>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Dealing with my doubts
        > SRF is to Blame, But I am More So. What, You, too? Part II		 New Topic    Add Reply

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
OneTaste
Registered User
(12/7/03 2:27 am)
Reply 		SRF is to Blame, But I am More So. What, You, too? Part II
[The following is the conclusion of my response to Chuckle Chela from a discussion we had that was wiped from the board back in summer 2002. Part one may be found here under the same title, but posted by Chuckle:

pub78.ezboard.com/fsrfwal...41&stop=60

Given the discussions that have been going on lately re SRF, spiritual authority, fake gurus, the nondual, etc. it seems pertinent enough.

Quote:
If there is one theme I have seen emerge repeatedly on this board, it is that people come to realize they are their own gods, that in the ultimate sense they need no external guru/minister/priest/usher to tell them how to live their spiritual lives.


Chuckle, I *said* ye are gods. Well, ok, that was someone else, but, like you I reiterate. (Actually, in the best and highest sense, it *was* me who said it. And you, too, for that is who all of us truly are.)

I agree with the point re the external locus for guidance and I think the point needs to be emphasized over and over, especially given much of the talk about Y the “dead guy” and his personality:

*There is no external guru* in the truest sense. As has been said over and again and forgotten just as often, the guru is the reflection of your Self, not your self or anyone else’s. Master is emphatic on this point in the Gita, explaining explicity that God (Krishna) talking to Arjuna is an interior dialogue between soul and self. ‘Twas ever thus, and Y’s emphasis as well as Babaji (see his experience with Ma in Only Love), Lahiri (in the AY when he gently chastises the devotee for being focused on visiting his form), and Yukteswar in the HS. It’s all about attunement with Spirit, not the form or the personality of said form, whoever’s it is.

This is an aspect that gets overlooked in all of this talk of leaving the guru. In reality, it’s at most a putting things on hold re the devotee’s attention. The guru isn’t going anywhere because there isn’t anywhere to go. Guru is Spirit and there isn’t anywhere in all the worlds that Spirit isn’t.



Quote:
As I mentioned, though, what seems to be a near universal sentiment on this board is that we are rediscovering our power, our goodness, our self-sufficiency, and our divinity.


If so, this is a vital and beautiful thing. But I want to reiterate that there are two ways to go in this situation: We can progress in our development and we can regress. And evidence of BOTH is on this board. This is not a pointing of fingers, or if it is, there’s still those other three fingers pointing back at me. I am not saying that one person is progressing and another regressing. We are all involved in a complex mixture of both, each dealing with our own situation now based on the unique development that brought us to this point. We are all at the same point in the story, but we have traveled different developmental roads to get here and will take different roads into the sunset. And we all must face the same possibilities of regression and progression as dictated by our karma and present psycho-spiritual development. Transcend and include or regress and repress.

As has ever been the case, the Self is perfect, but the self needs work in order to grow into the remembering that this is so.


Quote:
When I first encountered the Walrus, I went through the Lessons and the books of Master's lectures looking for statements where he supports the idea of questioning, taking a scientific approach, acknowledging the role of doubt, and so on. I came up with 27 such passages, some short, some more extensive. I'll bet there are more (I haven't had time to search everything). I have to conclude, then, that this idea of not questioning has arisen since Yogananda's passing.


This is precisely why I won’t go as far as denying Y. *He* is a vocifersous champion of truth, like all Masters. The unfortunate unfolding of the non-questioning issue is standard issue, but particularly noxious coming so soon after he left physical form. But, alas and amen, (paradox found) things move much quicker in our evolving world.

Quote:
A question about your suggestion that Master may be behind this. I'm not sure I even know what to ask; all I can think of for now is, "why would he set it up this way?" And I suppose the reply would have to be "because that's the only way it would work for the benefit of those who needed to learn the lessons." If that's the answer, then I have to confess I have a hard time with it at this point because, well, it seems so damned unreasonable.


Well, we are, as a matter of course, an unreasonable lot, eh?

Quote:
Yeah, I know, "My ways are not your ways…" But it still doesn't satisfy my head. You know, Occam's Razor and all that. And I find myself wondering whether so much suffering was and is necessary for us all, from hurt ex-monastics and laymembers to SRF leaders, to learn these lessons. It just doesn't quite all add up, but it is possible, I suppose.


