avatar. He cannot be blamed for the enthusiasm of contemporary followers or the use made of him as an icon by others later. I don't want to say more than that his personal claims, in public speech and writing, are certainly not modest, but are very limited compared to those made in his behalf by others afterward. His claims were in fact for the efficacy of what he had to teach, which he regarded as uniquely his own essential modification for the West of Kriya as taught in Lahiri's school of Yogis in India. There is nothing one can do about enthusiasts, or about those who have something to gain by the image they wish to project. Whatever his personal faults, he was the foremost leader in bringing Raja Yoga to the West, and a great Yoga teacher. I feel privileged to this day to have taken my first lessons and Kriya initiations from him.
soulcircle Registered User (7/6/02 12:49 pm) Reply	especially for your last sentence srflongago, thank you for taking the time to submit this post soulcircle
wholetruth Registered User (7/6/02 6:10 pm) Reply	Re: socialize or no... Srflongago: So by his immodest personal claims, was Yogananda simply trying to "hype" what he was teaching?
chela2020 Registered User (7/7/02 10:33 pm) Reply	Re: Monasticism has always been an introverted activity As far as I am concerned, I am glad that SRF was not a social place, was not the close knit family that I had hoped it to be. This made it all the easier for me to leave when I found that it was the right step to take. Most cults hold you by making you a close member of their family, and so it makes it harder for you to leave.
chuckle chela Registered User (7/8/02 11:18 pm) Reply	A reply to Gitano Gitano, it's been great reading your recent postings, along with the thoughtful posts of others. A belated welcome back. I've been traveling a lot recently and just returned. You mentioned recently some of the good (a wonderful wife and friends) that had emerged out of your experiences in SRF. I wanted to reply because I can relate to that. Yes, like many others, I am angry with what has happened (particularly to the renunciants) within SRF. But at the same time I am saddened; I agree with the sentiment you expressed: there is good, perhaps even much good, within the SRF community. I have seen wonderful people who have become even more wonderful as a result of their years in SRF, as a result of their efforts in meditation and in putting the teachings into practice. Even sadder is the fact that SRF and the SRF community could be so much more, and could prevent so much pain and suffering, if it acknowledged its shortcomings and made honest, courageous efforts to deal with the issues that have been outlined so well by so many on this board. I think you are right in saying that if SRF democratized its structure, it would be better off and better for everyone. It is possible to do. What makes all this particularly sad for me, as perhaps for you, is that I don't see any likelihood of significant change anytime soon; I'm not holding my breath. As we've noted many times before, the only real chance for change is a drastic drop in income, which is perceived by SRF leaders to be a direct result of the course of actions they've chosen to take; they would then be forced to change. Beyond that, I don't see much chance for change. Our dear Walrus mentioned that the Walrus board caused a bit of a ruffle back last fall (what kind of ruffle, I have no idea), but obviously that hasn't meant very much. I find myself thinking that the bottom line for any spiritual organization that I wish to be a part of is the fulfillment of the two great commandments of Jesus. And if we decide we have a problem with the first one because we're not sure about God, that's fine with me (I very much liked your lines from Whitman: "And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one's self is," because they make clear the importance of the self (soul, or expression of God?)). That leaves us with loving each other; seems to me that this makes a good sine qua non, a good way to judge whether we're on the right track. Of course, it's a bit simplistic just talking about loving each other, but that can form the foundation of any criteria we use to decide if we're on the right track and what actions we might need to take to get back on track. Yes, the Lessons and other aspects of the teachings in SRF need overhauling. Yes, the SRF leaders have made some terrible decisions and have acted terribly. Yes, by some of the acts of its members, SRF could stand for Selfish-Realization Fellowship. Yes, the portrait they've painted of Yogananda is probably too inhuman and, yes, Yogananda wasn't perfect and was, in many ways, just as human as you or I. But I can't see all of SRF, the SRF community or Yogananda as bad, irredeemable, or evil. The struggle I face is in deciding whether SRF is redeemable or worth redeeming. At present, I'm still leaning toward thinking it is, but perhaps I'm just too attached. Attached to the good I've seen, attached to the friends I've made (and like you, I'm married to someone who also in SRF, the difference being that my sweetie has open eyes and sees the wrong in SRF), attached to the potential of what could be. I suspect it's many little things I'm still attached to: the good times at group meditations and get togethers, the happier memories of some Convocations, some small but beautifully selfless acts I've seen done by SRFers, both lay and monastic, some of the many passages in Yogananda's writings that I find surpassingly beautiful or insightful, the integration between the techniques and teachings, the focus on application. If, as the Walrus has suggested, SRF dried up and blew away, it wouldn't bother me very much; I can live quite happily without SRF. And what I value in the teachings is certainly not unique to SRF or Yogananda, although I will admit I think the Yogananda/SRF teachings have some unique beauties. But still, I confess, I'm somewhat attached. Perhaps X Insider needs to slap me upside the head to bring me round (certainly I'm a thousand miles away from L.A. and have never been through what many of the monastics and lay members working at Mother Center have gone through; is it any wonder they want to having nothing to do with SRF? I've saved most of the stories they related on the Walrus of the brutal treatment; occasionally I read them again just so I don't forget, and, yes, they still make my blood boil). Perhaps it's just that I think it's such a damn shame it had to turn out this way. I guess I really am hoping SRF will soon experience real financial troubles so that it will be forced into self-examination and remediation. I do feel a sense of wanting to see some justice. When I read over your recent posts--and you and others have written so much and so well--I found the following song by Bruce Cockburn running through my mind, partially because I can relate to it. It seems fitting; it seems to make a good deal of sense. So I offer it up for you, and offer it as a tribute of courage and honesty to those seeking answers and solutions, I suppose. Perhaps it is a minor anthem many of us can sing. Pacing the Cage Sunset is an angel weeping, Holding out a bloody sword No matter how I squint, I cannot Make out what it's pointing toward. Sometimes you feel like you've lived too long; Days drip slowly on the page You catch yourself pacing the cage I've proven who I am so many times, The magnetic strip's worn thin And each time I was someone else And everyone was taken in. Powers chatter in high places Stir up eddies in the dust of rage Set me to pacing the cage I never knew what you all wanted, So I gave you everything: All that I could pillage All the spells that I could sing. It's as if the thing were written In the constitution of the age: Sooner or later you'll wind up pacing the cage. Sometimes the best map will not guide you-- You can't see what's 'round the bend. Sometimes the road leads through dark places Sometimes the darkness is your friend. Today these eyes scan bleached out land For the coming of the outbound stage. Pacing the cage. Pacing the cage. In another song entitled, "Lovers in a Dangerous Time," the following lyrics appear: "…When you're lovers in a dangerous time Sometimes you're made to feel as if your love's a crime Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight Got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight When you're lovers in a dangerous time…." I'm certainly guilty of over-romanticizing the situations we all find ourselves in, but, as treacley as it might sound, it seems to me that seeking truth--however painful and unpleasant--is the act of a lover.

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: