About monastic orders - www.ezboard.com

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Treatment of Members/Monastics > About monastic orders
Page 1 2 3	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
sackcloth Unregistered User (12/15/01 12:10 pm) Reply	About monastic orders I might be wrong, but ... the purpose of monastic orders is not to soothe your ego or cater to your likes and dislikes or build up your your self-esteem or make you feel good or praise you for your contributions. Don't take me wrong, I have my share of gripes against SRF, and at one point I even wanted to enter the ashram and become a monk. Since my ego was already pretty beaten down to a pulp by my former employer, who made sure to let me know on a daily basis that I am nobody, I thought that was pretty good pre-training for a monastic life. Anyway, if you look at all the monastic orders of all religions, it's the same thing. I was reading Swami Sivananda's instructions to monastics of the Divine Life Society, and I think they're even stricter than anything SRF can concoct. It made Anandamoy and the matas look like warm-hearted grandparents. I grew up in the Catholic church and half my family and our friends and acquaintances are very involved with the church, several of them are priests and nuns. I regularly visit the convent with my mom and grandmother to see our nun relatives and friends, and the abuse they put up with is incredible! It's all meant to destroy the ego, and they know that's what it's for, and that's what they went there for, and have no complaints. They just got a new mother superior in after having had the same one they were used to for ten years. The new one has turned the place inside out, put them all on notice that she has a zero tolerance policy for stupidity, insubordination, and laziness, and regularly gives them nice loud scoldings at any time she thinks it appropriate in front of whomever. They just bow their heads and take it, knowing that it's what they got into it for. The times I've been over to the monastery for confession or to talk with the priests for various things it's always been the same thing. Discipline, discipline, discipline. No ifs, ands, or buts about anything. It's stricter than the military. It should have a sign outside that reads "No Egos allowed", for if you have one, it will surely be crushed! No excuses or justifications allowed. I'm sure there's room for improvement in SRF's ashrams, just like everywhere else in the organization as a whole. But monasticism has always been about anihilating the ego, and one should harbor no illusions about it. Those seeking recognition or comfort would probably be better off out in the world, where opportunities abound to make a comfortable living and get plenty of praise, fame, name, etc. Just MHO.
witness Unregistered User (12/15/01 4:03 pm) Reply	Life Is Hard Enough... The equation of an ability to withstand abusive, if not downright sadistic, treatment by authority/parental figures with spiritual advancement chills me. And when one considers that the subjects of such treatment are simultaneously required to hold a concept of the god behind the abusers as all-good, all-wise, all-loving is a recipe for madness and the spread of even more cruelty and abusiveness. Oh, look -- I've just described the whole history of the Catholic Church (to name but one organization) in two sentences. I thought this was supposed to be Dwapara Yuga, not Kali.
AumBoy Registered User (12/15/01 4:17 pm) Reply	Re: Life Is Hard Enough... I agree with your observation, but more has been written on this board than simply the rules of monasticism. Let me see if I can summarize some of my personal observations and those of others. 1. SRF views the members as the enemy 2. Suggestions are viewed as criticism 3. Thinking is not allowed; positive thinking is. On the rickross.com website, there is a comment about the moral integrity of the leaders of SRF. There are other comments to the same effect throughout this board. It would probably be a breath of fresh air if someone insitituted a zero tolerance policy for stupidity, insubordination, and laziness within SRF. The problems I observed inside I initially thought was a microcosm of the ashram I lived in for many years. But when I found this board, I learned that the behavior was endemic to the organization. We’re not simply discussing a monastic rule set but the behavior that pervades the organization. Much of what SRF does is in secret. For many it is assumed that all is God-inspired. If this is true, how did SRF lose its recent bid to expand Mount Washington? How did they manage to raise the ire of an entire neighborhood? By being neighborly? How did they lose more in the recent copyright suit that they initially thought was at stake? How did they try to get a copyright or trademark for the term “Self-Realization” and lose? One of the main purposes of this board, I feel, is to simply turn on the light as to what is happening inside SRF. Some have described it as smoking out the rats. I think you just need to walk into a room and turn on the light. Much of SRF thrives in secrecy. For many members, far away from the hubbub of MW, this is enough and all decisions are perfect. For many who come in close contact with SRF we see a different picture. Presently SRF