As always, it’s as necessary and as painful as it needs to be. And there’s the rub. You know the drill: Divine mother whispers, nudges, shakes, and then slaps, if the gentler calls to attention are ignored.

Quote:
You've got to admit, it does sound a bit like cult thinking to suggest that the guru set this all up, that it's all been part of the training. And then I wonder, if he did set this all up, how is supposed to resolve itself and evolve?


I didn’t say he set it up this way, but that he was behind it. And I fully believe this. As to how it is to evolve and resolve, that is up to each and every one of us to decide, lay member and monastic alike. Again, he is not going to take away our free will and I don’t believe he cast anything in stone. *We* can cast it in stone all in our own way, each to our own degree. Always it goes back to the fact that each one in the dance is at their own level of development. And development does not evolve en masse or in neatly uniform ways. I may be quite advanced in some aspects, repressed in others. And my repression does *not* void my advancement, nor does my advancement nullify my repression. This is the how and why of those who are in the elite positions of leadership can be (as I believe they are) truly spiritual beings and *still* pull all of this unseemly shite we are getting knocked about with. In our own ways in our own worlds many of us are guilty of lots of the same things. It’s not that they are worse than we, but that they are more visible because they are in positions of power. Were any of us in those same positions, would it be different. Maybe yes, but some of what goes on here suggests differently, at least to me.

Master is here for each and every one of us to help us deal with our own part in this. The karmic flux of this kind of situation, one played out through history over and again, has brought us together to learn or relearn the lessons inherent in the dance. We come into this world trailing clouds of glory, yes, but that is not all we have in tow. There is also all of the baggage inherent in the evolution of human development and regardless of where we are when we enter this incarnation, all of us have to start at square one and go through all the stages from prerational to rational to transrational. Many folks don’t make it to the latter, some don’t even get to the rational.

This situation is tailor made (as always) to bring these issues to a head for everyone, each in their own measure as dictated by their level of development. And, if the rules of the game hold, (which I believe they do) guru guides our karmas and brings us together for the opportunity to transcend and embrace or regress and repress, as is our wont. He guides us in the game, but he doesn’t play our positions for us. Free will, ever and always. He brought what he brought and set up the org with the highest intentions leading to the possibility of SRF being all that we truly wanted and believed it to be, but we still have to make it live up to that promise or watch it regress into the ugly business as usual that is the hallmark of every previous effort at building a religious org. He knew what he was about with that talk of hornets’ nests. And we did have our shot. Still do.

Quote:
You've got the devotees who are happy with SRF as it is now, and those of us (the minority) who don't want any more of it, who feel forced to leave and determine their own ways.


Beautiful, isn’t it? There’s a place for every one to deal directly with where they are and learn what they must. And, as paradox will always have it here on the chiaroscuro ball, ugly as well. Think of Kali with her benign and horrific aspects. She is me and you and him and her. It’s all in all in all of us.

I think it’s also an error to designate all of those who are wholly happy with SRF as bliss-bunnies too ignorant or so far in denial as to see all of this. They are not seeing it because they are not experiencing it. It is not part of their world because, as hard as it might be for some here to believe, SRF is not all bad all the time, an abysmal cult run by evil beings intent on screwing up the lives of people they detest. Hell, if every single charge on this board were true and were waged directly by me, I’d also have to factor in the unbelievable abundance of goodness I have experienced along the way, much by some of the people who are depicted here as monsters.

Quote:
Regardless of any of this speculation, where I agree with you most wholeheartedly is that lovingkindness remain the order of the day. I think most here would agree with that and I find a wonderful encouragement in seeing that. We must, in the face of all else, remain loving toward each other on the Walrus board, to all those in SRF--including the leaders--and respectful of the choices each of us has to make. Perhaps this is one of the lessons to be learned out of all this.


I do feel it is one of the lessons to learn and I am continually learning it forgetting it and learning it again. This is why I see some of the stuff here (not the majority, but a significant degree) and feel strongly that were the positions reversed, much of the same behavior we rail against would have been committed by people here, me included. There’s an awful lot of projection going on here, which is inevitable. And that is just one more thing we all have to deal with each in the way that works for them. And if anyone is actually still reading this and is outraged at the utter gall of this “accusation,” you might want to read up on projection and how it all works.

