Nun's Life - www.ezboard.com

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > History of SRF > Nun's Life
Page 1 2	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
crogman1 Registered User (11/14/02 7:41 pm)	Nun's Life I am interested in the history of the nun's lifestyle. All we members hear about are stories of of the old days when the nuns staying up all night to fix food for guests or eating one meal a day or living several to a room. Nothing like that takes place today! Today some of them have to work at an offsite location. Not only do they only have to work about 6 hours a day but they have a private cook at the facility (the employees can’t eat the cooking), a private exercise room the employees can’t use, a private resting room the employees can’t use and who knows what else. While the lifestyle is one of cult induced stress for sure, outwardly they live a life of leisure. They don’t clean the grounds or buildings or even clean up their own offices. They don’t cook their own meals and all have private rooms, some live outside the ashram gates in large homes, not just the president. How did this transition happen? Who decided the life of renunciation was no longer what was needed for Yogananda’s monastics? Edited by: crogman1 at: 11/15/02 6:57:04 am
X Insider Registered User (11/16/02 4:26 pm)	Re: Nun's Life Correction: One large home, across the street. Except for the elite who live next door to Daya Mata in Sierra Madre. Six hours work a day is a myth. For most. And even if it were true that the nuns don't work at all, SRF members are still getting what they pay for, because what they are paying for is the illusion that the monastics' lifestyle and meditations are somehow helping them spiritually. Think about it. It is realization by osmosis. "Oh, I was so blissed out by the talk given by Bro. So and So .." "Oh, she looks like an angel on earth in her ochre robe!" "I am so relieved that Ma is still alive and running SRF from her state of realization" Wrong. But that is what they pay for and it is obviously worth it to them. It is pain relief (yes life is hard) and easier on the body than narcotics.
KS Registered User (12/26/02 9:35 am)	Re: Nun's Life Concerning the nun’s life and work hours, they do work offsite on a shortened schedule. Much shorter than the employees. Some will of course find other ways to keep busy or bring work with them. Many of those who have left were doing this. I think a case could be made for useful hours VS hours spent doing things a normal company would never pay for but that is obvious to most Walrus readers. On another point I never did send in money thinking they were meditating or praying for my benefit. I used to send them money, and volunteer time, thinking I was helping Yogananda. In the early years I had no idea how they used the money. I never considered their lives were a surrogate for my own spiritual struggles. I never even heard that! Is this a common belief I wonder? From my own experience some of the monks do work very shortened days. At Lake Shrine and other places away from MC, the workload can be very light. The nuns are much more controlled and supervised so they are kept busy (at something). Shorter schedules would be fine if it were a real monastery. Because the place is really just a cult it seems more like stealing or some con game for a free life style. They are certainly hurting Yogananda's work and reputation. I obviously no longer send them any money.
psychdev Registered User (12/26/02 5:08 pm)	Re: Nun's Life <<Because the place is really just a cult it seems more like stealing or some con game for a free life style. >> How about a little less name-calling? If you disagree with particular aspects of SRF, such as your belief they are hierarchical and authoritarian, fine. But say that. Please don't throw around such inflamatory words as "cult", which can mean many different things to many different people (including Jim Jones and Heaven's gate). It's really irresponsible IMO, hurts people who may be innocent, and suggests a complete unwillingness on your part to question your own opinions. It's very unfair and, paradoxically, evokes the same blind, rigid orthodoxy that you complain about in SRF. You have never responded, BTW, to my earlier suggestion that (by your view) the Franciscans, the Mennonites, the Amish, or many orders of Theravaden Buddists would be "cults". When you use the word in this way, I think you stretch it beyond all usefulness. It becomes almost meaningless--just a useful club to use against an organization you dislike.
chrisparis Registered User (12/27/02 7:37 am)	Re: Nun's Life Hey Psychdev, it's a free country. SRF displays enough cult-like behavior, as already discussed, to earn the epithet. Anybody on this board should feel free to call the organization a cult, a scam, or mny other such thing, as long as they are willing to defend their use of the word, as has been done. If this offends your tender sensibilities, perhaps you should find a board where tamer language prevails.
