>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Core Issues
        > Obedience
New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
AumBoy
Registered User
(4/5/02 7:02 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
Obedience
On the SRFFeedback ezboard under How and Why to Participate, Feedbackop replied to me in part:

Quote:
The infantile stage of blind obedience, and mechanic compliance to a recipe, with disregard to our feelings does not lead to enlightenment. If it is not overcome soon enough, it leads to mental and physical disease. We can keep ourselves fixated in that stage for forty years or move to the next one in just three. So, this board also aims at helping each other to trust our feelings and move faster to that new stage, where we look for God primary by listening to our feelings. At that stage, we practice only that which our feelings tell us to practice, and our feelings also tells us the how to practice.


(I’m responding on the Walrus because the response would become off topic for SRFFeedback board.)

This reply got me thinking and questioning, especially "infantile stage of blind obedience":
What is obedience?
Why do people obey or disobey? Is it easier to obey or easier to disobey?
Why do people, sometimes, blindly obey? (There are terms like “behave like sheep” or “sheeple” mentioned here and elsewhere.)
Is unthinking obedience dangerous?
Would someone surrender their responsibility or their integrity in order to obey? Is it easy to do?
Is thinking inside a box, obedience? And thinking outside, disobedience? What happens if there is no box?
Is there a relationship between obedience and dogma?

Chapter 2 of the book The State vs. The People: The Rise of the American Police State by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman, is entitled, Learning to Obey. It begins with the following quote from Erich Fromm:
Quote:
Man has continued to evolve by acts of disobedience. Not only was his spiritual development possible only because there were men who dare say no to the powers that be in the name of their conscience or their faith, but also his intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient – disobedient to authorities who tried to muzzle new thoughts and to the authority of long-established opinions which declared a change to be nonsense…

…[W]hile we are living technically in the Atomic Age, the majority of men – including most of those who are in power – still live emotionally in the Stone Age …. If mankind commits suicide it will be because people will obey those who command them to push the deadly buttons; because … they will obey obsolete cliches of State sovereignty and national honor.


(Read about Erich Fromm here.)

The first paragraph is:
Quote:
Every police state – indeed, every authoritarian organization – requires people who will obey its orders without question. Such people are surprisingly easy to find. Only since World War II have psychologists and historians begun to grasp the fact that many of the world’s worst horrors are perpetuated by perfectly normal people, acting not out of sadism or hatred, but in the name of obedience to authority. (Italics mine.)


So, we see that some people (maybe many?) will obey authority. Why? Weakness? Low self esteem? Conditioning? Master writes that environment is stronger than will power. So what kind of environment may make some people more receptive to an authoritarian organization (of any kind), and some people reject it? And why would people sacrifice their integrity willingly, without question?

The purport of the book is way beyond applicability to SRF but it does address the environment that SRF is operating within. But a little history is necessary. The authors describe the first police state that appeared in Prussia about 350 years ago. Called Polizeistaat, it was dedicated to 3 purposes:
1.Protection of the population
2. The welfare of the state and its citizens
3. The betterment of society

Children, usually learn to obey beginning with their parents. And after that, guess where? Government schools! (One of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto: government schooling!) The authors write that our school system “itself is inimical to true education and individual development. It is designed to discourage thinking, not promote it. (Italics mine.)

And guess where today’s school systems come from? They are modeled after Prussia’s Polizeistaat schools that were designed to “produce masses of docile citizens who view government as a kind of super-parent.” Wow! (Transference.) Is it any wonder that many step out of the school system and idealize SRF as the perfect parent? (From a footnote in this book: “John Taylor Gatto [is] author of Dumbing Us Down and The Underground History of American Education. Gatto is the former New York State Teacher of the Year who used his acceptance speech to denounce the entire concept of government education as being destructive to individuals, family, and community.” See this article by Gatto: The Public School Nightmare: Why fix a system designed to destroy individual thought?) Are you still with me? There’s more.

The American school system is a Prussian school system designed to mold children early to conform to an ideal held by elite groups of social reformers. Specifically, the system was modeled after the lowest form of school in the three-tier Prussian system, described by Gatto as follows: ( Read entire article here)
Quote:
Prussia sets up a three-tier school system, in which one half of one percent of the population is taught to think. They go to school called academie. Five and a half percent of the population go to Realschulen, where they partially learn to think, but not completely, because Prussia believed their defeat at the hands of Napoleon was caused by people thinking for themselves at times of stress on the battlefield. They were going to see to it that scientifically this couldn't happen. The lowest 94%, (that's some pyramid, right?) went to volkschulen, where they were to learn harmony, obedience, freedom from stressful thinking, how to follow orders. They worked out a system that would in fact guarantee such results. In the volkschulen, it was to divide whole ideas (which really simultaneously participate in math, science, social thinking, language, and art) into subjects which hardly had existed before, to divide the subjects further into units; to divide the time into small enough units of time. With enough variations in the course of a day, no one would know what was going on.

What they would learn is that someone else told you what to think about, when to think about it, how long to think about it, when to stop thinking about it, when to think of something else, and someone else sets up the secrets.


The “molding” (conforming) of society by the Prussian school system was so that they “could be mobilized rapidly, and be effect in administration of a war machine! (Nice, huh?) The Prussian ideal called for children to learn to become disciplined soldiers, diligent industrial workers, orderly subordinates in civil service and industry, and citizens holding similar views on all major issues.”(Indoctrinated group-think! Italics mine.) Schools “were tightly regimented, featuring age-grading, segmented subjects, bells, rigid [sic] classroom arrangements, rote memorization, artificial measures of accomplishment, and obedience to a professional hierarchy of education ‘experts.’” It was also “strong on industrial arts, sports, and science, but deliberately downplayed reading. Reading was thought to lead to discontent by opening windows on the world to people who should [sic] otherwise be content in their station in society.” (Was it Tara Mata who stated that only the BOD was allowed to think?)

(Question: How can reading levels be improved when the system is built to discourage reading and thinking?)

American reformers, in the early 1800s, returning from Prussia praised the system, some openly holding “the Prussian ideal of producing obedient citizens, soldiers, and workers.” The Prussian system is a compulsory one. When the system was first introduced in Massachusetts (about 150 years ago) and children were forced to go to school, literacy dropped! It was 98% before compulsory education and has been consistently lower since then, “never exceeding 91%.”

Twelve years of conditioning Prussian-style (American, English, Australian, French, Canadian, and New Zealand schools) was designed to reduce independent thought and enforce obedience. That’s some group-think! How does this relate to dogma? Do some who are more conditioned, readily accept whatever “authorities” feed them as dogma without thinking about it? Dogma, then, becoming their creed, belief, tenet without questioning whether it is true, applicable, or appropriate? If one is conditioned to be compliant, then how does that affect their beliefs? How much of what we believe today is dogma? How much is true? How much is fact? If we do not question because we are conditioned not to, then is everything we believe dogma? If we question does this mean we are not loyal (patriotic) or have we been conditioned not to question authority or its representatives? (Unthinking, unquestioning, blind belief.) As a result, do people become “sheep-like”? (Or maybe we’re talking lemmings?)

What are some effects of blind obedience to authority?

“When independent-minded people disagree with the aims of political leaders or military commanders, they’ll refuse to allow themselves to be used.” People need to be conditioned to kill (obey). Examples:

1. During the Civil War, the average firing rate was extremely low. Of the 27,000 muskets picked up from the dead and dying after the battle of Gettysburg, 90% were loaded! “This was an anomaly, because it took 95% of the time to load the muskets and 5% to fire. Even more amazingly, of the thousands of loaded muskets, over half had multiple loads in the barrel – one with 23 loads in the barrel.” For those who don’t understand the implications of the above statement: The men pretended to fire their guns.

“Healthy humans resist killing members of their own species in cold blood.” Remember Arjuna’s lament on the battlefield? He was hard pressed to fire upon his own even though they were on the opposing side. Is the Prussian-modeled school system natural?

2. During WWII it was discovered that only 15 to 20 percent of individual riflemen could bring themselves to fire upon an exposed enemy soldier. “From a military perspective, a 15% firing rate is like a 15% literacy rate among librarians.” So it was fixed. By the Korean War: 55%; Vietnam: 90%.

More effects:

During the Vietnam war, one popular bumper sticker was, “My country, right or wrong.” Compare this to what G.K. Chesterton said in "The Defendant": "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober'". Well, let’s play a little game. Insert your favorite organization, person, company, country, etc. in the following statements

My blank , right or wrong.
My blank , moral or immoral.
My blank , legal or illegal.
My blank , just or unjust.
My blank , humane or inhumane.
My blank , kind or evil.

Did any questions arise as to the legitimacy of the statements? Did your views change? Did you feel uncomfortable? The above statements may move you out of your comfort zone.

We might conclude that is it easier to obey than it is to question. If all one needs to do is to obey, then the work is done. This may be one reason why most people simply go with the flow, why people do not ask deep penetrating questions as to things happening around them. When you read the newspaper or listen to the news, seldom do people ask: Do the writers or commentators hold the same beliefs I do? Meaning, do they worship God or Satan? Do they worship power and money? Sometimes a person will believe something and is flexible enough to change when it is shown that their beliefs are based on an untruth or if the information they are relying upon is incomplete or incorrect. If we cannot remain flexible, we can become “concretized”. Rigid, inflexible, unbending, irrespective of principles involved. I’ve met people who find it difficult to change their beliefs because their belief systems are more important to them than the truth. (See Dogma: The Hassle-Free Zone under this forum.) If I'm not mistaken, Master writes that people seek until they're comfortable. Does, then, their dogma become their comfort zone?