is accountable, as an organization, to no one. We are also moving into the Dwapara Yuga, a higher age. SRF needs to transform itself. Everything changes. Only God is changeless. SRF is an organization made of human beings with all the attendant foibles. It cannot be perfect, in my opinion, but it can become better. The organization needs to grow up, to mature. Many people will come to this board and become upset because it clashes with their preconceptions about how a work for this new age should be. Especially an avatar-inspired work. It is written somewhere that people seek until they are comfortable. Many people are comfortable with their preconceptions of SRF. I learned in the ashram that preconceptions and expectations are desires, “my great enemy.” I desired to see the Truth and I did. I saw that SRF is not perfect. I saw that the perfection I sought in the organization is in me, in my heart. That is where I seek God now, with the techniques Master has given me. (And, yes, Witness, the Catholic Church came to my mind, too. )
sackcloth Unregistered User (12/16/01 1:04 pm) Reply	The essence of monasticism: Shape up or ship out Well, OK, many of you are rabid about the Catholic church. I should have expected the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Catholic comments. But if you look at the ashrams in India, indeed if you look at the monastic orders of ANY religion, they are not democracies. They are not country clubs, or spas or resorts, they are autocracies, dictatorships. The rules have been set, and they are to be followed without question. In fact, with all it's problems, I'd still say that SRF's ashrams are probably better than most monastic orders of most religions around the world. Monastic orders are simply not the place for spoiled brats. They never have been and never will be. There have always been those who couldn't adjust and have had to leave. It is best for both parties that way.
oldtimer Unregistered User (12/16/01 1:38 pm) Reply	Here we go again... Howdy, whoever you are, calling yourself sackcloth this time. All we need to see is "spoiled brats" in your message and we know who your are. (Figuratively, of course.) What is your point, exactly? And, why should you have "expected the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Catholic comments?" What on this board would have led you to expect that? And what is the real message you would like to say? You're anonymous, why don't you just say it?
AumBoy Registered User (12/16/01 1:53 pm) Reply	Re: The essence of monasticism: Shape up or ship out It is not just living in an SRF ashram that is the issue brought up in the Walrus forums. It is the mistreatment of people. We're moving into a higher age. If we take as true what you say about ashram/monastery living, what does the householder do? You also mentioned, in your original post, about a mother superiors comments about an intolerance of stupidity and people simply taking it. Well if you read through some of the older comments on this board you will see that there have been many decisions in SRF that may not have been thought through. I think the PeopleSoft accounting boondoggle comes to mind. Were my comments anti-Catholic? I didn't think so. It's just that many of us in the west know mostly of the Catholic tradition of the last 1000 or so years in the dark ages. Today even, there are some practioners in the Far East who practice penance around Lent (I think) by beating themselves with chains until bloodied. I think we need to move away from this self-mortification. I feel it is easy and small to beat ourselves up and to beat others up (whether physically or psychologically), but it is really difficult to learn to love ourselves and then love others and see God in all. Also, the ashrams are supposed to be theocracies, lead by God-attuned leaders, at one with God. You mentioned *Quote:* SRF's ashrams are probably better than most monastic orders of most religions around the world. Have you lived in an SRF ashram? And if so, for how long? I'm asking just to understand your perspective on this issue. There are things I refrain from posting here on this board because I don't think they would be appropriate in a public place like this. You also wrote *Quote:* Monastic orders are simply not the place for spoiled brats. The assumption here is that you can tell who the brats are to begin with. There are some power-hungry, attention-grabbing, rock-star brats in SRF. Living in the ashram. Who have taken vows. Just as in all organizations of all types. The type of people in SRF are just a small cross section of society, no better, no worse. And this is the problem we've run into. There is no accountability for the organization or even for some people that the organization may feel are indispensible, but as a friend reminded years ago, "graveyards are full of indispensible people."
premdas Registered User (12/16/01 3:13 pm) Reply	Joy, joy, joy Exemplars? Are they happy? Are they joyful? Are you attracted to them? Do you want to be in their presence? Do you grow closer to Bliss in their company? Are you happy in your association w/them? Are you more joyful knowing them? Do you feel joy and love flowing through you? Do they empower you to your own self-realization? Are you growing and expanding, or stalling and contracting?