psychdev Registered User (12/27/02 8:08 am)	Re: Nun's Life Chrisparis: <<, it's a free country. SRF displays enough cult-like behavior, as already discussed, to earn the epithet. Anybody on this board should feel free to call the organization a cult, a scam, or mny other such thing, as long as they are willing to defend their use of the word, as has been done?? Earth to Chrisparis: Justifing the use of the word "cult" is PRECISELY what I would like. KS never responded (nor have you) to my long-standing question, "How does SRF differ from the Franciscans, Amish, Mennonites, or many different orders of Buddish and Hindus--all of whom are considered authentic relgiious organizations and none of which would usually earn the name of "cult". Few people would use the word "cult" to describe them. And if they did, the meaning of the word would be stretched so far as to be virtually meaningless. As you well know, the popular meaning of the word cult is a hugely inflamatory and evokes images of Jim Jones and Heavens gate. The way it is used here--without qualification--is more like swearing than any attempt at serious discussion. It is, indeed, an "epithet" as you suggest. The unwillingness to venture outside the bounds of an epithet (to question it's meaning), suggests a mind which is tightly closed against alternatives. You simply refuse, as far as I can tell, to use more specific, descriptive words than "cult" to describe what you mean--for example, "rigidly hierarchical" or "not transparent". Instead, you seem content to curse SRF and direct your comments to the circle of people who agree with you. The use of high-octane words like "cult" (or Nazi or "free country") strongly suggests the same thing. An analogy to certain self-abuse practices comes to mind; but since this is a family BB, I will refrain. Edited by: psychdev at: 12/27/02 8:14:50 am
username Registered User (12/27/02 8:44 am)	Re: Nun's Life just ignore psychdev and maybe he will go away
psychdev Registered User (12/27/02 11:10 am)	Re: Nun's Life username: <<just ignore psychdev and maybe he will go away>> IMHO you have stated my case for close-mindedness more eloquently than anything I could say. Your statement virtually defines the notion of "group think"--a desire to exclude people with alternative points of view. The desire to to exclude, to coverup, to avoid serious questions is the very essence of close-mindedness. As far as I can tell, you are quite unwilling to step outside the box of your own rhetoric ("cult") to respond to real, thoughtful questions--preferring the emotional release of epithets. How very sad. When you stop questioning both yourself and others, when you feel the need to exclude people because you don't like their questinos, you are well on the way to spiritual death IMO.
member108 Registered User (12/27/02 11:46 pm)	Re: Nun's Life I myself use the word CULT to describe SRF to express my opinion that there is more false and damaging about SRF than there is good and worth while. I use the adjective to sum up my opinions on SRF. To debate this and that practice of an organization and which of these actions define a group as a cult is an interesting debate but on the other hand I use it just as a derogatory short hand term to sum up my attitude toward them. I realize others will use it differently. However, I also feel everyone understands it to be derogatory and that SRF would not like being thought of as a cult. The cult SRF did this or does that.
psychdev Registered User (12/28/02 1:19 am)	Re: Nun's Life MEMBER108: Fair enough. A very honest statement IMHO. But I'd still like to know, if SRF is a "cult", how it differs essentially from the other religious groups mentioned earlier (e.g., Amish)? I'm genuinely curious whether you or others would make this distinction.
ATrueBeliever Registered User (12/28/02 2:17 pm)	Re: Nun's Life One of the characteristics of a cult is an infallible leader. The Amish do not have one. SRF does.
redpurusha Registered User (12/31/02 9:17 am)	Re: Nun's Life psychdev, From my understading of religion and its classification, the regular definition of a cult is a religious movement/group that has deviated greatly from the originally teachings, from the true form of religious practice and understanding. Santan Dharma, or religion in the purest and most universal sense of seeking satchinananda or existence, consciousness, bliss, is expressed outwardly and uniquely by various prophets, Christ, Krishna, Buddha, Moses, etc. These, what The Science of Religion calls 'churches and denominations' (Christianity, Hinduism. etc) are further broken down into 'cults and creeds' (Catholic, Protestant, etc.) So, under the universal classifications given in The Science of Religion, popular religions such as the Catholic Church are actually a cult which has greatly deviated from the essentially esoteric nature of Sanatan Dharma. However, because of the acceptance or large following of them, religious societies with a focus on esoteric aspects of religion primarily, are labeled as the 'cults and freaks' of religion. Personally, I believe in the univeral Santan Dharma and the individual dharma 'religion' everyone has for themselves. Each person's mode of practicing religion, or seeking permanent existance consciousness bliss or happiness, is his own dharma that's right -FOR HIM. This means, practacing catholics, buddhists, and SRF members, are worshipping God in their own way thats right for them at the time. As I wrote earlier, all these religious modes of worship (including the Amish and others listed) can, in some way, be classified as cults. It depends largely on one's perspective. The calling of SRF a cult, IMO, as I have read here for the most part, is as you say psychdev, a club used to beat on SRF. With respect to anyone here who does label SRF a cult, there are the negative 'cult-like' elements within SRF that many know by personal experience. Every religious group, some to a much greater degree than others, has deviated from God's eternal laws and esoteric nature. But in comparison to the groups I've heard of, who've gone as far as mass suicides and slavery, and worse things, SRF is not on that level.
