WORLD CRISIS: What is Destroying the United States?

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Not the Main Stream > WORLD CRISIS: What is Destroying the United States?
Page 1 2 3 4 5	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
OneTaste Registered User (12/5/03 2:05 am) Reply	Re: Punk Yogi....Cheney's Reply *Quote:* Here's another article you might like from the Pasadena City College paper. www.pcc-courieronline.com...ouche.html RB, after reading this, I had to wonder how long it would take before someone would try and show how SRF was up to the same sort of stuff. Reading about this kind of activity takes the oomph out of the "It's a cult, I tell you. Listen to me!" wing. A messed up org, certainly. A cult? Hmmm.
Punk Yogi Registered User (12/5/03 3:03 am) Reply	You Have Been The Subject of an Experiment Welly welly welly! It seems that Punk Yogi created quite a controversy when he posted this Larouche article. And so, in typical Yellowbeard fashion, let me enlighten you to the experiment you were subjected to: It began as a bet Punk made with himself. [incidentally, Punk won the bet]. He was certain most of you would dismiss the article categorically as a hoax based on the name attached and the presence of a conspiratorial tone. He was curious: did any of you have the discipline to acknowledge even a minute shred of truth wherever it appears, even a fragment of a diamond amidst the cheap glass that you all claim the article to be? The result was a unanimous "no." None but a sparse few could transcend the urge to resort to ad hominum at first opportunity. In doing so, you ran the discourse into shallow waters where midgets can stand as giants and easily beach the fiercest battleship. Very early in the game Punk beckoned you to practice the counsel of two of the wisest souls in our spiritual lineage: Babaji and Sri Yukteswar. "Everything on earth is of mixed character, like a mingling of sand and sugar. Be like the wise ant which seizes only the sugar, and leaves the sand untouched." --- Babaji Had you applied Babaji's counsel to this particular Larouche article, you would have presented a more balanced argument. You would have endeavored to demonstrate your understanding of world affairs and economics by subjecting Mr. Larouche's contentions to educated and objective scrutiny. No matter what we think of Mr. Larouche's character, he still makes references to current issues of political and social importance. No matter how much you loathe his personality and suspect his motivations, he is still unquestioningly regarded as a legitimate source of intelligence in Washington. He has been the guest of many prominent leaders worldwide. If his 18 year old college groupies are inclined to boisterous and over-zealous conduct, think of your average college fraternity with its occasional death by hazing, think of the drunken bashes and quasi-religious devotion to sports. Think of how gullible you were at 18 when you joined SRF (or try to imagine). For those of you who are idealists, (Etzy, I acknowledge you) we could have used this article as a departure point for discussing the general welfare clause in the Constitution. We could have discussed globalization or our concerns about our shared economic future. Instead many of you chose to make this a discussion exclusively about cult behavior. Obviously a pet subject on the Walrus ... possibly one of the only subjects many of you discuss with perfect credibility due to the victimization, pain, and even shame you felt after submitting your intellects, lives and authenticity so long into the hands of questionable spiritual authority. This sense of victimization is so strong in many of you that you cannot resist digging for dirt. How many of you, when given a chance to refer to them as human beings, ONLY refer to the board of directors as "bad ladies"? Are they 100% bad? Is that an accurate encapsulation of who they are? Or are they ordinary human beings who have done some bad things? And if we can call them bad ladies, shouldn't we also be willing to refer to ourselves as stupid souls because we permitted our reason, our wants and our ultimate personal needs to be hijacked by an agenda external to our authentic selves? Punk Yogi would be a hypocrite if he didn't admit his share of Mata bashing. Yet, at the heart of his punkiness was an urge to bring some levity into the spiritual domain. Punk realized that he and his spiritual peers were taking their spiritual roles too seriously. He was born out of an urge jostle the status quo, the calcified mindsets of those people he loved and shared sadhana with. Spiritual seekers can become very possessive of their sacred cows; Punk came on the scene to grind meat and make hamburgers. Punk is a trickster for eternity. "It is never a question of belief; the only scientific attitude one can take on any subject is whether it is true. " -- Sri Yukteswar It is not a question of believing Larouche. The only scientific attitude to take on him is whether anything he says is true. Admit the fallacy you made. When SacredLovemaker posted a thread on spiritual sexuality, hardly anyone joined him in a hardcore intellectual chat on the points he actually wrote about. pub78.ezboard.com/fsrfwal...D=14.topic His postings were some of the first