sackcloth Unregistered User (12/16/01 4:04 pm) Reply	Is your goal Self-realization or more delusion? "Today even, there are some practioners in the Far East who practice penance around Lent (I think) by beating themselves with chains until bloodied. I think we need to move away from this self-mortification." What you think is totally irrelevant because they are beating themselves, not you, and they don't need to ask you for permission. They are beating themselves voluntarily, nobody from the Vatican is forcing all hundreds of millions of Catholics to do this. In fact, as I understand it, the church not only doesn't agree with what they're doing, but has actually spoken out against it. Anyway, that's none of our business. They practice their sadhana as they see fit, and we practice ours however we like. Didn't PY say, and isn't it one of Hinduism's basic tenets, that there are different religions to suit different temperaments and different people's needs? Who are you to impose your religion/beliefs on them? "Do they empower you to your own self-realization?" This is twentieth century psychobabble. It has nothing to do with PY's teachings. You don't have to wait for anyone to empower you to anything, much less to your own self-realization. PY has already empowered you with his teachings, which anybody who can afford the nominal amount can get. You don't have to be in the ashram to practice, thousands of householders, students, retirees, etc. can practice in their own homes. Anybody who goes to the ashram looking for empowerment has sorely missed the point of PY's teachings. With regards to all the stuff posted here and elsewhere on the board from that book about the Guardians and the personality types etc., IMHO you're falling into a delusion trap (I thought the whole point of PY's teachings was to get away from delusion, not get more and more into it). You're mixing 20th century American psychobabble junk with PY's thousands-year old teachings on Yoga and Vedanta. The two things are don't go together. It seems to me if you're following PY's path, it's all about looking for self-realization and liberation within yourself; the outer doesn't matter so much as long as you have some time and a little space to practice your techniques. The other stuff is typical pure Americana of the twentieth century, it's all about ME ME ME, GIVE ME, CATER TO ME, EMPOWER ME, FULFILL MY NEEDS, SATISFY MY DESIRES, STROKE MY EGO, RECOGNIZE ME, MAKE ME FAMOUS, GIVE ME COMFORTS, LOOK AT ME, I'M SO SMART, I'M SO FAMOUS, I'M SO TALENTED, RECOGNIZE ME, RECOGNIZE MY CONTRIBUTIONS, GIVE ME AWARDS, TROPHIES, BONUSES, CARS, HOUSES, STOCK OPTIONS, ELEVATE ME ABOVE OTHERS, I'M BETTER THAN THEM, I DESERVE THIS AND THAT, A CORNER OFFICE WITH A VIEW, BLAH BLAH BLAH. Those who want the things of this world, the ENTITLEMENTS that the psychobble authors have managed to convince us are our birthright, and all the perks of secular life like "empowerments" and recognition and others making them feel good are better off in the secular world, where there are tons of opportunities to cater to the ego. I just think that monasticism has of necessity to run under a whole different set of rules than those of the secular world. Otherwise what's the point of renouncing the world and going to the ashram if you expect the same rights and entitlements and comforts as in the material world?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/16/01 4:12 pm) Reply	Listen to Your Paramguru I find this argument a distraction. What's the point? You are attacking our belief that the wordly mystic is on equal par with the monastic ascetic. This is the arrogant stance favored by leaders of SRF who are caught in the Maya of their own monastic aesthetic. By elevating themselves above the laity, they have diminished the greater message Yogananda brought to this world. Enjoy your company. The greater message is "Oh Arjuna, be thou a Yogi." Krishna never said, "Be thou a monk." You ought to know this if you've been a member for more than two days on this path. You say.... *Quote:* "But if you look at the ashrams in India, indeed if you look at the monastic orders of ANY religion, they are not democracies. They are not country clubs, or spas or resorts, they are autocracies, dictatorships." Do you realize what a creepy statement that is? It reminds me of what O'Brien says to Winston in Orwell's "1984": "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever." First off, you are committing the fallacy of appeal to tradition. Just because ALL those religions have done it in the past doesn't make it valid for now. ALL of those religious orders you refer to flowered in the swamps of the Kali Yuga. 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 57-5 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. But then Sri Yukteswar continues that, 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..." (59). So enough with your overblown and condescending remarks about country clubs, spas and resorts. Anticipating your next thought about SY's ashrams being highly disciplinarian. Yes that's true, but not irrational discipline. Plus his method of harsh training was not the result of it being the best and only way, rather it was because he was being true to his natural teaching style. He said Yogananda would influence by love. Not because it was higher or lower, but because that way of teaching was aligned to Yogananda's essence. Since this existence is a dream, everyone is entitled to romance the Infinite as they see fit. If you want to court God in an Orwellian irrational universe, so be it. Spirit is the domian of infinite possibilites.
sackcloth Unregistered User (12/16/01 4:29 pm) Reply	Re: WHOOOOOSHHH!!! "You are attacking our belief that the wordly mystic is on equal par with the monastic ascetic." Quite the contrary. If you've missed my point on this you've missed my point on everything else as well.