Is there more? Would there be any other way to help people obey and simply follow orders? Why, yes, I’m glad you asked. Simply brush your teeth. Or drink some tap water. “Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile.” Interesting. Did you know that 25% of major tranquilizers are connected to fluoride? And that it was originally used as bug and rat poison?

(Read: Fear of Fluoride for some interesting facts.)

The authors state the Prussian school system was born of war and for war. So we have a (lower age) school system which encourages people to not think, to not read, to listen, and to obey, enabling us to fight wars. And we regularly ingest a drug that helps us to remain “tranquil”.

So what are some results of this “behavioral conditioning”? Again, I’m glad you asked. Remember Yale researcher Stanley Milgram? Briefly, he performed an experiment with pairs of adult volunteers, but only one person of each pair was truly a volunteer. The other person was actually a Milgram employee. The volunteer was the “teacher” and the Milgram employee, the “learner”. The learner was supposed to memorize a series of word pairs then was strapped into an “electric chair” and prompted by the “teacher” to recall the correct pairing. If the “learner” gave the wrong answer, he was to be given a shock by the “teacher” of, from, 15 volts, up to 450 volts. The equipment had switches labeled from “mild shock” to “danger: severe shock”and “XXX”. An “experimenter” in a lab coat directed the operation.

Sixty percent of the “teachers” “shocked” the “learners” to the top of the scale, simply because they were told to do so. (There was no real “shock” at all; the “learners” were acting.) In interviewing the “teachers” afterward, they abdicated their personal responsibility by saying that they were told to continue. I quote responses directly from the book:
Quote:
”[The experimenter] has the biggest share of responsibility. I merely went on. Because I was following orders … I was told to go on and I did not get a cue to stop.”

“Well, we have more or less a stubborn person (the learner). If he understood what this here was, he would’a went along without getting the punishment.”

“It is an experiment. I’m here for a reason. So I had to do it. You said so. I didn’t want to … I’m a softy … I was tempted so much to stop and say ‘Look, I’m not going to do it anymore.’ … I went on with it much against my will. I was going through hell … I don’t think others would be as nervous as I. …I don’t think they would care too much. With they way they are with their children I don’t think they really care too much about other people.” (This from a woman who delivered three 450-volt shocks.)


And there were those who simply refused to go along and do what they were told. And they quit. When Milgrams experiments were duplicated in other countries, the compliance rates were higher. Germany: 85%. At the Nuremberg trials, one statement that was oft repeated, “I was only following orders.” Here, again, is a quote from the book:
Quote:
Only since World War II have psychologists and historians begun to grasp the fact that many of the world’s worst horrors are perpetuated by perfectly normal people, acting not out of sadism or hatred, but in the name of obedience to authority.


(See: How SRF holds our thinking hostage.)

When we obey, are we using our God-given free choice, using our God-inspired will, or is it conditioning and a compulsion? Do we simply not question because we’ve been conditioned to obey? Does the conditioning put our conscience to sleep? What about personal responsibility? I welcome any input you may wish to share on this subject. This is not an indictment of SRF but an endeavor to understand, simply, why people obey.

AumBoy
Registered User
(4/6/02 8:42 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
Re: Stanley Milgram info
Stanley Milgram Website:
www.stanleymilgram.com/

Stanley Milgram's Experiment. . ."Obedience and Individual Responsibility"
www.cba.uri.edu/Faculty/d...ilgram.htm

The Milgram Experiment: A lesson in depravity, peer pressure, and the power of authority
www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

The Perils of Obedience
home.swbell.net/revscat/p...dience.htm
This following quote is from the above site.
Quote:
The dilemma inherent in submission to authority is ancient, as old as the story of Abraham, and the question of whether one should obey when commands conflict with conscience has been argued by Plato, dramatized in Antigone, and treated to philosophic analysis in almost every historical epoch. Conservative philosophers argue that the very fabric of society is threatened by disobedience, while humanists stress the primacy of the individual conscience.

AumBoy
Registered User
(4/8/02 1:17 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
Response from Obedient Not (SRFfeedback)
On the SRFFeedback ezboard under How and Why to Participate, Obedient Not had the following response to this thread (Obedience):

I read your post on the Walrus with great interest. I am unable to respond there because I do not have a password to the site.

Pursuing further Gatto's claims on the dumbing down of American education, I thought you might be interested in the following article...