Quote:
Like you, I find myself saying at times "I just don't know!" I've kept hoping against hope that there were solutions for the organization. Presently, I can't see any that aren't drastic or have potentially drastic consequencs, as you suggest.


One thing seems clear to me, chuckle. If we don’t deal with these issues in ourselves, continuing instead to project and focus solely on the part of the other, *whoever* that is, we could dismantle the org brick by metaphorical brick, only to sit back in horror as the whole damn mess rebuilt itself in an sickening similar likeness. That’s the tale of history and we are not exempt.

And guru will whisper, nudge, shake, and slap as need be once again and again and again.

Quote:
I haven't done it yet, but it's looking more and more like I will have to mail in the membership card, explaining the reasons why I'm leaving SRF. I feel it to be important for me to let them know why I am leaving; I feel a bit of a moral obligation to tell them I think they're on the wrong track and that their actions have forced me to dissociate myself from the organization.


I fight with the same thing. I even thought of sending this dialogue we are having to Devananda. But I am not crystal clear on my intentions and motives. For now, it’s all on hold.

Quote:
One of the things I am sad about is that, like many others, I believed the SRF "dispensation" heralded a new ways of doing things in the world. I believed it could be a model for a world torn by violence and misunderstanding, a beacon light for the future. I now see all too painfully how wrong this assumption was, and that SRF in its present form, although it may well survive and even prosper to some degree, is of no use in helping create a better world. Indeed, I now think that in its present form it is a definite hindrance to greater understanding and harmony in the world.


I don’t think your assumption was wrong. And, as Gardendiva so rightly points out, it is what it is. Or, as I put it, golden fruit from a blackened tree. A help and/or a hindrance, depending on what one brings to it and takes from it. Chiaroscuro

Quote:
I was curious that you had been reading the Walrus board while at Hidden Valley. Was this on the sly, or do others there know about all this? I would have thought that HV would be the second last place on earth where mention of the Walrus would be tolerated.


At least one other person knew about it because I saw the url on the history list of yahoo. I passed it by initially, thinking it was just a screed board like alt.yogananda, and I wasn’t interested. Then, while working on a project, I did a search for something else and it came up. I read a passage or two and fell in wholesale. On the sly, yes, but at a later time while talking to Dharmananda for the same project, he mentioned some negative stuff about HV on the net and told me I would have to go find it because he didn’t know much about the net. Turns out he was talking about the link here in the HV section that takes you to that long post from someone’s book.

Quote:
Would it be too impertinent to ask about your less-than-happy experiences at HV? I can appreciate that you might not wish to, for a variety of reasons. But it strikes me that since HV is where prospective monks go to learn what ashram life is like, and if, as you report, they're already setting up a monastic-versus-outside-world dichotomy (and whatever else), they are sowing the seeds for future dysfunctional behavior.


And this is my moral dilemma. I’ve been thinking about it long and hard, and am leaning towards sharing it. But I also wonder what the point would be. It’s more of the same stuff you read here, just up close and personal. (The irony of it all might alone be worth it.) However, chiaroscuro ever and always, I must also say that along with the ugly, I also experienced an incredible amount of beauty and joy.

I don’t know if the summer VL Appeal has come out yet, but there is a feature on HV. I was the sole liaison with MC for it. This was immediately before I found Walrus. All of the info re HV was supplied by me, garnered from interviews I did with all of the monastics involved. I even took the photo of Brother Bimalananda they are going to use. The testimonial quote from the devotee praising the place to the heavens—that’s me as well. My time there was incredible; it was my banishment and the way it was handled (standard issue SRF as described here) that was where the downside came in.

As to your point re setting up the schism, while it is not unknown among the monastics, my experience of it was almost exclusively from the residents. And as I insufferably maintain, they bring it with them in their baggage. But, as you maintain and I agree, they will find quite comfy quarters in which to unpack their bags. In four months plus, I never heard any overt lobbying for the point from the monastics. But, as I was not a monastic wannabe, I can’t say what went on in their processing.

After I found out about all of the SRF muck via this board, I was placed in the further dilemma of whether to say anything to the prospective monks, one of whom sat across from me in the office where I read all about it. I never said anything overtly to him or the others--whether from cowardice or not wanting to interfere, I don’t know. Probably both. I will say that on the one occasion that something came up that edged into this topic, he in no way seemed oblivious that things were, uh, less than perfect. But I am sure others had no clue what was going on. But I couldn’t bring myself to burst their bubbles. I did turn one person on to it all, a guy who was no longer thinking about going in, and it was a horrible experience. I felt soiled and sickened watching him go through it.

Let others say what they say, feel what they feel, and think what they think. I fully support their right to do so. As for me, the song still holds:

Full of bliss, giving joy transcendent
Of higher knowledge, the abode
Dual no more, clear as the heavens
Known to all as Thou art That

He is pure, permanent, unmoving
The everlasting Seer of all
Far, far beyond qualities and thought
Guru-lord, I bow to Thee.

Quote:
I still accept Yogananda as my guru, but as a manifestation of God, and God is within.


This has always and ever been the point, and Y was thoroughly cognizant of it. How often have we heard of him steadfastly insisting that devotees NOT focus on his personality, but attune to what he was: a radiant expression of Spirit manifest throughout and beyond creation, prakriti *and* purusha.

Quote:
It's not so much the guru as it is God, that innate divinity that I honor (the gold beneath the mud. And in my experience, once you find the gold beneath the mud, you discover that it was throughout the mud, as well).


Chuckle, I think you have touched on one of the most vital points in this whole issue. Sure, I might quibble and say that there is no difference between guru and God if one understands what the guru truly is, but oh, your point of gold-permeated mud!

In that constant schismatizing of the world into us and them, good and evil, spiritual and worldly, which is the warp and woof of duality and the heart of much of the SRF perniciousness, a basic truth is lost in the scuffle: Spirit is fully present in *every* particle of space and instant of time. The idea that there is more Spirit over here, less over there, or that one person has a greater abundance while another a dearth is delusion at its finest. I always wanted to scream when I heard the innumerable waxings of the world being dismissed as maya.

The world is NOT maya. The world and everything in it is Radiant Spirit. That we cannot perceive it as such--*that* is maya.

A little yogic koan:
The world is illusory
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world.

Quote:
Having said this, I fully support calling everything--the organization, the teachings, and Yogananda himself--into question. Put it all under the microscope! My understanding of Yogananda suggests to me that he would fully support such efforts, if they were sincere efforts to gain knowledge and understanding. "Truth is never afraid of questions.


I agree with you entirely, and especially your mentioning of “sincere efforts.” Yes, there are a lot of folks who are in pain, confused, doubting, and wondering. And yes, there is a lashing out against those who have been deemed guilty. But there is a difference between sincere questioning and blithe dismissal.

I am in no way saying people should or shouldn’t say whatever they want—I’m all for free and open expression of whatever anyone wants to say, however @#%$ well they want to say it. [and I surely wish Walrus agreed with me and would 86 that stupid filter for “bad” words.]

These issues are of the utmost significance to our lives and have touched/torched the deepest nooks and crannies of our being. Venting may be necessary, as is often said, and by all means vent away if you have to. But don’t stop there! Dig deeper and explore that which has pissed you off or hurt you. Look for what’s below the surface!

Face it, folks, we are in the “damaged goods” ward of the operation, and if we don’t pull out the roots of the weeds that are choking our experience, our garden isn’t going to bloom with any of the promise that was promised us and rightly so.

Quote:
I do not think Yogananda was perfect. He made mistakes. He had an ego, and I don't think that's a crime


I don’t know if anyone checked out the link I provided on this very point, so I am posting it again. This is a crucial issue and wherever you stand on it, I believe this little essay will engage you, especially if you are roiling with the cognitive dissonance set in motion by an “egoless” guru in fact having an ego and even, oh, my God—human qualities.

wilber.shambhala.com/html...ogobi.cfm/

One of the dangers of this situation is that in indiscriminately questioning everything, balance is lost. With phasers set to stun, it seems that some are sifting through everything and falling into the “a red under every bed” syndrome. Since our focus has been on the evils abounding, it appears that every @#%$ thing about Master and SRF, no matter how innocuous, is being seen in that light. “Innocuous?! You ignorant little bliss bunny—screw that noise! We *know* better now, thank you very much.” Well, it’s quite true when it comes to perception and focus that whatever you go looking for, you will certainly find. Whether it is there or not. Discrimination cuts both ways and if the focus gets stuck solely on the negative, then negative is all you see. Blanket rejection is just blanket acceptance in the rear-view mirror. Same thing, different direction.

Quote:
(and, yes, I agree: he sure liked having his picture taken!)


It could very well be that there are all those pictures, especially when he was younger, because he loved to have his picture taken. But let’s look at it from another perspective. First, here comes this amazingly dynamic, exotic, powerful, charismatic, jovial, gregarious, divinely loving soul the likes of which America has never seen, and he’s attracting hordes of curious and fascinated folk. Of course there are going to be lots of photos!

Add to this prosaic element the fact that the pictures demonstrate quite dramatically the fact that he is no ordinary person. First of all, I have never seen another human being who could take on so many different looks. Go grab as many pictures as you can get your hands on (if you haven’t burned them yet) and notice how dissimilar they are. Then, if you have the ones of him posing with others, notice how often he takes on features of the person he is with. If you haven’t noticed this before, it’s pretty freaky. Look at how his eyes look almost identical to Balfour’s in that picture with Coolidge in the window. Notice how much he looks like Rajasi, round face and all, in that picture of the two of them and Ma at Encinitas and compare it to when he is standing with Gyanamata in front of the wishing well. He might as well be two different people. And the most stunning example is when he is with the president of Mexico. He could be his brother, and I’ve never seen another photo where he remotely looked like *that!*

Also consider the idea that he may in fact actually be a true guru. (I know it’s hard to fathom at this point, but humor me for a second.) As we are often reminded, each devotee has their own way of going about things in their approach to God. Y being abundantly devotional, it’s not a stretch to suggest that he would attract devotees who were devotional in temperament. Since many devotees have difficulty relating to God in a non-personal way, they rely on form to focus their devotion.

Since Y knew that he was the last in the line gurus (your still supposed to be humoring me), and that many devotees would come after he would no longer be in form, well, it doesn’t hurt to have lots of examples of that form, does it? Especially when they are so different—there’s not only something for everyone, but different aspects for a devotee for different moods of attunement. The pictures I gravitate to when I am focusing on wisdom are not the same when I am focusing on love.

Of course, it could just be that he was a vain little fake, and I am a delusional basket-case. Both positions have been posited, that’s for sure.

Quote:
I like a comment by Suzuki Roshi quoted in a few of Jack Kornfield's books: "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an enlightened being. There is only enlightened activity."


Speaking of incredible photos, the one on the back of Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind is one of the most powerful I know of. Suzuki is amazing. Anyone interested in Zen could do far worse than starting with him.

Quote:
And to me, one of the other tragic things about this is that none of us had or have opportunities to talk about our problems or the problems we perceive within the SRF culture. Ain't supposed to be any problems. No dialogue. So all the stuff gets buried.


I think you nailed the biggest problem in toto, chuckle. We feel guilty for having the thoughts. Then we feel like it is our fault, that something must be wrong with *us* for noticing the man behind the curtain when everything we’ve learned insists we only see the great and wonderful Oz. And then what? Stuff it down and shut up. If anything is going to be done to rectify this mess, dialogue is going to have to ensue at some point. And for that, we are going to have to put away all the “Bad Ladies” derogation and explore how to make that happen on whatever scale. They are not the enemy. They are our brothers and sisters in God.

Quote:
And then what happens when you decide to leave? No one calls. No one notices. All the lonely people.


Where do they all belong? This is so @#%$ sad. I was in the surreal position of having been banished from HV yet got to stay there for a week or so before I had to leave. In that time, though everyone knew that I was leaving and was going to be homeless as well, not a one of them said a word to me about it or asked how I was doing or anything. The only exception was Bimilananda. When I broached the situation with him, he was his usual beautiful self. I felt absolutely no judgment from him at all. At one point, he put out his arms like a bird and said, “Fly high, fly high! They can’t get you up here.” It was exquisite.

Quote:
Again, I sometimes think a whole lot of this mess stems from the SRF leaders not being able to face their own cussed humanity. To compensate, an entire culture of "perfection," an entire culture of raising the so-called divine above the merely mortal, has been painstakingly built over decades. Well, to heck with perfection, as Gitano would say (although he might say it a trifle more indelicately!).