to explore what an SRF lifestyle might be minus the doctrine of monasticim. What could have been an enlightening discussion on sacred sexuality immediately degenerated, in the hands of shortsighted individuals, into yet another discussion about the alleged "Harem at Mt. Washington." The Yogananda/Erskine scandal, as Sacred Lovemaker explained for the groundlings, was never about sex. It was always and shall ever be an issue regarding integrity. Hardly anyone had the sophistication to grasp that crucial distinction. One has to ask: What has happened to the reasoning faculties so many of these meditating yogis? How did they enter a path of "high thinking" and end up being two-legged National Enquirers? Can you see what's pathetic about this? Bascially, everything essential has been said on the Walrus as early as 2001. Our dilemma is simple: In our naive idealism, we expected too much and gave far more of ourselves away than we probably should have. From now on, take 100% responsibility. You always had a choice. Nobody ever forced you or me to do anything or believe in anything. Reclaim yourself. Reclaim your passion. Allow yourself to fully see what you see and know what you know. Be able to acknowledge good ideas wherever you find them without giving your lives away to the messenger. If you can do this one thing, you can learn something from even the most wicked person. Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 12/5/03 3:41 am
etzchaim Registered User (12/5/03 7:54 am) Reply	Re: You Have Been The Subject of an Experiment Punk Yogi, I give you your victory! Mazal tov. Think of me as an idiot savant. I can talk religion, mysticism, psychology, art... but math, economics and constitutional law are beyond me with the exception of having gut instincts and intuitive knowledge that something is wrong in the homeland, and anyway, I have a whole lotta stuff on my plate. Impressing you just ain't one of 'em. I stopped trying to respond to this when I realized that I was even posting during my normal "I should be painting" time. You win!!!!! Etz is happy for you. Honest. Edited by: etzchaim at: 12/5/03 7:55 am
soulcircle Registered User (12/5/03 8:34 am) Reply	Experiences with Democracy...World Views from India A Woman Taking Responsibility zmag.org/content/showarti...temID=1558 Let's find time for some discussion in here of leaving a better world for future generations. Edited by: soulcircle at: 12/5/03 8:40 am
YellowBeard420 Registered User (12/5/03 10:43 am) Reply	Re: You Have Been The Subject of an Experiment > "Everything on earth is of mixed character, like a mingling of sand and sugar. Be like the wise ant which seizes only the sugar, and leaves the sand untouched." (Babaji) > "No matter what we think of Mr. Larouche's character, he still makes references to current issues of political and social importance." (Punk Yogi) When I was reading the article, I did feel that he raised some valid and important issues worth our attention. But the conspiracy theory conclusions tainted the whole dish. It's like eating a tainted bowl of soup, we could try to fish out all the toxic elements and use the good stuff that remains. But why bother when we can respectfully toss it out and open up a new can of soup? Why try to pick sugar out of sand when we can just buy a box of sugar? There's other speakers who address these issues without the conspiracy theory conclusions. There's guys like Robert Fisk who speak on the politics of war. A few talks I've heard from Howard Zinn were very good; he brings up similar issues. And I'm sure there's some great minds out there addressing the economic issues. It hurts me to see that you've brought up something that you feel is of value to share and it gets attacked like this. And I certainly don't like participating in such a process. But I feel it's an unhealthy road for us to travel down. Let's stop picking our sugar out of the sand and just buy a box of sugar and get it straight. If I had any sense, I would close this here. But I feel this is somewhat appropriate to bring up here: The Babaji quotes are a bit on the disturbing side. It's like quoting Santa. It's kind of hard to do considering he's not real. Babaji translates to Daddy. He's a generic Indian guru myth. He says whatever people want to put in his mouth. Lots of religious organizations use him as their spokes person so they can make claims and then put them into the mouth of God, so to speak, to give weight to their views. He's great to use because he cannot deny saying any of these things. You kind of have to exist to be able to do that. Punk, you're a very intelligent guy and you have a lot to offer. You don't need to sit on Babaji's shoulders, I think you do more than good enough standing on your own two feet.
etzchaim Registered User (12/5/03 11:41 am) Reply	Re: Experiences with Democracy...World Views from India "Let's find time for some discussion in here of leaving a better world for future generations." Sigh.... Live your life well. Help people where you can. Find out who you are so you can live your life in accordance with your abilities to contribute to a better future. Recognize that every person has a talent or ability that is theirs to bring to the world and that is what they should be doing, and support them with love.