ATrueBeliever Registered User (1/1/03 1:35 am)	Re: Nun's Life Characteristics of Cults: The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. The group is preoccupied with making money. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth). The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity). The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations). The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities). The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members
X Insider Registered User (1/1/03 11:54 pm)	Re: Nun's Life Psychdev, check out the issue of accountability of a group's authority figure and then tell me the SRF monastic order is not a cult. This is a crucial difference between the SRF ashram and, say, the Marine Corps or a mainstream religions body. Seems ATrueBeliever may have gathered his or her info from the work of American Family Foundation (formerly Cult Awareness Network) or from the excellent book "Cults in Our Midst."
redpurusha Registered User (1/2/03 8:03 am)	Re: Nun's Life Under these characteristics, virtually every/any religious movement is a cult, with the exception of those teachings which have no leader or some type of authority figure, which I am not aware of. It comes down to, I think, are these teachings good for YOU? are you benefiting from practicing them, if not then get out, if yes, then continue to practice.
chuckle chela Registered User (1/2/03 5:49 pm)	Re: Nun's Life I think X Insider has brought up a good point: accountability. This is an area in which I think SRF falls short. As I recall, psychdev, you have previously mentioned you thought SRF needed more transparency. I would agree. Presently, as far as I can tell, there is very little accountability. The President and the BOD can do whatever they wish, spend money however they see fit, and we have no means of telling whether these actions are (a) useful in furthering the Aims and Ideals of SRF, (b) useful to the members in ways that could be determined by everyone, and (c) actually bringing the results they are supposed to bring. There are almost no opportunities for the members or monastics (other than monastic leaders) to give feedback and to participate in decision-making. And when you do offer your input, particularly on sensitive topics, it isn’t well-received. Indeed, we’re encouraged to “write to Mother Center,” but I found out that when I did, my thoughts and suggestions were given—how shall I put it politely?—little more than a dismissive attitude. That’s what I found hurt the most. I took up the challenge many months ago to try to work for change; the net result was that I didn’t get far. Indeed, I got nowhere, as far as I can tell. It hurts because it seems to me SRF could be so much better for everyone concerned if it were more open, more transparent, more accountable, and if it not only tolerated actually encouraged dialogue, feedback, and discussion in a number of areas. The organization would benefit, and the members would benefit. I think X Insider is right: SRF will survive and continue to exist for years. But I don’t think it will thrive and grow in ways that are meaningful for a rapidly changing world. Redpurusha, you mention that virtually all religious groups would be cults given the criteria outlined by ATrueBeliever. I can’t quite agree. I came to SRF from the Episcopal Church. It had almost none of the characteristics on that list. Furthermore, it was very big on accountability, transparency, and participation in decision-making by all. Perhaps that’s why I’ve been so saddened by what’s happened in SRF. You wrote: [i] “It comes down to, I think, are these teachings good for YOU? are you benefiting from practicing them, if not then get out, if yes, then continue to practice.”[/i] In one sense, I disagree. Why can’t I try to change the organization without having to leave? (I happen to think the teachings themselves, more or less, are okay, although even there I have some reservations. I have received great benefits from applying the teachings). Surely we’re not going to espouse some kind of “love it or leave it” notion, are we? (If so, then count me out). I haven’t been hurt personally and directly by SRF or its leaders. But I have seen people who have been hurt, and I have thoughts and ideas that might help prevent others being hurt. Am I supposed to just ignore this? Is SRF and its culture one that doesn’t recognize any sense of social justice? Ultimately, though, you’re right: if it doesn’t work for you, then get out. I’ve been saddened to think that this is what I’m going to have to do. Not because it hasn’t worked for me, but because I—and a number of others—have seen problems that appear to need addressing, but none of the leaders (aside from Bro. Vishwananda, and the jury is still out there) seem to want to address them or even acknowledge their existence. Further to any discussion of whether SRF is or isn’t a cult, it might be more useful to just focus on the behaviors and practices in SRF that some see as cultish and/or dysfunctional/regressive, or whatever. I can’t see much value in trying to debate whether SRF is or isn’t a cult, unless you want an endless ping-pong game. Perhaps the questions should be: “does SRF exhibit cult-like behaviors and practices? If so, what are they and how might they harm its members? If they are harmful, can they be changed? Why or why not” (Geez, I sound like a high school teacher). Of course, many answers to these questions have been given previously on the Walrus board.