I don’t mean to rain on your parade, chuckle, but I’m afraid this is just a perfect summation. Screw “perfection.” Let us instead embrace the perfection of Spirit embued in every particle of space and moment in time. There is only here and it is always now o'clock.

username
Registered User
(12/7/03 6:16 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF is to Blame, But I am More So. What, You, too? Part
SRF is to Blame, But I am More So, --
This statement reflects classic SRF brainwashing. --- It is your fault -- you are not good enough --- you are not spiritual enough --- you are not doing enough kriyas --- you are not doing the exercises exactly right and everyday etc etc etc etc etc etc

And if you can't figure out what you could have done wrong --AND SINCE OF COURSE YOU ARE TO BLAME--- it must be somthing that you did in your past lives. ---- it must be your bad karma

IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE THAT SOMEONE IS MANIPULATING YOU. IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE THAT SRF IS A DISTURBING ORGANIZATION. Because of course it is run by SRF monks and nuns - the most perfect creatures on the planet. (That is why the monks that do services, show off such big egos (and really do act a bit wierd), it is because they are perfect, and it is difficult for such perfect creatures to put up with the base "devotees")

YellowBeard420
Registered User
(12/8/03 5:58 am)
Reply
Re: SRF is to Blame, But I am More So. What, You, too? Part
I agree with Username wholeheartedly here.

This post is actually obscene in how you use the concepts and beauties of non-duality to support your goose-stepping claims in support of militant subservience to hierarchy.

> "*There is no external guru* in the truest sense. As has been said over and again and forgotten just as often, the guru is the reflection of your Self, not your self or anyone else’s. Master is emphatic on this point ..." (OneTaste)

If the guru is the reflection of yourself, why is your next statement "Master"? I don't look in the mirror and say, "you're looking good this morning Master". I know you like to think these are spiritual paradoxes, but I'm sorry, it's just plain confusion.

> "This is an aspect that gets overlooked in all of this talk of leaving the guru. In reality, it’s at most a putting things on hold re the devotee’s attention."

Now you're talking about being a "devotee". This is natural, we can't have a master without a servant. Non-duality does not mix with this, it's like oil and water. I know you'll continue to try though. Good luck.

> "This is precisely why I won’t go as far as denying Y. *He* is a vocifersous champion of truth, like all Masters."

"Stomp, stomp, stomp", the sound of OneTaste's boots goose-step against the hard concrete, thumping like the sound of drums.

> "‘Twas ever thus, and Y’s emphasis as well as Babaji ..."

Babaji, ahh yes, the Indian version of Santa Claus. PY pawned that off on people in the west because he knew people were not familiar with the story. Just as sane, rational adults don't believe in Santa in the west, they don't believe in Babaji in India as well. One would think that would be common knowledge in this modern day. But I guess it's cute to believe in Babaji (which directly translates to "Daddy"), I probably shouldn't say anything. It's not as fun when you find out that your gifts really just came from mum and dad and not Santa.

> "The guru isn’t going anywhere because there isn’t anywhere to go."

Hmm, this sounds familiar. Interesting how you hijack my statements on non-duality and then throw in the word "guru" to support your hierarchy. This is why I decided to respond to this thread. It's flat out obscene. This is why you don't hear much Truth in the world, the religious goose-steppers just snag the statements and twist them to support their claims. It's best to just live in a cave.

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” (Matthew 7:6)

I'm sorry that I gave so much from my heart on non-duality to see it rubbed in the filth like this. In oder to defend your fear of facing life on your own, you destroy that which points to what is truly sacred.

OneTaste
Registered User
(12/8/03 8:13 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF is to Blame, But I am More So. What, You, too? Part
Quote:
> "The guru isn’t going anywhere because there isn’t anywhere to go."

Hmm, this sounds familiar. Interesting how you hijack my statements on non-duality and then throw in the word "guru" to support your hierarchy.

I'm sorry that I gave so much from my heart on non-duality to see it rubbed in the filth like this.


Yeah, YB, I'm real bad that way. Not only did I have the audacity to hijack your words, I even had the nerve to do it a year and a half before you arrived. The post you are responding to is was originaly posted on 7-17-02.

Your ability to misread and misinterpret thngs continues to astound.

etzchaim
Registered User
(12/8/03 8:54 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF is to Blame, But I am More So. What, You, too? Part
Subtlety is so easily lost...


The "Guru" that One Taste was referrring to when he said "Master" is not his self, Yogananda's self or anyones self, it is the Self.

