>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Householder vs. Monastic
        > Dear Walrus -- Householder vs. Monastic section needed		 New Topic    Add Reply

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
Raja Begum
Unregistered User
(11/27/01 1:05 am)
Reply 		Dear Walrus -- Householder vs. Monastic section needed
First off, thank you for having the guts to create such a wonderful site. Together, we are enriching our spiritual community through this dialogue.

May we have a new section devoted to the difference between householders and monastic?

I have always lived my tenor in SRF with the uncomfortable knowledge that the monastics were God's favored and chosen ones. But I've grown tired of being a prole.

Ultimately I've always felt that the structure of SRF, its rhetoric, and its stated attitudes leave little celebration for what it means to be a householder, for the potential to create an authentic life.

Furthermore, this would be an education for all the monastics who are reading our site. Thanks in advance.

srfwalrus
ezOP
(11/27/01 7:47 am)
Reply 		Re: Dear Walrus -- Householder vs. Monastic section needed
Done

Kevin
Registered User
(12/10/01 8:42 am)
Reply 		Re: Dear Walrus -- Householder vs. Monastic section needed
It is a great point!

Years ago at the time of Daya Mata election as president a decision was made (apparently according to Yogananda's wish) that future president(s) must be monastics.
It was thought that someone who dedicates her/his life totally to God would be a better garantee.
Unfortunately I think it was a big mistake, not much that the president must be a monastic but, that trend totally 'ejected' the householder element from giving any real imput to the direction of the organization.
Lahiri Mahasaya, a householder himself, brought Kriya Yoga to the world to be used by householders and monks alike. Considering the aim of making it available to the masses we can say it was mainly intended for householders.

It is clear that many of the mistakes made by SRF management are due to the lack of such input. The isolated, anacronistic, obsolete 'modum operandi' of SRF is in gran part to be attributed to that trend.
Some effects can be seen at how SRF handled the 30 year master plan for M.W. development.

I think the householders and monastics must return to collaborate and serve Master's work together.
The syndrome of the isolated Guru (SRF) on the top of the Mountain (Mount Washington) must end.
It lends an aura of untenable infallibility to the SRF directors, and doesn't allow SRF to be effective in trying to reach the world, whose inhabitants looks very alien to the monks, with Yogananda's teachings (or how to go about to build a temple for Yogananda's body at Mount Washington, for example).

Raja Begum
Unregistered User
(12/10/01 2:33 pm)
Reply 		Everybody read the post above mine
Right on brother Kevin!!!

This IMHO is THEEE core problem in SRF. Once everybody realizes this and does something about it, SRF will truly be able to get on with its mission.

<< 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 - Householder vs. Monastic -



Powered By ezboardŽ Ver. 7.32
Copyright Š1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.