soulcircle Registered User (12/5/03 11:53 am) Reply	etzchaim.... you have found the essence etzchaim, it is nice to see such clear concise guidance i will, and i will join always with others in kindness and respect seemingly the holidays also offer cleansing and renewal why wait for an all day meditation when we can completely live in the moment forgiving and transforming ourselves and doing what our capabilities allow in the community/world thank you, Dave
etzchaim Registered User (12/5/03 12:20 pm) Reply	Revised two-cents, now four-cents Soulcircle, Dr. Shiva has been much more successful in organizing locally, and getting local people elected, but has not had the same success on a larger scale. Unfortunately, some of the politicians she has supported have made promises that were broken. To my way of thinking, instead of thinking on a large scale as far as activism goes, the best work seems to be being done when knowledgeable people work to educate the local people being affected - to bring their case to whatever type of "court system" exists in their area (much of the abuse is in the undeveloped countries), environmentalists need to be well trained and willing to go into these areas and document as well as agitate, etc., and here in the wealthy world, education and raising of consciousness about how this is affecting our lifes, and especially the lives of their children and later decendents, should be a concern. This is more often done by simply bringing this up in normal conversation - most people have not really made the connection yet - and a good portion of Americans earn their livelihood at the very corporations who are doing the worst damage, so they are ambivalent at best. This is where a raising of awareness is most important and, lets say a change of consciousness in the culture of 'getting money' and material possessions toward more awareness of health - physical, mental and spiritual, or they really won't care about the remote future possibility that our own waters could someday give us cancer, let alone the waters in some 3rd World country. Even if our waters are currently getting us sick, it's not noticeable enough for people to just spontaneously 'wake up' to the problem. We need to educate people in whatever ways ours strengths provide us. Corporate Culture itself is not going to go away, but we may be able to change it. The changes need to be internal, within the system, so to speak, at least in this time period. Because of the violence in demonstrations against corporate-world-take-over, et.al., Middle America does not see "Capitalism is dangerous", they see "Anti-Capitalism is dangerous" when this happens, all that energy put into the 'actions' backfires. Today, I would not send a kid into a demonstration. They are liable to get their heads bashed by our "protectors of the Free World" or at least traumatized by the experience. I would tell them to take a different route and discipline themselves to work within the system in what ever way their talents take them. Edited by: etzchaim at: 12/5/03 4:39 pm
OneTaste Registered User (12/5/03 4:30 pm) Reply	Ad hominem and stir *Quote:* When SacredLovemaker posted a thread on spiritual sexuality, hardly anyone joined him in a hardcore intellectual chat on the points he actually wrote about. You still aren't over this are you, SL? Look, instead of whining endlessly and setting up these strawman arguments and "experiments" designed to convince you of whatever you need convincing of, why don't you just start the damn thread over again and see what happens with this crowd? Hectoring folks because they didn't sufficiently respond to a long, rambling, off-topic post? Schoolmarm meets the punk? Fabulous. At least the sacred lovemaking one was germane to the board. Taking out your residual angst on a bunch of people who weren't even on the board at the time of the original is kinda lame. Ya got this punky thing going real well, mr. rebel. Why do you have to blend in this control freak stuff with it? It's a bad fit, as etz pointed out from the getgo. You are on a discussion board! The very nature of the beast is threads going all over the place, going nowhere or everywhere. Get over it. Whiny punks are an embarrasment to the species. *Quote:* From now on, take 100% responsibility. You always had a choice. Nobody ever forced you or me to do anything or believe in anything. You know, sacred punkster, this is a nice encapsulation of the first post I ever put up here, back in an earlier incarnation. It was called SRF is to Blame, But I am Moreso. You, too? It�s subsequently been wiped from the board and I was banned as well. People apparently didn�t like me pointing out that personal responsibility thing and not singing along in the We Are Pefect Postmodern Victims choir.
