Out of the Swamps of the Kali Yuga - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Householder vs. Monastic > Out of the Swamps of the Kali Yuga
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/21/01 1:13 pm) Reply	Out of the Swamps of the Kali Yuga Most monastic orders tend to look to the past when deciding how to define themselves. But is that really a healthy idea when, according to Sri Yukteswar, the past they are looking to happens to be the Kali Yuga? Run under a Guardian paradigm, religious orders tend to appeal to tradition and stay mired in the swamps of a tired past rather than make an effort to meet the progressively unfolding future. There isn't too much mention of monasticism in the Vedas. Indeed monasticsm may well have been the result of disenchanted class of Kshatriyas in the middle ages needing to find new war to wage. One need only call to mind the life of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Looking for an enemy to fight, they found one within. For what can be a more formidable opponent than one's own desires and sexual impulses? The war against human nature is the ultimate Kshatriyan piece de resistance. This will to power over one's self may have some serious negative psychological repercussions. What can we expect from someone who lives in constant antipathy to his own human nature? Can we expect him to be well-versed in the art of empathy and compassion? The final words in Sri Yukteswar's "The Holy Science" is an appeal for making love the ultmate goal of life. But the human heart in the Kali Yuga, according to Sri Yukteswar, was always in a state of misconception and darkness: "In this state man is called Sudra, or belonging to the servant class, because his natural duty then is to serve the higher class people in order to secure their company and thereby prepare his heart to attain a higher stage." (The Holy Science 57-58 ) We can deduce from SY's comment that, in the Kali Yuga, autocracies and dictatorships would have the perfect environment to flourish whether in a monastic community or in the political / social sphere because people looked up to authority figures for guidance -- often rather indiscriminately. Thus the cult of obedience was born -- the slave / master ethos. This also is a good argument for why spiritual aspirants following traditional paradigms often end up structuring their psyche's vertically -- with their human feelings and emotions in submission to their wills. It is no wonder so many monastic based religions such as SRF steer clear of psychology -- whose cardinal rule is self-acceptance -- and remain caught in the game of self-denial (called "self-control" ) and power over others ( "loyalty" and "obedience" ). But Sri Yukteswar makes it very clear that this is not to be the mode of living for this new age, In the current Dwapa Yuga, man reaches the state of Sandhisthala ("the place between the higher and the lower" . Bathed in this new vibration, men "need help from one another; hence mutual love, the principal necessity for gaining salvation , appears in his heart." Such a man "affectionately keeps company with those who destroy troubles, clear doubts, and afford peace to him, and hence avoids whatever produces the contrary result..." It seems to me that we NF "Idealists" have an important role to play in this arena of understanding. Everything we gravitate towards -- the healing arts, counseling, creating intimate and loving relationships -- is resonant to that chord.
Kevin Registered User (12/29/01 9:35 pm) Reply	Ashrams Pg. 152 of "the Return of the Mother" by A.Harvey, disenchanted ex-disciple of Meera Mata. "Ashrams, in my experience, are lunatic asylums filled with jealous and needy people. What gurus do is divide and rule. They are the magical ‘other,” everybody’s in love with them, focused on them, and everybody hates whatever position the others have with them. The gurus keep this infantile situation going because it keeps them in power and “indispensable.” Pg. 278 There would be no gurus without people who are, as I was, hungry to play the disciple, just as there would be no criminals without policemen and judges. There would be no so called ‘Mothers’ without thousands of people anxious , as I was, to play children ".
KS Registered User (1/3/02 9:32 pm) Reply	Re: Ashrams -- from Kevin I agree there is a symbiotic relationship between many people in various group types. Mother and child is a little far fetched for me, as is the guru-disciple relationship. As many false gurus exist, running false organizations, a bad relationship is certainly seen pretty often in nature. But a real guru-disciple relationship does not suffer from the problem you indicate. That said SRF is not a guru run organization. It is a loose knit group of bad ladies holding some copyrights and land titles, and of course a lot of money. They even act reluctant to spread Master’s message (tours, tapes, video), but rather publish the speeches of the current president (a truly humble endeavor for Daya Mata). No criminals without policeman? The behavior of the criminal would be just as wrong without the policeman. There is such a thing as absolute truth, and right and wrong. If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around, is the lumberjack who did it still guilty of killing the tree? (No idea what that means ) Are you attempting to say that without the support of the SRF members that the bad ladies would not be the guru-replacements? I agree the devotees are gullible, but the name of Master is flashed about and then replaced with the presence of the bad ladies so effectively that it is difficult to see the difference. I won’t give the bad ladies this excuse. Their behavior stands alone. None of the blame should be shifted to the wonderful devotees that are attracted to Yogananda’s message.