Been there Unregistered User (12/16/01 5:19 pm) Reply	Reading list Sackcloth, are you familiar with Thomas Merton? You might enjoy reading his posthumously published work about monastic orders entitled "Contemplation in a World of Action." It is very interesting.
chuckle Unregistered User (12/16/01 6:07 pm) Reply	The essence of monasticism: a place to seek & manifest G Sorry, sackcloth, I've got to shake my head at what you're saying. You've given a grossly oversimplified version of monasticism, and as others have pointed out, most of the stuff you refer to in the Catholic and Indian monastic orders is based on Kali Yuga practices. Take a look at monasticism in today's world--2001-- and you'll see it is drastically changing, whether it be Catholic , Episcopalean, the Swami orders. See how the work of Paulo Friere is being applied by Catholic monks and nuns in South America and other places, see what Thomas Merton did (and suffered for!) for the Trappists, see what is happening in the Buddhist orders around the world (very progressive work going on there), see how monastics of all faiths are meeting and bringing changes to their respective orders. Read what witness said to you in the first two sentences of that great reply. Here it is again: The equation of an ability to withstand abusive, if not downright sadistic, treatment by authority/parental figures with spiritual advancement chills me. And when one considers that the subjects of such treatment are simultaneously required to hold a concept of the god behind the abusers as all-good, all-wise, all-loving is a recipe for madness and the spread of even more cruelty and abusiveness. Don't believe it? Read Aldous Huxley's historical novels, "Grey Eminence" and "The Devils of Loudun" to find out what horrors can emerge out of the abuse of authority by those who think they are doing God's will in bringing "spiritual advancement" to others. We have to be extremely careful in not confusing ends and means, allowing ourselves to justify the use of any means to reach our supposedly good ends. And we must be careful about not letting the organization achieve superiority over the individuals it is set up to serve. I have not been in the ashram, but I know people who have been and I know people who have or are working at Mother Center. The supposed "flattening to the ego" treatment you suggest is leading them to God caused one of my friends to leave SRF, enter therapy, and renounce God entirely. The other friend is trying to fathom how her mistreatment by superiors at Mother Center (i.e. senior monastics) is supposed to be a reflection of God and Guru's love and care.
chuckle Unregistered User (12/16/01 6:51 pm) Reply	RE: more delusion I agree with your point about empowerment (a term I hate, but it has been used so I'll stick with it). Master's teachings are all about empowerment, that is their essence. But I think what the ex-monastics are saying is that the ashram environment is not conducive to such spiritual "empowerment." I'm not referring to what you call "20th century psychobabble junk"; I'm talking about real spiritual unfoldment, self-reliance, self-realization. I'm also wary of those who wish to discard all modern science, such as psychology, has to offer. Just because Yoga and Vedanta are thousands of years old does not, ipso facto, invalidate modern psychology. Indeed, Master--like Sri Yukteswar before him--praised the progressive ways of North America, and he counseled the use of both modern science and the ancient art and science of yoga. You write that Master's path is "all about looking for self-realization and liberation within yourself; the outer doesn't matter so much as long as you have some time and a little space to practice your techniques." Are you negating Master's teachings about the importance of environment? Would that life were as simple as you suggest! I agree that one's inner environment is of greater importance, but to suggest that a little time and a little space to do your techniques is all you need suggests you are either very young, haven't been on the path very long, or have lost any sense of empathy you ever had. While you have a point about our current culture being overly focused on "entitlements," you seem to have quite a concern there yourself, it seems. Your paragraph on the subject turned into a bit of a rant; perhaps a little introspection on the subject might be in order ;-) Are you suggesting that the monastics and laymembers with the problems are merely looking for entitlements and crying because they can't get them? Surely the issues are much more than that. To follow up with your own suggestion: if you want sackcloth and ashes for yourself, that's great. But don't go crying because others are asking--legitimately, in my opinion--for a little more. Do you honestly think the 30 or so monastics who have left--some of whom had been in the ashram for decades--were all "spoiled brats?" The monastic path is not about getting the entitlements and rights and comforts of the world. It IS (as is the householder path) all about getting the entitlements, rights, and comforts we deserve as the children of God, the Most High, the Owner of the Universe, the Sovereign Lord. We deserve to live in the aura of His love and when I hear of monastics crying into their pillows because they've been made to feel they were worthless pieces of sh*t, and when I hear of all the other stories of suffering that have been outlined on this website, then I become concerned that something just isn't right.