etzchaim Registered User (12/5/03 4:47 pm) Reply	Re: Ad hominem and stir "You are on a discussion board! The very nature of the beast is threads going all over the place, going nowhere or everywhere." That's what makes being on the Walrus a lot like Sacred Lovemaking! xxx's
Punk Yogi Registered User (12/5/03 6:47 pm) Reply	To Etz "threads going all over the place" "That's what makes being on the Walrus a lot like Sacred Lovemaking!" ...or like sloppy kissing! Etzy, you'll appreciate this quote from Kurt Vonnegut: "It took us a long time to realize that a purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved." xxxx from your circumcized Punky
Punk Yogi Registered User (12/5/03 7:43 pm) Reply	To Yellowbeard "But why bother when we can respectfully toss it out and open up a new can of soup? Why try to pick sugar out of sand when we can just buy a box of sugar? There's other speakers who address these issues without the conspiracy theory conclusions. There's guys like Robert Fisk who speak on the politics of war. A few talks I've heard from Howard Zinn were very good; he brings up similar issues. And I'm sure there's some great minds out there addressing the economic issues." -- Yellowbeard A valid point. Zinn and Fisk are stellar. If one intends to draw from a limited number of sources, they are the best. But the world is wide and there are gems to be found everywhere. In defense of my method, let me insert a quote I stumbled on while surfing the net. I'm have no familiarity with the person who cited it or who said it. However, it entirely represents my view: "Mae Brussel, who inspired a whole generation of researchers (sometimes known as "Brussel Sprouts") taught her disciples to read everything across the whole political spectrum and to sift and weigh all pieces of information as separate elements of the collective aggregate. She taught us to compare everything with every other thing and to work out the contradictions between the various voices that speak conflicting things because everything means something and nothing is without significance. If we use our heads, we can eventually find the whole truth. Reality is the total synthesis of all the voices, past and present, and in politics (polis being the city or society at large), every political faction contains a certain amount of truth as well as varying degrees of error." "Let's stop picking our sugar out of the sand and just buy a box of sugar and get it straight" Get it straight? But isn't the shortest distance between two points a curve. Let's just get it however we get it. "The Babaji quotes are a bit on the disturbing side. It's like quoting Santa. It's kind of hard to do considering he's not real." What do you mean Santa's not real! I saw him sitting in front of Nordstroms the other day. "Babaji translates to Daddy. He's a generic Indian guru myth. He says whatever people want to put in his mouth. Lots of religious organizations use him as their spokes person so they can make claims and then put them into the mouth of God, so to speak, to give weight to their views. He's great to use because he cannot deny saying any of these things. You kind of have to exist to be able to do that." A small dose of John Wayne and Santa and Mickey Mouse never hurt a flea. What hurts people is their own undifferentiated projections, their daddy complexes and such. When one is on the path of truth, even a walnut can cry a scripture. Ever read "Cat's Cradle" by Kurt Vonnegut? I recommend it. The mysterious Babaji-like Bokonon provides his people guidance via a religion based on lies, yet these fabricated insights still end up being useful. I wanted all things To seem to make some sense, So we could all be happy, yes, Instead of tense. And I made up lies So that they all fit nice, And I made this sad world A par-a-dise. -- On the Creation of Bokonism Certain ideas can work no matter where they come from. Whether or not Babaji is a real person, the aphorism attributed to his name is a truthful and useful article.... at least for me. If Popeye had said it, I'd still put it on my refrigerator. "You don't need to sit on Babaji's shoulders, I think you do more than good enough standing on your own two feet." I appreciate that. I also think you're top notch. As for sitting on Babaji's shoulders, let's just say that would be kinda difficult considering how invisible he is. Let me also say that Babji is not a crutch for me. I'd just as soon quote Benjamin Franklin or Punk Yogi as quote Babaji but the one from Babaji suited the occasion perfectly. Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 12/6/03 2:26 am
Punk Yogi Registered User (12/5/03 8:29 pm) Reply	To One Taste Hey One Taste.. looks as if they put a bit too much yeast in your dough and left the oven on for too long :-) You seem lost in this discussion. The so-called "long, rambling, off-topic" post you speak of found its home in a section called "Not the Main Stream" (take the hint). The ensuing responses seemed to veer in a predictable pattern. The task of anyone willing enough to consider my observation was to evaluate the progess of this thread in the light of an analogous one, in this case Sacred Lovemaker's. Your ears are tuned to fundamentals, but do they hear overtones? I hear that meditation helps people to acquire a subtler mind. Pure Punk Taste the difference! Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 12/5/03 8:42 pm
Ringbearer7 Registered User (12/5/03 8:42 pm) Reply	Re: You Have Been The Subject of an Experiment "Very early in the game Punk beckoned you to practice the counsel of two of the wisest souls in our spiritual lineage: Babaji and Sri Yukteswar." And I have: even though LaRouche is a crank I do not assume every economist/political commentator is a crank. I think I pointed out my position on this very early on: "I have read LaRouche and have also heard him speak. I have given him fair time. That I now don't bother much to analyze his writings is simply a matter of efficiency - there are plenty of other political commentators that have yet to prove themselves to be nutcakes." I am not an expert on economics and therefore don't really have the wherewithal or the time to go sifting through LaRouche's lengthy articles to find sweet kernels of truth. Because of this reason I prefer authors that have less, um, "baggage." You see, I do apply the counsel of Babaji - its just that my grains of sand are perhaps a bit larger than yours. I do have to work for a living. "You Have Been The Subject of an Experiment" Happy to oblige.
Punk Yogi Registered User (12/5/03 8:53 pm) Reply	Re: You Have Been The Subject of an Experiment "I prefer authors that have less, um, "baggage." ".... its just that my grains of sand are perhaps a bit larger than yours." Well if I Punk had any common sense, he'd figure the guy with the larger grains of sand would be the guy with the most baggage. "I am not an expert on economics and therefore don't really have the wherewithal or the time to go sifting through LaRouche's lengthy articles..." "I do have to work for a living." Listen Ring-a-Ling ... For a person with such a busy schedule, you sure had enough time to make your way down to the utmost bottom of the Walrus and spend 5 days writing 11 posts. My advice to you is for quit your job as an amateur commentator and get a full-time job in the real world. Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 12/5/03 9:09 pm
OneTaste Registered User (12/5/03 9:37 pm) Reply	Re: To One Taste *Quote:* Hey One Taste.. looks as if they put a bit too much yeast in your dough and left the oven on for too long :-) Well, we all know what those bastards are capable of! Though burned, at least I can now rise to the occasion. I do love performance contradictions wherever I see them, and so it goes with yours Sacred Punkster. My, my, but to come on here whining about folks not sifting through your Larouche screed to find the gems and instead resorting to the exact thing you display here--cheap ad hominem. Aren�t you supposed to take your own advice and engage the ideas put forth, even from a lowly popeye like me? You�re supposed to make fun of my mustache after you engage the ideas, remember? Do you even read your own lesson plans? *Quote:* The task of anyone willing enough to consider my observation was to evaluate the progess of this thread in the light of an analogous one, in this case Sacred Lovemaker's. Your ears are tuned to fundamentals, but do they hear overtones? Well, if they did, the overtones would probably sound like this: �I set up this thread to test an assumption. I was curious to discover if there were, among those of you who are supposedly thinking outside "the box" of SRF dogma . . ." Remember that one? Different topic, different handle, same tactic, same schoolmarm tone. You whined through that one when you didn�t get your way, you whined through this one for the same reason. Still, when you weren�t so busy directing traffic, you made some excellent points. *Quote:* I hear that meditation helps people to acquire a subtler mind. Well, depends on who you ask. Your �top notch� fellow YB insists that it turns the mind to mush. Argue amongst your elves.
chuckle chela Registered User (12/6/03 1:40 am) Reply	Re: You Have Been The Subject of an Experiment Gentlemen. Gentlemen. This is, I take it, what is referred to as a "pissing contest?" We ladies don't have the necessary equipment, it seems, for such contests. Punk Yogi, it was an interesting experiment, no doubt. I suppose you could argue it was the only way you could make your point--that is, by being able to say, "See, I've proved you're doing what I'm claiming you're doing." Fine. You have a point. I do think, though, that OT has a point: get over it. Just a thought. You offer us challenges in critical thinking, analysis, and problem-solving. I seem to see plenty of that scattered over the Walrus landscape, isolated though it may seem to some. I agree with you that most of what needed to be said about SRF and perhaps about Yogananda was said in the early days of the Walrus. But, as OT remarked, there are different players here now, and people have to make the discoveries for themselves; often, it seems they have to do this by writing their ways through the issues (a suggestion that Yogananda himself made). Fine by me (it had better be, since the Walrus contains more than enough of my spewage!). Is there too much whining and not enough effort at building solutions? I suppose there could be, and we need to be reminded from time to time about playing Pro Victim, about dwelling on the superficialities, about dwelling on personalities and avoiding issues, but here's a point for your consideration: people have to build their own personal solutions; the first step in doing so is getting their heads clear. This takes time and involves all kinds of stuff, good and bad, profound and superficial. Then the individuals can go out and re-build (if necessary) their lives, or re-route them as each sees fit. This includes our relationships with organizations, with teachers and gurus, and with other people. We in cyberspace aren't going to see much of that process, but I'm willing to bet it's occurring for many people. I'm not trying to excuse shallowness; rather, I'm just suggesting a bit of it maybe somewhat inevitable from time to time. And, yes, there probably are some folks who will remain at the National Enquirer level of things (this week, though, much to my delight and amusement, it's