kevin Unregistered User (1/4/02 10:37 pm) Reply	Ashrams I quoted a large portion of A. Harvey ideas in the "Core Issues" section under the thread "Guru System Revisited" (sorry I don't know enough on how to do links etc.) I just want to enphasize that SRF is not alone in experiencing Ashram problems of a certain magnitude, that ashrams are, just for their nature, places where many unbalanced people gather for the wrong reasons, that most gurus are just as part of the problem as their disciples ( to take it to another level, I think many would find Yogananda's way to operate an ashram very objectionable as well, at his time there were more disciples leaving than staying AND, what about picking such directors who are now commonlly referred on this board as BOD? wasn't that shortsighted? He might have had reasons but that is for another thread perhaps..); that who is in power now uses the unquestionable authority of the guru to pull the same tricks and that the greatest part of the problem (and I was at the forefront) are needy disciples who project, expect, and want to believe in a workable copedentent system to attain salvation when, according to most realized beings, at the end nobody can give you salvation but God. What is the problem in recognizing that we too are at fault? Whenever and however anyone abdicates his/her own judgment in favor of someone else he/she is at fault! They can play all the tricks they want but at the end we wanted and needed to believe them anyway. Isn't one of the ultimate purposes of the teachings to offer "tools" (kriya, etc.) to reach God and to take away the intermission of ministers, priests, rabbis, and popes? To lead us directly to the altar of God thru our own intuition? By God's guidance and thru OUR OWN receptivity? By using our God given gifts of "self" determination, our brains, hearts etc.? My 'bout' with SRF was excruciatingly painful. I am still reeling and picking up the pieces, but in a way it has been extremely helpful in opening my eyes and giving me the freedom to go to God directly, to bypass intermediaries and use all what I can get to go on and eventually figure out my way. I LOVE Yogananda, I love in a way the BOD, but I will never again give them my power. It was a mistake, and if Yogananda is a real master he cannot but agree with it. At the same time I will use anything they (Yogananda, SRF,BOD, Devotees) have to offer that appeals to me and that I think useful. AND at the same time I owe it to Yogananda, to pitch in in trying to change an obsolete, petrified system, as much I can, as much as I am willing.
Grouchy Unregistered User (1/5/02 10:43 am) Reply	Agree - but... I agree my bad experience with mother center has been a help to me. However, it is inaccurate to assume that Yogananda selected the current crop of ladies running SRF. Yogananda did NOT select Faye Wright to run SRF, nor did he select most of the wack-o ladies in power now. The myth is long held and widely believe, but he didn't select Faye.
chuckle Unregistered User (1/5/02 4:46 pm) Reply	Our responsibility Kevin, leaving aside any comments about ashrams, I think you make a very good point about our roles in this dance (as Vulcan and Been There refer to it). We all, wittingly or not, have played a part. We need to recognize and accept that and then deal with it in responsible ways. For years I was adamant that SRF was not a cult, but now I see that it has many cult-like features. I have to accept that and my part in the drama Like you, I think we've allowed the org. to assume roles it never should have, and it has come between us and the guru. And, like you, I feel a willingness and responsibility to show that I'm no longer gonna be part of that delusionary dance.
KS Registered User (1/5/02 5:49 pm) Reply	true Chuckle, I agree and part of correcting the situation is this Walrus board. We know they monitor it, so someone there is reading all this stuff. While they don't see themselves in any of this, others will and that is what they fear. That fear will probably lead to more weird crack downs, and as a result more people will see the problem. That will lead to more complaints and more crack downs, more complaints... and eventually a big bang.
sevaki Registered User (1/10/02 1:41 pm) Reply	Ashrams One of the things that I find ironic is that the SRF monastic community is so addicted to a centralized locus of "domestic theocracy." Why? Our own Gurudev lived a life of making hi "heart [his] hermitage and [his] robe the love of God." And even Lahairi Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar, why, ALL our spiritual fathers, and even Buddha, lived mostly outside of the ashramic paradigm. So why is SRF so afraid of having this set-up challenged? Improved upon? Scrutinized? As an institution (and I Do mean institution) it has been reorganized again and again from day one. As I see it, the SRF ashrams must be allowed to grow organically, reflecting the needs of the residents as the times change. Yes, as meditators, we exist on a more or less trancendental plane, but we have to have our feet on the ground. I think the dysfunctional model fits. Just as in a dysfunctional family, there's alot of cover-up, in attenmpt to appear healthy. There's an underlying awareness that things aren't "kosher", yet no one wants to admit it, because them they'd have to deal with it. I guess denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

<< 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 - Householder vs. Monastic -

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