Etz "I have a headache" Chaim

YellowBeard420
Registered User
(12/8/03 11:02 am)
Reply
Re: SRF is to Blame, But I am More So. What, You, too? Part
> "Not only did I have the audacity to hijack your words, I even had the nerve to do it a year and a half before you arrived." (OneTaste)

Sorry about that. It was exactly like what I said recently but simply with the word guru in it. I did jump to a hasty conclusion there and I do apologize.

Now you have studied from Vedanta and on the philosophy of non-dualism, but you're dragging these things through the mud. It's like the way Shibendu has hijacked Krishnamurti's teachings to sell his version of Kriya Yoga and to prop himself up as a guru with. It's highly offensive. Krishnamurti didn't believe in spiritual hierarchy in any way, shape or form, and he didn't believe in meditation techniques such as Kriya Yoga. So it's like taking these beautiful teachings on freedom and using them to trap people. I see you doing the same with non-duality to prop up the guru-disciple relationship. All my statements against this still stand in my above post.

> "The 'Guru' that One Taste was referring to when he said 'Master' is not his self, Yogananda's self or anyones self, it is the Self." (Etzchaim)

Good call to stress this point. I was aware of that when I made my comments. One should never call the Self "Master". You should use the term God instead of Self if you want to look at it from that perspective. The beauty of the freedom and total self-sufficiency of the Self is lost when you poison it with the ideas of duality, no matter how subtly you do it. Until one sees this Self, they should stick to the term God. Because a lot of injustice is being done here.

xmonk
Registered User
(12/8/03 11:25 am)
Reply 		Re: SRF is to Blame, But I am More So. What, You, too? Part
You are right on the money, Username. That is the exact line that is fed to the "flock", in order to keep them under control.
They control by fear and guilt. Fear of doing something wrong and feeling guilty because they "just don't measure up".

If only people would realize that they just don't need that bunch on Mt. Washington, and that they have a perfectly good brain to think for themselves...!

YellowBeard420
Registered User
(12/8/03 12:59 pm)
Reply
Assessing the Damage
I would also like to apologize for the tone of my original response. I've focused a little too much frustration in OneTaste's direction. Let me explain what I'm really concerned about so that you can understand why I'm making such a particular fuss here.

I've put a lot into some of my posts here. I've literally spent hours composing some of them trying to find just the right words in an attempt to convey this message of Oneness as best as I can. I felt that a few would benefit. But it doesn't seem that anyone has. That alone would be ok. I've tried and that's all that one can do. What's really bothering me is that I feel that what I'm saying is being twisted and torn and put onto a fishing hook to trap people. So maybe I'm actually hurting people by what I'm saying. I decided several years ago that I should never speak on these things. Recently I've reevaluated that and obviously have decided to share these experiences. I have to carefully rethink this now. I'm assessing the damage.

OneTaste has been dragging this non-duality through the mud long before I came here. And I'm sure many others have as well. What I'm concerned about is what kind of fuel am I adding to this fire. That which is most sacred to me is going to be used as a lure to trap others, to steal their hopes and dreams of freedom, to make them think that it's all a trick. These little healthy chunks of spiritual food are going to be put on fishing hooks. They could have been used honestly to satisfy a little hunger and to show that there's more where they came from within themselves. But no, on the hook it will go. Perhaps I should delete all my posts, I'm just not sure.

Maybe someone can prove me wrong. I'm going to explain why Etz's last statement here is faulty reasoning, spiritually speaking. Etzchaim is as intelligent as the best of the bunch here. But spiritually this is wrong. I want to see if *anyone* here understands what I'm saying.

> "The 'Guru' that One Taste was referring to when he said 'Master' is not his self, Yogananda's self or anyones self, it is the Self." (Etz)

The term "Self" is used because it *is* the self within OneTaste, Yogananda, and everyone. The Self is called the "Self" because it is within all of us and that each one of us is that entire Self. When we use the term "guru" or "master" we create an impassible division. The slightest division (regardless of what you're trying to say by making it) separates heaven from earth. To use the term "Self" in any other way implies God which creates hierarchy. True the difference is subtle, but where we're going requires the most subtle approach. You can't ride there in a noisy old VW with your friends.

There's my response to Etz's statement. Does that mean anything to anyone here?

etzchaim
Registered User
(12/9/03 5:40 am)
Reply 		Re: Assessing the Damage
"The term "Self" is used because it *is* the self within OneTaste, Yogananda, and everyone. The Self is called the "Self" because it is within all of us and that each one of us is that entire Self. When we use the term "guru" or "master" we create an impassible division. The slightest division (regardless of what you're trying to say by making it) separates heaven from earth. To use the term "Self" in any other way implies God which creates hierarchy. True the difference is subtle, but where we're going requires the most subtle approach. You can't ride there in a noisy old VW with your friends."