crogman1 Registered User (1/2/03 6:16 pm)	Re: Nun's Life Some people still seem to believe that SRF and the teachings are one and the same. How can we get this misunderstanding corrected! The teachings have been around for literally thousands of years. Even Yogananda's words describe it as fundamentally the same as all the great religions. Even the specifics of yoga and the techniques are old old old. Feeling that SRF has no value is COMPLETELY different than feeling that the principles laid down in the 10 commandments and the Gita have no value. SRF tries very hard to make their people think they are one and the same. They spout about a new interpretation or some other twist. They need that connection to lend some credibility to their attempts at control. Yogananda's message stands alone. It is a wonderful explaination of the basic truths about life. We don't need SRF as a go between.
redpurusha Registered User (1/3/03 8:06 am)	Re: Nun's Life chuckle chela, thanks for a thoughful response. The position you address reminds me of one of the central issues of Walrus, the possibility of changing the organization instead of leaving it. In one sense I agree with you, in that if it can be shown clearly that mismanagement and abuse is going on (like it has to some degree) than efforts for change, correction, and improvement must be made by those in position and personal experience. However, if this is impossible or useless (as it has been shown) than what else is one to do? I hope it's not to be endlessly bitter and constantly complaining. From my observation and experience there ARE alternative ways to recieve the teachings of Yogananda and yoga, through various societies not affiliated with SRF, that can be of more benefit to some -for example, Amrita, Ananda, Solar Logos, CSA, etc. I doubt SRF will change the way it presents (or doesn't present) the teachings, and this is how many devotees like it, just not the majority here. The position I am taking is that let SRF be like the current leaders want it to be, take advantage of whatever it has to offer (its different for everyone), and if/when one gets to the point of not being able to grow anymore or benefit from the society, or if its damaging to your life than let it go and move on to something better fitted for you. To each their own individual dharma. Thanks crogman1, for the reminder. You are absolutely right about the teachings and SRF not being one and the same. What I was hoping to address here, was the handling and presentation of the teachings by SRF is for some a good thing, and for some a bad thing, and for most a degree in the middle. It's not a question of is SRF being right or wrong, is it a cult or isn't it, but is it the best thing for you at this stage of your existence? The highest loyalty is to God and His laws, religious societies do their best to represent this, however much misrepresentation there is. Edited by: redpurusha at: 1/3/03 8:37:55 am
chuckle chela Registered User (1/3/03 6:15 pm)	Re: Nun's Life I agree, redpurusha: if you don't think things are going to change, it's of no value to complain endlessly and remain forever bitter. Move on. "What else is one to do?" you ask. It's a good question. Personally, I think you need to decide whether you can support the organization as it is. If you can't, then move on. Personally, I have no need of any other source for Yogananda's teachings. I seek no other Yogananda-affiliated organization. By and large, I've been happy with the teachings as I've received them from SRF. My bias, though, is that I think they could be presented much more effectively, both in written and oral forms. You mention that most members seem to be happy with the teachings as they are presented. That may well be the case. Whether they are presented in ways which most effectively increase the self-realization of the members remains another question. Alas, it is one that will probably never be answered. It's not that I think the teachings are presented so terribly poorly; rather, it is that I feel they could be presented so much more effectively. But it's a moot point, since I don't make any decisions, and no one appears to be interested in feedback. I agree with crog as well: one shouldn't confuse SRF with the teachings of Yogananda, which are, of course, of a universal nature.
KS Registered User (1/3/03 10:04 pm)	Most members happy? *Quote:* You mention that most members seem to be happy with the teachings as they are presented. In fact most members do not seem happy with the teachings as presented. The eventual SRF drop out rate is very close to 100%. The drop out after the first 20 lessons is very very high. SRF is shrinking, not growing. The monastic community is the smallest it has been in 25 years, it is not getting larger. I would not say that most people attracted to Yogananda's message seem happy with how SRF is presenting it. Far from it.
redpurusha Registered User (1/7/03 12:00 pm)	Re: Most members happy? KS, I wrote 'many' and should have wrote more accurately 'at least some' devotees are fine with the teachings how they are presented. You are probably right about the drop-off rate. Yogananda's teachings, regardless if they are SRF edited or not, are not easy to practice. They do require a lot of time given to meditation and spiritual matters the general population is too busy for or doesn't have an interest in. The average house-holder getting the teachings tailered for monastics doesn't help either and only ads to the drop-off rate as you mention.

Page 1 2

<< 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: