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 (12/20/01 2:08 pm) Reply	Everything is as it should be I think everything is the way it should be. PY set up SRF how he saw fit, he trained the direct disciples that he thought were best, and left everything up to Divine Mother. He knew many would come and not make the cut and would leave and be big crybabies, screaming and carrying on and on about how smart they are and how no one inside SRF is good enough to see their talents, how David Keirsey says they're so smart but the BOD or the senior monks are just too "Guardian" type to know better, blah blah blah. I'm sure Yogananda knew all this would happen, and indeed he's probably watching right now and laughing his cosmic behind off. I doubt he cares about the overblown immature egos that making a big stink with their little psychology books. He knows that in the big scheme of things, everything is as it should be.
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/20/01 3:23 pm) Reply	Agree Yes. You are right. Master is laughing. I felt him doing so in my heart last night when I posted the last message.
onlylove Unregistered User (12/20/01 3:30 pm) Reply	Thank You Sackcloth aka Concrete aka nojdw, Thank you for representing so clearly on this board the will of the SRF BOD. Unlike Yogananda, you/they treat other disciples with contempt and disdain. As their representative, you very graphically show the difference between our Guruji ('only love'), and the contemptuous attitude of many SRF insiders. Let all take note and see the differences.
Prem2U Unregistered User (12/20/01 4:05 pm) Reply	Show us yours honey "onlylove" aka Raja Begum aka Should Free entertains us with this: "Thank you for representing so clearly on this board the will of the SRF BOD. Unlike Yogananda, you/they treat other disciples with contempt and disdain." I can't think of anything more contemptuous and disdainful than your messages on this board which drip with contempt and disdain for anyone who refuses to bow down to you and worship your gigantic ego. "As their representative, you very graphically show the difference between our Guruji ('only love'), and the contemptuous attitude of many SRF insiders. Let all take note and see the differences." And where's your love, dearie?
AumBoy Registered User (12/20/01 4:20 pm) Reply	Re: Everything is as it should be *Quote:* I'm sure Yogananda knew all this would happen, and indeed he's probably watching right now and laughing his cosmic behind off. ROFLOL!!!! Yogananda's cosmic behind!!!!??????? This is an interesting cosmology and an even more interesting exercise in visualization.... What book cover should this adorn? But on a more serious note: Master mentioned that "only love can take my place." In your postings, you have not mentioned this aspect of Master or God at all. It seems to be about crushing egos, putting people down, belittling people, and ridiculing people. Many have asked you direct questions here and you continue to weave and dodge and zig and zag and attack people personally. It appears to me that nothing in your posts are tempered with Love. The word that comes to mind is "victrola." Irrespective of other people's thoughts, you spout the same refrain. I am attracted by Love. I am uplifted by it. I am uplifted about stories about it. I am uplifted at the way it helps me and others change for the better. I appreciate RB's postings (cuz now I don't have to read so many books - hehe). I appreciate others postings too, even yours. "But for the sake of God, there goes myself." Forgive me, but I will not respond to you again. Edited by: AumBoy at: 12/20/01 4:24:47 pm
onlylove Unregistered User (12/21/01 10:30 am) Reply	Only Love Aumboy said, in response to sack/concrete: "But on a more serious note: Master mentioned that "only love can take my place." In your postings, you have not mentioned this aspect of Master or God at all. It seems to be about crushing egos, putting people down, belittling people, and ridiculing people. Many have asked you direct questions here and you continue to weave and dodge and zig and zag and attack people personally. It appears to me that nothing in your posts are tempered with Love." ------------------------------------- You've hit the nail on the head. Our Guru is Paramhansa 'Only Love' Yogananda. He was and is the embodiment of divine love. When he did help someone destroy their ego, it was with love, and with their cooperation and willingness. He didn't condemn, he didn't judge, he didn't call people names. He also shows us all the answer- which is to love the SRF BOD and their representatives here, even while exposing them for what they are. If this can't be done with love, than we are all in danger of becoming 'bad ladies' and 'bad men'. Christ too, taught love first and last. His penultimate teaching was 'Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do'. For those who can make it to an all-day meditation tomorrow, I suggest you tune in to our Master's love, and offer that love to the SRF BOD and their reps- sackcloth, concrete, etc. Sorry sackcloth/concrete, onlylove is the only name I post under here. (The names sackcloth and concrete are a curious choice considering how forward looking and flexible Yogananda's teachings really are!)
Connundrum Unregistered User (12/22/01 6:52 am) Reply	ashram training Regarding the Monastic philosopy that training is to crush the ego and what is appropriate and inappropriate treatment in this regard -- here is some "food for thought". From AY: "No trifling lapse into shallowness or inconsistency escaped his rebuke. This flattening-to-the-ego treatment was hard to endure, but my unchangeable resolve was to allow Sri Yukteswar to iron out all of my psychological kinks. As he labored at this titanic transformation, I shook many times under the weight of his disciplinary hammer." When does something become abuse and when is it appropriate "training" for the ego, which, according to PY only gets uprooted "rudely"? When is something emotional abuse and when is it simply training to exorcise the ego? I know there are misguided and mean-spirited superiors in all monastic orders and that that abuse should not be tolerated. Master could have said "this is abusive", but he chose to stay and spiritually benefited from it. But since God-realized gurus are not growing on trees and thus are not sprinkled generously throughout the ashrams of the world, where do we draw the line? Can we see God's hand in even imperfect channels. Perhaps the answer lies in our individual ability to follow our heart's integrity -- when something is out of sinc with our soul's deepest values, we cannot live in peace and need to move on. God's hand of discipline and love are very present in the world as well -- exquisitly designed into every aspect of life for our highest good.
username Registered User (12/22/01 8:25 am) Reply	Re: About monastic orders Can we discuss the difference between emotional abuse and karmic training? When I read the comments, my mind feels muddled. This usual means that something is ringing true but that I don't really have a handle on it. Is emotional abuse karmic training when it is done by someone enlightened who somehow knows your past and future? Is emotional abuse a criminial act? Is emotional abuse something that SRF could be charged with court-ordered compensation for? If the same actions occurred within a corporation to employees, what labor laws apply? Did we all start to copy these abusive styles? Look at our life and our own interactions with others, are they abusive? Or do we try to never hurt others? Do we attack or interact with others like in a group encounter session - rudely pointing out their flaws? How did being around this atmosphere for so many years affect your personality?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/22/01 10:00 am) Reply	To Connundrum Your final comments reminds me of something said by Sri Aurobindo: "Act from the summit of your consciousness" What else is there to do? To Username: Really provocative questions! I want to soul search a bit before I get into the discussion. In the meantime, I've reposted something I wrote the other day which is related to this discussion.....
KS Registered User (12/22/01 10:02 am) Reply	username Your questions is a good one. Why don't you start a separate thread about it, or maybe add a question in the polling section? I started a separate thread for this! Good idea to discuss it! Edited by: KS at: 12/22/01 10:09:46 am
Raja Begum Unregistered User (12/22/01 10:05 am) Reply	Out of the Swamps of the Kali Yuga Most monastic orders tend to look to the past when deciding how to define themselves. But is that really a healthy idea when, according to Sri Yukteswar, the past they are looking to happens to be the Kali Yuga? Run under a Guardian paradigm, religious orders tend to appeal to tradition and stay mired in the swamps of a tired past rather than make an effort to meet the progressively unfolding future. There isn't too much mention of monasticism in the Vedas. Indeed monasticsm may well have been the result of disenchanted class of Kshatriyas in the middle ages needing to find new war to wage. One need only call to mind the life of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Looking for an enemy to fight, they found one within. For what can be a more formidable opponent than one's own desires and sexual impulses? The war against human nature is the ultimate Kshatriyan piece de resistance. This will to power over one's self may have some serious negative psychological repercussions. What can we expect from someone who lives in constant antipathy to his own human nature? Can we expect him to be well-versed in the art of empathy and compassion? The final words in Sri Yukteswar's "The Holy Science" is an appeal for making love the ultmate goal of life. But the human heart in the Kali Yuga, according to Sri Yukteswar, was always in a state of misconception and darkness: "In this state man is called Sudra, or belonging to the servant class, because his natural duty then is to serve the higher class people in order to secure their company and thereby prepare his heart to attain a higher stage." (The Holy Science 57-58 ) We can deduce from SY's comment that, in the Kali Yuga, autocracies and dictatorships would have the perfect environment to flourish whether in a monastic community or in the political / social sphere because people looked up to authority figures for guidance -- often rather indiscriminately. Thus the cult of obedience was born -- the slave / master ethos. This also is a good argument for why spiritual aspirants following traditional paradigms often end up structuring their psyche's vertically -- with their human feelings and emotions in submission to their wills. It is no wonder so many monastic based religions such as SRF steer clear of psychology -- whose cardinal rule is self-acceptance -- and remain caught in the game of self-denial (called "self-control" ) and power over others ( "loyalty" and "obedience" ). But Sri Yukteswar makes it very clear that this is not to be the mode of living for this new age, In the current Dwapa Yuga, man reaches the state of Sandhisthala ("the place between the higher and the lower" . Bathed in this new vibration, men "need help from one another; hence mutual love, the principal necessity for gaining salvation , appears in his heart." Such a man "affectionately keeps company with those who destroy troubles, clear doubts, and afford peace to him, and hence avoids whatever produces the contrary result..." It seems to me that we NF "Idealists" have an important role to play in this arena of understanding. Everything we gravitate towards -- the healing arts, counseling, creating intimate and loving relationships -- is resonant to that chord.
pschuppe Registered User (12/22/01 8:13 pm) Reply	Re: Out of the Swamps of the Kali Yuga Great discussion! Thanks Connundrum and Username, for the excellent questions/points. Most of these points address Raja's post: Because our culture/government is democratic, the average person in the USA tends to view with skepticism any thought that another person might be more advanced than he is spiritually. After all, aren't we all "created equal?" Or are some of us "more equal" than others?! Our laws and cultural mores don't readily accept the possiblity that someone like a Master or a Sri Yukteswar might be able to offer an enlightened form of discipline that is truly effective, but may appear outwardly somewhat brutal (or at least blunt). Hence, by todays legal interpretations, Sri Yukteswar would probably lose in court. Some disgruntled ex-disciple would sue and collect. (Not that SY would probably ever get into the situation in the first place--and it would only apply to being in the USA.) But IMHO, it all comes down to who's doing the training (and with what level of realization), and who's being "trained". I'm probably pushing some buttons Raja, but hear me out! My point is that training in the hands of a master tends to be effective, even if outwardly it looks rough or callous. Rough training for the sake of roughness however, is otherwise pointless--or worse (and I wouldn't be surprised if even the Army wakes up and smells the coffee on this point eventually). Based on Sri Yukteswar's comments in THS, it seems like the Dwapara model of monasticism will eventually evolve away from celebacy/cloisters and toward balance/moderation/cooperation in a householder setting. The goal is personal evolution and growth, not any specific "one-size-fits-all" form. Kali Yuga monasticism relied on a rigid form of behavior and a fairly rigid set of roles as a guarantee of growth. Frankly that can lead to all sorts of abuse (as Raja has pointed out repeatedly and convincingly). In the future, I think we'll see individual personal GROWTH, not any specific behavioral form as the driving force. The specific behavioral model and style will depend on the individual in question. Ultimately, true teaching is individual. ps Edited by: pschuppe at: 12/22/01 8:15:19 pm
cjmagorian Unregistered User (1/9/02 8:58 am) Reply	breaking down the ego How can anyone justify abuse by saying that it is to break down the ego. It only destroys ones Self-esteem. Let the ego be freed through meditation on God, though love, though giving all credit to God.
cjmagorian Unregistered User (1/13/02 5:48 pm) Reply	Breaking down the ego Dear cjmagoran, What do you know?
RedsterLA Registered User (1/29/02 6:55 pm) Reply	Re: About monastic orders Interesting and thought-provoking post... One thing I would add: St. Bernadette is revered worldwide as a saint�by Catholics and many non-Catholics alike. She put up with tremendous abuse at the hands of the Mother Superior and others of the Catholic Church who attempted to get her to recant her visions. Bernadette refused to deny Truth. She also followed every order the Mother Superior gave her�including back breaking, knee ulcering floor scrubbing and other similar, menial tasks which tested her body to its limits. This she did without complaint and without crying out that her treatment was unjust. Does anyone remember the name of the Mother Superior? How about the various "higher ups" of the Catholic Church who were sent to interview her, berate her, bully her and get her to deny her experiences? Of course not�THEY weren't saints... but Bernadette was obedient to the ones to whom power was invested by the Church (flawed as it may have been and still may be), and placed herself in their hands for instruction, testing and the like. SHE attained her sainthood. SHE overcame the adversity and didn't spiritually chafe under the often harsh treatment by her "superiors." I'm not saying that religious organisations (SRF included) don't need to be more aware of the outside world and, perhaps, dig a little deeper into the well of compassion, but I think it's a little na�ve to think that one is going to be handed their enlightenment without trials and tribulations. Brother Bhaktananda has spoken a number of times of Master's seemingly harsh discipline�both with monastics and lay persons�and that in each case he witnessed, it was a necessary step to that person's spiritual evolution. I'm not saying that will always be so with any/every monastic order, but it is something to keep in mind.
Lobo Registered User (1/30/02 5:35 pm) Reply	Re: About monastic orders Redster, I appreciate your comments. But I also understand that if one hasn't been a monastic in the SRF order it is hard to speak to the points they are making without resorting to generalities. If over 40-50 people are living, have left in the last couple of years maybe they had become convinced that enlightenment wasn't be found in the SRF order, that it wasn't all their own personal inadquacies as individual monks/nuns that caused their departure, that as monks and nuns they had already accepted the points that you've listed as happening to 'saints' and had lived that life until it was impossible for them to continue to do so without sacrificing their personal integrity, perhaps their sanity as well.
In Recovery Unregistered User (1/30/02 7:20 pm) Reply	Monastics Leaving Thank you, Lobo. Very well put!
chrisparis Unregistered User (1/31/02 7:08 am) Reply	Monastic Orders; or, Is This Trip Really Necessary? I seem to recall a story, I think it was posted on www.yoganiketan.net, about a very great saint and swami, who went to visit Lahiri Mahasaya. After his visit he took his ochre robes and through them in the waters of the Ganges. One of his disciples asked why he had done what he had done (of course the disciple was shaocked, stunned, at this irreveverent and weird behavior). The Swami told him "I've just seen the holiest man I've ever met, and he's a householder. I'm going to do what he's doing". He then married and became a householder and took up the practice of Kriya, and became an advanced disciple of Lahiri Mahasaya. How many of the truly great Kriya yogis were householders? Panchannon Battacharya comes to mind as one of Lahiriji's great disciples, there are others mentioned in the Autobigraphy. Monasticism is NOT a requisite for spiritual advancement. It was also, even in the framework of the SRF (back in the early days) not a requirement for someone to transmit the kriya initiation (neither Kamala nor Oliver Black were monastics). SRF would be a much healthier organization if it put its focus on monasticism behind it.
KS Registered User (1/31/02 8:11 am) Reply	Control The bad ladies focus is on monastics because that gives them better control over who they must compete with for the control of SRF, power, money, and limits who has access to criticize them. They control the environment that way. Clever isn�t it? Since they also control who can become monastics, and who stays and at what jobs, they pretty much need only worry about competing with a few nuns. Since nuns are the only group allowed any real power, their scope of worry is even smaller. Since they don�t actually practice the monastic life, except the control part, feeling they focus too much on it is not really correct. Remember they killed the spiritual life committees which was working to move the life of the monastics back on track to true monastic values and goals. Why? They felt they were losing CONTROL. See how this works? The focus on monastics as the one true source of valid leadership for SRF is a smokescreen for control. Don't let them shape the discussion. It is not about monastics being more in tune and providing better Master-focused leadership. It really is not. Edited by: KS at: 1/31/02 8:14:21 am
username Registered User (1/31/02 9:18 am) Reply	Re: Control What you refer to as control is usually called brainwashing.