been more of "The World Weekly News," or whatever that wacky paper is with the outlandish headlines). Many of us had to realize that SRF (or SRF/Yogananda), or at least substantial parts of it, just wasn't going to work for us and we've moved on (or we're moving on). What's left, among other things, is this Walrus community which has all the weirdness and quirkiness of . . . well, of humanity in all it's amazing and frustrating 32-bit color. I also think you overstate your case a bit. In regard to the Erskine case, for example, you mention that "It was always and shall ever be an issue regarding integrity [and not about sex]. Hardly anyone had the sophistication to grasp that crucial distinction." I seem to recall people making that very distinction during those discussions. Some of it was hard to hear because there was so much noise at the time. I'm all for discussing issues with an eye to improving things for ourselves and others, just as I'm all for itching to get to the core of things, as Raja Begum once said (remember him?), and avoiding fluff. But I think if you take a bit of a closer look, you'll see some grains of sugar here among the sand, as someone (I forget who) once suggested doing. Aside from all that, although you've raised a vital point, PY, you're not the only one to do so. One Taste, to his credit, has made the point repeatedly, often quite eloquently; indeed, it seems to be part of his credo. And in my following post, I reprint a post by someone named "Rolling into One," which name was, I think, a line from a song called "Stella Blue," which was written by one of the members of a band called the Grateful Dead. I think they had a member of the band whose first name was Gerry [that's it, isn't it, One Taste: "Gerry"? ;-) ] . So there's another kick at the can. Indeed, I think there is all kinds of great stuff--some of it composed by current players--scattered among the many thousands of posts here on the Walrus. And, just as we can do with ideas--take the sugar and leave the sand--perhaps we can do the same with either other: look at the good in each other, and be just a little forgiving of, and a little less flustered by, the inevitable faults, weirdnessess, shortsightedness, and all the other shortcomings we folks have (I did say "a little forgiving"; I'm not advocating bliss-bunnyism or any head-in-sand variation thereof. As well, I think those who just continually whine about SRF have to stop after awhile). BTW, I thought Sacred Lovemaker's thread was a really good one. I thought the issues raised were germane, and I was also quite saddened when one person named "dhyana" responded in that original thread by saying " This is a path about going WITHIN, about reversing the outgoing energies and turning them INWARD. If it's not for you, you are welcome to take your devotions elsewhere. There are plenty, and I do mean PLENTY of religions in the world preaching love and the warm fuzzies. There's a place for everybody. This might not be the place for you, but it is for some." Yikes! I wish I had engaged that person. I never responded to that thread because at the time I was more concerned about other Walrus issues, and, as I recall, around the time of those posts by SL, the Walrus was then--in its pre-registration days--being inundated with tons of trash; the signal-to-noise ratio wasn't very good. Then, too, as you alluded, Punk Yogi, there was this ongoing obsession--and a perfectly understandable one--with l'affaire Erskine, which was then au courant. You wrote that: "Our dilemma is simple: In our naive idealism, we expected too much and gave far more of ourselves away than we probably should have." Yes, but I don't think that's the whole answer. Returning to the SL thread--and to many other discussions that dwelled on the surface of things--I suppose it was easier to look at that superficial stuff, instead of turning the lens inward to see . . . what? Pain, fear, loneliness, unresolved anger, a frightened child, abuse, the possibility of real evil, and who knows what else. More than just simple naive idealism: all that lovely stuff none of us has. All of the stuff that might have led us to SRF, and to its current form, not to mention to a lack of critical and discriminative thinking, not to mention to an inability to love ourselves and others as we might. You ask us to reclaim our passion and ourselves. I think, however haltingly, some here are trying to do that. Thanks for the push. Reminders are good, and if you feel it necessary to resort to this style, be my guest. Let me take this opportunity, because I'm too lazy to write any more posts right now, to thank everyone for a most entertaining week. What a ride! Whoo, hoo! Better than most roller coasters; better, even, than chocolate (well, some chocolate). I see that the daily visits are up among the highest they've ever been in Walrus history. Seems people are enjoying the show. Sing on brother. Play on drummer.