In Recovery Unregistered User (12/16/01 7:52 pm) Reply	Sackcloth I quote you saying: "I regularly visit the convent with my mom and grandmother to see our nun relatives and friends, and the abuse they put up with is incredible!" Riddle me this: Would YOU treat someone you loved like in the same manner? It's an issue of "feeling for others even as you feel for yourself" (in Krishna's words). You do not see the results of the kind of abuse that you refer to, so why do you subscribe to its practice? Is it merely because you heard someone state confidently that it breaks down the ego? How do you know this is accurate? Do YOU have direct personal experience that guarantees that this kind of abuse is freeing the monastics from egotism? Can you say with absolute authority that this practice works for ALL souls? You seem so very confident in your opinion, but I challenge your authority on this issue. Regarding the monastic orders of the Catholic church: Are you aware that they're dying out at a shocking rate? Are you aware of the attrition rate of their monastic orders? Are you aware that the only ones surviving are the ones who are sending their monastics to get degrees in what you call "psychobabble"? In your words, I see a lot of judgment and very little sign of Christlike love.
sackcloth Unregistered User (12/16/01 7:54 pm) Reply	Awaken to reality I understand the points being made here. But I wonder if perhaps some people aren't living in a fantasy world. Do you really think if PY were alive today and in charge that things would be much different? If anything, they might be worse! Remember all the stories the direct disciples have told of how he trained them. Do you think he would round up all the monastics every day and ask them "Are you feeling empowered today? How's your self-esteem? Can I do anything to prop up your egos? Let's chat about pop psychology and the different personality types and do you think I'm a Guardian or a Rational? Come, let us discuss the Keirsey book and I will let you all iron out my psychological kinks. And please tell me how I should run SRF"? Get real! The monastics today don't know how good they have it. I'd like to see how they'd measure up to the treatment Daya and the others got straight from PY, the public ridicule and the blows to their egos and the scoldings which left them out the cold into the wee hours of the night sobbing and wondering what it was they ever did to deserve it.
Been there Unregistered User (12/16/01 8:24 pm) Reply	To Sackcloth, once more, with feeling Again I ask. Have you read Merton's work? He is a well known favorite of Mrinialini Mata. You will surely find it of interest.
sackcloth Unregistered User (12/16/01 8:38 pm) Reply	To Been there Sorry, Been there, I meant to answer you earlier. I have not read it. It sounds interesting and I will go look at it in Amazon. Your recommendation seemed sincere but another poster further up threw it in my face as something which goes against what he perceives to be my stance, and your comment that it is a favorite of Mrinalini seems to support that (she seems to be universally hated, especially on this board).
chuckle Unregistered User (12/16/01 9:00 pm) Reply	The reality of Master's love Sackcloth, I have 25 years worth of Convo notes filled with hundreds of stories of Master's treatment of his "direct" (we're all direct disciples, and I hate the use of that term "direct"; it is implied in the word "disciple"). If I would have to use one word to describe his treatment of those disciples, it would be "LOVE." If I had to use two words, they would be "UNCONDITIONAL LOVE." More than anything, I remember the love and the warmth he showered on so many. Yes, there was discipline, but it was given and mixed with love, just as any good parent gives discipline with love, respect, and wisdom. If Master were to walk into my room right now, I'd run up to him and give him a big hug. There would be tears of joy, there would be laughter and merriment--just like his reuion with Sri Yukteswar in that hotel room in Bombay. Then we'd go out dancing. Yeah, sure he disciplines me, but it's with love. Love. It's an interesting thing, sackcloth. Do you know what it is? Have you ever felt pure, unconditional love, and bathed, luxuriated in its glow? Did you ever have parents who showered you with their hugs and kisses, who showed you in countless little ways that they loved you just for who you are? I wonder. You speak much of discipline and abuse and suffering; indeed, you seem to glorify them. To be honest, I'm wondering if you aren't an abused child who is crying out for love and understanding. Perhaps I'm being a little too personal here, but I am interested in what you have to say. Master gave love with the discipline, it seems to me, sackcloth. And that makes all the difference, wouldn't you agree?