While I agree with you about projecting one's higher self onto another person being just plain wrong and that this has been used to manipulate people, the hierarchy does indeed exist. In the real world, so to speak, the 'hierarchy' and the 'non-hierarchy' are part of the creation, or Maya. Some people have more knowledge or skill in certain areas than others do. We all have our gifts. What SRF is failing to do is to recognize the "Guru" in everyone, and to honor everyone's gifts. They are caught up in one side of the illusion. "Guru" has been mystified in order to serve egoistic ends, or a faulty understanding of what is 'true', to serve an organization and the status of the people who run it or have a stake in it (meaning not only the 'Bad Ladies', but the Bliss Bunny's, as well).

That's the problem. "Guru" is just a teacher. They do serve a purpose, but problems arise when they are blown out of proportion and the balance of the other side of the coin, i.e., we all partake in God and can realize the higher self and should not project it outside of ourselves, is lost in favor of the ego's need to be more 'special' than others through status.

AND -

While I agree with much of what One Taste is saying and can 'read between his lines' (I don't have any SRF baggage...) it works best in an abstract space. You can call a spade a spade. If SRF is broken and doing damage, no amount of explaining it away as "karma" and we are all one and are drawn to this for karmic reasons, etc., can make it not broken. That, too, is a problem within SRF, which people repeat over and over.

The dirt keeps getting swept under the "beautiful rug" which is beginning to stink.

Being a non-dualist means recognizing that not only is the "Oneness" real, but also the multiplicity is real as well. When it stinks, it stinks.

Edited by: etzchaim at: 12/9/03 7:55 am
OneTaste
Registered User
(12/9/03 1:16 pm)
Reply 		Re: Assessing the Damage
Quote:
Over in another post you said:

OneTaste wrote: "Remember when I said I'd hoped we'd cross paths or swords again? I do enjoy our nondualing."

Yellowbeard's dharma dueling phase has come to a close awhile ago. I don't want to get back into that because in this atmosphere and with these issues, it's just making everyone defensive.


I’m sorry you missed the pun. Nondualing = non-dueling, get it? As in putting that aside and just talking about the nondual and other stuff? Perhaps not catching the pun made you defensive from the jump. Whatever is going on, your point about a lack of communication is a valid one.

When I see one side of your posting mouth utter, “I've put a lot into some of my posts here. I've literally spent hours composing some of them trying to find just the right words in an attempt to convey this message of Oneness as best as I can.” and the other side maintain “I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy into "YellowBeard philosophy” I realize the futility of going any further with this. So, instead of continuing to “defile” your vision of what nondual constitutes or uselessly and endlessly falling into the “that’s not what I’m saying at all” dance, I’m just gonna goose-step out of your way while you do your thing.

Good luck in pressing the philosophy you continue to insist you aren’t pressing and nondoing so with the spiritual authority you find so odious in anyone else.

Edited by: OneTaste at: 12/9/03 1:21 pm
YellowBeard420
Registered User
(12/9/03 1:50 pm)
Reply
Re: Assessing the Damage
OneTaste wrote: "When I see one side of your posting mouth utter, “I've put a lot into some of my posts here. I've literally spent hours composing some of them trying to find just the right words in an attempt to convey this message of Oneness as best as I can.” and the other side maintain “I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy into "YellowBeard philosophy” I realize the futility of going any further with this."

This is a very good call.

> "So, instead of continuing to “defile” your vision of what nondual constitutes or uselessly and endlessly falling into the “that’s not what I’m saying at all” dance, I’m just gonna goose-step out of your way while you do your thing."

YellowBeard needs people like OneTaste to keep him in check, otherwise YellowBeard really will need to live in a cave because he will lose all touch with reality. Our eyes see outward. We always project everything outward. Without OneTaste to reflect YellowBeard's faults, how will YellowBeard be able to see the impurities within himself that need to be removed? And YellowBeard acts as a mirror for OneTaste, we're washing each other's hands. So goose-step away when you feel the need, and I'll goose-step too.

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Dealing with my doubts -



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