chuckle chela Registered User (12/6/03 1:49 am) Reply	"SRF is to blame, but I am moreso . . . ." This is a rather interesting post in a rather wonderful thread that was entitled "SRF is to blame, but I am moreso. Maybe you, too?" It was in the SRF Teachings and Ideals section. It appeard on July 9, 2002. Alas, for reasons that may never be known, the Walrus decided to delete the whole thread. This, I think, was a shame. At any rate, this particular post begins with a quote from "Wholetruth"; Rolling into One's response follows.RiO covers a lot of ground, but you can clearly see where he develops the idea that it ain't all SRF's or the "Bad Ladies' " fault. To my embarrassment, I responded (in a subsequent post which isn't shown) to RiO by screaming that it wasn't my fault, when I had more or less missed the point he was trying to make (and it took me a bit of time to get that point). I did, however, later make up for myself by quoting that emissary of truth, Punk Yogi, who, on Nov. 27, 2001, first wrote those immortal words (and they are good words!): *Quote:* The rules of the game have changed, my friends. Being a "good devotee" is passe. You no longer have to stay on your side of the chasm and watch your ochre-caped superheros swallow life in gulps, leaping and frolicking from narcissism to the sublime. No, this day is yours. And if you happen to be one of the truly enlightened monastics, throw down your batman capes and be a real human being. You are the heroes. Embrace your egos. Carry it into the wild world like a Smith and Wesson. Or build your own ice bridges. And one day, if you're lucky, God will give you wings. Then bridges become unnecessary and you fly over chasms instead. --Punk Yogi 11/27/01 Anyway, here's RiO's (One Taste's) post from July 9, 2002: "My original question was why was it so important to SRF to designate him as the twentieth-century's avatar, instead of just letting his words and teachings speak for themselves and inspire God-seekers on their own. It seems to be for their own selfish, calculating ends. " --Quote from "wholetruth" Rolling into One's response: In turn, wholetruth, I would ask you on what you base your question and conclusion? Beyond their saying that he was a Premavatar, an incarnation of love, I can't recall SRF playing the avatar card all that much. They do say he is one of the major spiritual figures of the 20th century, and that is pretty hard to dispute. The only thing I recall seeing about him being an avatar is from The Path when K relates that when asked straight up whether he was an avatar, he said, "a work of such importance would have to be started by such a one." That's about as low-key as you can get, and still, I've never seen that in print in SRF stuff. I'm sure SRF believes he was an avatar (and will freely tell you if asked) and that bringing kriya to the west is a major role historically, but I don't see how they have been selfish or calculating in their portrayal of him, and I don't see them trumpeting his being an avatar. (If you want to see some especially egregious trumpeting, check out anything about Adi Da. Now that is disgusting.) As far as letting his words and teachings speak for themselves, well, there they are speaking loud and clear. Yes, there has been editing, but the changes that I am aware of, much as I don't like them, are small compared to the amount of stuff that is out there. Do you think that maybe we as disciples have any culpability in this? Yes, it's a whole lot easier to blame everything on SRF. But I am uncomfortable being cast in the "poor, poor victim" role. Of course, I suppose there is the possibility that I am the only one who came to these teachings because I immediately and deeply felt that there was something different and deeper about the TEACHER. But I doubt it. Before coming onto this path, I was the proverbial spiritual butterfly. Remember that part of the application where they ask you what other teachings you have studied? My response was laughably long. (Just like my posts here!) Been there, done that and that and that. Those over there, too. I was flitting all over the map. Finding the AY ended all of that immediately. I'd seen much of the philosophy before, but never anyone like the teacher. Master was and is just different, at least to me. And it was the TEACHER, not just the teachings that spoke to me. Now, back then when I was young and stupid, instead of just stupid, I was quietly and sometimes not so quietly into the whole, "well, yeah, but MY guru is way more absolutely superior to whatever you are talking about." And I got there all by myself just by reading the AY and MEQ. I didn't need any shilling, deceptively or otherwise from SRF. If they had done so, which I maintain is not true, it would have just been preaching to the choir. I made him into the biggest, baddest, bestest avatar and the next world figure in that short list of Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad. SRF may have said that kriya was the key for the atomic age, but that is hardly the same thing. And I know plenty of other devotees who feel the same way I did. Along with this, of course was the wonderfulness of SRF. SRF was different, SRF was better. Way different and way better. Thank God and Guru that I didn't get sucked into one of those other organizations that, well, sucked. SRF was just exactly perfect and that was that. Until it wasn't. Now, of course, I can't get the toothpaste back into the tube, and learning of the difficulties in SRF both here and first-hand, has been painful and led to all sorts of questioning. But at bottom, I have come to realize that it is more my fault than SRF's fault. Is SRF free of blame? Hell no. They do everything they can to prop up that shiny happy people we are all wonderful and saintly image. They are more interested in covering up than working out the difficulties. Whoever said that not PY but PR was the most important