premdas Registered User (12/16/01 9:02 pm) Reply	Other's impression of Master's treatment There are many direct disciples who understand and communicate Master's training and behavior in more loving terms and they don't play the game of saying how rough they had it when they were being disciplined by their guru. Those who I find in attunement with his essence do talk about his impersonal love for them and explain these subtleties and particular instances and how the situations benefited their own growth in god-realisation. Anyone who speaks of how hard they had it compared to others, how fortunate we are to have it differently, has, I believe, missed much in these teachings and isn't attuned to Yogananda's teachings. Does anyone here trust their lives to those currently in charge at SRF? I wouldn't take a vow of discipleship to that group; I have taken vows to Yogananda and those I believe have earned my trust and friendship. In service, premdas.
AumBoy Registered User (12/16/01 11:36 pm) Reply	Yogananda's Love Chuckle: You're right about direct disciples, we're all direct disciples - when I sit to meditate, when I work, when I walk, Master is there. All I feel is a pure love my heart cannot contain. When I err, I feel Him with me still, still loving me unconditionally. Like it says somewhere, "my cup runneth over." He came for me. I know it. Sackcloth: I wonder if we shouldn't start helping children crush the ego at a young age. How would one go about this? If we emotionally abuse the child, put him down, tell him it's good for his ego - he will probably grow up wanting to get beat up, or failing that, beat himself up. (Negative self-talk.) "You're bad. You're nothing. Feeling bad? Snap out of it, they're just feelings. Don't make too much of them." Or maybe we can teach the child through love and by being an example of giving and sharing. "I love you. Follow me. Follow my example. Here, let me help you. Let us help them. Good job. I appreciate you." Now, we could mix both of the above, right? End result: a very confused child. So what is the end result of, say, a monastic life? God-realization? What are the Divine Attributes? Love, Wisdom, Harmony, Peace, Light. As we move toward God, shouldn't we become more God-like? If so, which of the above 2 examples are most akin to becoming God-like? Remember: we are all Children of God. (Oh, BTW, great thread, sackcloth.) Edited by: AumBoy at: 12/16/01 11:54:00 pm
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/17/01 1:16 am) Reply	To sackcloth -- In defense of Temperament and Psychology *Quote:* With regards to all the stuff posted here and elsewhere on the board from that book about the Guardians and the personality types etc., IMHO you're falling into a delusion trap (I thought the whole point of PY's teachings was to get away from delusion, not get more and more into it). You're mixing 20th century American psychobabble junk with PY's thousands-year old teachings on Yoga and Vedanta. I have an unread piece of pop psychology stuffed away in one of my drawers. The book I am referring to is based on a cute premise that every human being has a personality type which matches a totemistic animal. According to the author, understanding your animal personality type helps you to unlock the secrets to your friendships, sex life, and love life. I took the test and discovered I'm a lion. Imagine the scoffing I'd get from you If I posted an article describing the SRF leadership in terms of animal types. You'd probably rant: "20th century new-aged delusive pop crapology!!!" Yes, that's what you'd do. And in doing so, you'd circumstantially incriminate our guru in the act. That's right! Our poor, "deluded" (according to your definition) guru seems to have taken the study of personality so seriously that he endeavored to compare the variations of human temperament to monkeys, doves, donkeys, tigers, lions, cows and cats in lesson number 122 of step 5. I'm not being absurd. And here's his self-stated rationale: *Quote:* "We should study human and animal personalities of various types, and people of different nations, in order to compare their various traits and then adopt in our own lives what is valuable, good, and lovable, and discard what is harmful, evil, and unlovable." "If one studies the personality characteristics of the different animals, he will find their various traits reproduced in different human beings." That's our guru talking. So now what do you have to say about his own mixing of 20th century psychobabble junk with yoga and Vedanta? You think I shouldn't be reading books on psychology, do you? You believe they're a delusional trap. I'm just practicing my guru's teachings, man! Page 400, "Man's Eternal Quest".... *Quote:* "Read Shakespeare and other classics, and suitable portions from practical books on such subjects as chemistry, physics, physiology, history of Oriental and Western philosophy, comparative religion, ethics, and psychology." .......whoooooah!! Did I read the word PSYCHOLOGY? Guruji, why hast thou forsaken God? Bad guru! Bad bad guru!!! By the way, your condescendingly attack the American attitude