thing at SRF hit the nail on the head. And in that covering up, people can get hurt. Lord knows I was, up close and personal. Whomp, whomp, whomp and still licking my wounds. (And, far from being afraid that they could come after me so I'd better hide my identity, I have to deal with the fact that I could easily cause big-time problems for them. But even in my worst moments, I just don't want to.) But by no means am I just a victim in this mess. I am hardly innocent. All I can do now is shake my head and ask, "What the hell was I thinking?" How did I become so selectively stupid as to ignore the basics of the game? What made me think that delusion would just stop at the gates of 3880? That business about SRF being run by realized beings? Well, save that controversial statement of Y's that he and Babaji picked the heads of the org and there would always be someone of realization at the helm, there isn't anything else coming from SRF to hold up the idea that the BOD or anyone else are saints. I did that. And so did anyone else who bought into it, however much. What made me think that here in this world of chiarascuro, where everything is a mix of light and dark, that SRF was somehow exempt from the basic dynamic of this plane? And why was it so forking important for me that it be so? Just like so many others, I had no illusions that Anyone Else or any other organization was perfect, and I could easily point out the shadows if anyone asked. Why was I so determined to delude myself that SRF was so different and special? Because my big fat narcissistic ego loved it that me and my oh, so very special and select group of superioids were all the more spiritually hip than the rest of the folks out there. Sure, I'm no saint, and sure so many of my club seem to be psychologically tweezed just like me. But, me and we were nonetheless extra-sublime in the only category that really counts: we were soooo spritual. And no, I didn't say so out loud. Then the bubble breaks, reality comes back from its holiday, and let the freakage begin. Oh, the horror. Oh, the outrage. Oh, the projection. Oh, those Bad Ladies and everyone else up there in the mansion on the hill. From divine to devils all in a few quick and bloody strokes and not the least look in the mirror by anyone, nor a peep that we might be anything less than perfect postmodern VICTIMS. Well, screw that noise. I have seen the enemy and he is me. And I not only asked for it, I absolutely begged for it. It has been strange watching the evolution of this board. With the exception of some of the A-nanda Related Discussions threads, I've read everything on here and the progression has been along the lines of: SRF isn't what it appears to be--heads up SRF has serious problems in the organization, but Master and the teachings are real SRF is NOT Yogananda Wait, the teachings in fact DO suck and instead of SRF telling people what they SHOULD do, this is what SRF SHOULD do SRF can do no right whatsoever and is run by the spawn of Satan--run away, run away! SRF IS Yogananda--it's all his fault *Yogananda is a false guru--that (spawner of a) bas-tard! Everyone, as always, is free to think and feel what they want, but all I can say is this: Yogananda is not a false guru. But I have been a pretty false devotee. And all for my own selfish and calculated ends. ============ Chuckles again. Maybe it's a good thing for each who comes to the Walrus to think about: why did (do) I buy the whole SRF message: "This is the perfect path, the perfect org, the perfect teaching . . . " (or is it a message we contributed to by wanting to see it in that form?). What need in me was unfulfilled that I was willing to accept it all, and accept it as virtually perfect, more or less unquestioningly. The issue has been raised many times, and many have given detailed answers (and I'm not trying to bring the issue to the table yet again). But it remains a fundamental question that may need to be answered by each person, in my opinion (for me, it hasn't been much fun working on that question). I think that understanding these fundamental issues helps one reclaim oneself, helps one in trying to understand what others may be experiencing, helps one in developing discrimination, helps one in understanding that, just perhaps, so much of all of this may have been inevitable.
Punk Yogi Registered User (12/6/03 1:53 am) Reply	Re: To One Taste "Aren�t you supposed to take your own advice and engage the ideas put forth..?" Punk Yogi's #1 Rule: Never take your own advice. Punk Yogi's #2 Rule: Never take advice from Punk Yogi "You whined through that one when you didn�t get your way, you whined through this one for the same reason. Still, when you weren�t so busy directing traffic, you made some excellent points." It would be more accurate to say: "You WINED through that one when you didn't get your way.." for, when I didn't get my way, I drank an entire bottle of Tuscany Chianti in one gulp and sang "None Can Atone Me" all night in my underwear beneath a freeway overpass.
Punk Yogi Registered User (12/6/03 2:56 am) Reply	"SRF is to blame, but I am moreso . . . ." Wow! Hubba Hubba! Rolling Into One, that's a keeper! Fantastic, truthful writing. This gets the Walrus seal of approval and a space in the Smithsonian!!!! PS: There's this fellow named One Taste who keeps getting into pissing contests with me. Needless to say, the caliber of writing launched by this contest reeks of ammonia and I'm afraid my boat wont handle the gargantuan sea of golden fluid that now threatens to engulf the world. Would you mind taking him aside and showing him how to write meaningful prose like you do? PPS: XxXx Chuckle C. You can be my other gilfriend... I'll have to ask Etzy. But something tells me, she probably won't mind.

Page 1 2 3 4 5

<< 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:

- SRF Walrus - Not the Main Stream -

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