of entitlement without calling the Vedas on the carpet. Reading through the Vedas, I found three prayers in a row invoking God for favors: "Prayer for Earthly and Heavenly Success," "Prayer for Lustre and Power" and "Prayer for Glory." Sounds like Anthony Robbins!!! And that's just three of them. There are many more. Delusional stuff, those Vedas! I never doubted my theory of SRF Guardians. I know I'm right. And my knowing is based on solid psychology and traditional insight. In my aggravated opinion, what I think you need is a history lesson. So I'm going to give it to you straight and plain. Behold! The chronology of the study of temperament -- From Kiersey to Manu and then some.... David Keirsey's landmark book was published in 1978 under the title"Please Understand Me." The second edition "Please Understand Me II" -- which I liberally quote from -- was published in 1998. Just five years out of graduate school, Keirsey first encountered the work of Isabel Myers when he took the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in 1956. The portrait he received -- that he was an INTP "Rational" -- was a profound revelation to him. For the next 45 years, Kiersey has devoted his life to the study of personality and temperament. About the MBTI I've lifted the following description from another website (www.bloomfield.edu/orr/mbti.html)..... "The MBTI was developed by Isabel Myers and Catherine Briggs. Their work was based on Carl Jung's theory of Psychological Types. Having been influenced by World War II, they hoped to develop an inventory that would lead to greater understanding among people -- an effort to lead to a world harmony. " Isabel Myers was not a fly-by-night 20th century psychobabblist. She was a profound thinker with a pragmatic aim. Her genius was making Jung's cumbersome Theory of Psychological Types practical and available to the scientist and layman alike. Other predecessors of Myers were Adickes, Kretschmer, Spranger, and Fromm. Quoting Kiersey, these early pioneers of psychology "saw the usefulness of ancient belief that came primarily from the early Greeks and Romans. It was the Roman physician Galen who, developing the ideas of Hippocrates, proposed (around 190 A.D.) that it is neither the stars nor the gods that determine what we want and what we do; rather, it is the balance of our bodily fluids, the four 'humors,' as they were called ....We might smile at this early view of human psychology, but at the same time we must acknowledge it to be a major departure from what had gone before. Our predispositions , said Galen, come in four styles, and from within and not from without." Kiersey then traces the history of temperament and types further back to Plato, an "Idealist" who predates the Catholic church by more than 4 centuries: "Nearly six hundred years before Galen, Plato had written in 'The Republic' of four kinds of character which clearly corresponded with the four temperaments attributed to Hippocrates. Plato was more interested in the individual's contribution to the social order then in underlying temperament, and so he named the Sanguine temperament the 'iconic' (artisan) character, endowed with artistic sense, and playing an art-making role in society. He named the Melancholic temperament the 'pistic' (guardian) character, endowed with common sense, and playing a caretaking role in society. He named the Choleric temperament the 'noetic' (idealist) character, endowed with intuitive sensibility, and playing a moral role in society. And he named the Phlegmatic temperament the 'dianoetic' (rational0 character, endowd with reasoning sensibility, and playing the role of logical investigator in society." "A generation later, Aristotle [a "Rational"] defined character in terms of happiness, and not, as his mentor Plato had done, in terms of virture. Aristotle argued that there are four sources of happiness: 'The mass of men,' he said, 'find happiness either in 'sensual pleasure' ("hedone") or in 'acquiring assets' ("propraietari"), while some few find happiness either in exercising their 'moral virtue' ("ethikos") or in a life of 'logical investigation' ("dialogike")." Western Civilization owes a significant debt to Vedic lore on the subject of personality types. Starting with Laws of Manu and and the Vedas and culminating with the Upanishads in India. and running a parallel course through the annals of ancient Chinese philosophy, is a schema of a world based on 4 (and sometimes 5) elemental types. The introduction of Vedic concepts to Greek culture is generally credited to a contemporary of Plato named Empedocles of Acragas whose memorable claim was that there are four elements in the universe which account for all its variety. How did you ever arrive at the conclusion that the "all the stuff posted here and elsewhere on the board from that book about the Guardians and the personality types" is a delusional trap of 20th century psychobabble? The only delusional trap I sense here is your ignorance of history and your unwillingness to be moved by a valid idea -- and for that matter -- one that has its roots in the very same traditions you extol.