Skull & Bones Society: How The Order Controls Education - John Dewey

This article reveals that two of the principle founders of the American School system-- John Dewey and Horace Mann -- were linked to the notorious Skull and Bones society at Yale which is a fraternity for leaders who are groomed to establish the New World Order ( both Bush presidents are members of it).

The Skull and Bones society follows Hegellian precepts which put State above the individual. This neatly ties in with Gatto's analysis of American schools having their roots in Prussian obedience training.

On Horace Mann...

www.sntp.net/education/sutton_look_see.htm


The Leipzig Connection:
Sabotage of the US Educational System....

www.sntp.net/education/leipzig_connection.htm

Edited by: AumBoy at: 4/8/02 1:36:26 pm
AumBoy
Registered User
(4/8/02 1:18 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
Another fluoride quote
This quote is from a different book:

"Fluoride is another major intellect suppressant that is being added to drinking water supplies and toothpaste. Sodium fluoride is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas."

chuckle chela
Registered User
(4/9/02 10:03 pm)
Reply
Re: Obedience
Thanks for a fascinating post, AumBoy. I agree that obedience is a central issue. It
seems to me that obedience is necessary, of course, if you're going to follow the
instructions of a guru. And obedience is necessary in the running of any organization.
But the impression I've gotten over the years is that SRF has taken the obedience
message farther than is beneficial. Now we're supposed to be obedient in everything,
not just in following the instructions of the guru. And wasn't one of Master's instructions
to learn to think for oneself, to learn to think critically? (See "Doubt, Belief and Faith" in
Journey to Self-Realization, for one example among many of instances where Master
urged critical thinking).

Quote:
Man has continued to evolve by acts of disobedience. Not only was his spiritual development possible only because there were men who dare say no to the powers that be in the name of their conscience or their faith, but also his intellectual development was dependent on the capacity for being disobedient - disobedient to authorities who tried to muzzle new thoughts and to the authority of long-established opinions which declared a change to be nonsense…--Erich Fromm


This quote of Fromm's is a great one, and you won't see many in SRF bucking the trend,
or disagreeing with the leaders. We still haven't learned how to dialogue in SRF. Why?
Because the model we use has all the answers coming down from "the top" (however
you interpret that), where all knowledge and power supposedly reside. The
communication is one-way. We on "the bottom" are vessels to be filled with the nectar of
knowledge. And, I suspect, the real situation is that the leaders simply don't trust us and
they don't trust the process of dialogue, and that's why there's no dialogue and won't be
for many years.

The question has to be asked: why such emphasis on obedience? Is it just so that we
understand the necessity of attunement with the guru, or is it rather so that the
organization can more readily get what it wants in terms of its goals and values? I think
the latter has become a dominating factor. For it seems that the organization in and of
itself is becoming more and more important in the eyes of its leaders.

Quote:
And guess where today's school systems come from? They are modeled after Prussia's Polizeistaat schools that were designed to "produce masses of docile citizens who view government as a kind of super-parent." Wow! (Transference.) Is it any wonder that many step out of the school system and idealize SRF as the perfect parent?


Yes, SRF is idealized as the perfect parent and babysitter. Now you've got me on my
home turf, education. First, let me say that educational models have come a long, long,
way from the Prussian one you're mentioning--at least, in theory! There are dozens of
dialectical, dialogue-oriented, person-centered educational models out there, and they
are being used, especially in adult education. That SRF continues on with its didactic,
the
minister-knows-everything-and-will-lecture-to-us-to-enlighten-us-and-we-aren't-required
-to-think-or-give-input model is saddening to me. And this outdated didactic model has
been proven repeatedly to be an inefficient and ineffective means of truly educating
adults. Not to mention that it has less and less of a role to play in a democracy. Not to
mention that it objectifies people and prevents the formation of what Martin Buber
referred to as “I-Thou” relationships, ones that were formed on genuine dialogue. And,
as both you and Raja mentioned in your respective posts, we get dreamily sucked into
the process and turn off our minds and go along for the ride. It is tempting! Again, from
Raja: "Why do I always feel as if I'm in the passenger seat with SRF? I'm always in
the audience, the important things are happening in front of me, to me, at me. Why
can't we all sit in circles or huddles, like the knights a King Arthur's Court? Or the Los
Angeles Lakers before the playoffs? Or just place a lay-disciple on the stage
once-in-awhile and have him or her address the monastics --- just to confound
expectations and invert the programming. (yeah right!)."


Yes, wouldn't it be great to have some discussion groups, real dialogue about real issues
where we all felt like we were on the same team. And wouldn't it be nice to see some lay
members on the stage. Last time I can remember that happening was the 1975 Convo
when the Weavers, Lipskis, and Paseks helped Bro. Achalananda on a discussion panel
about family life. At least then the monastics didn't have quite the arrogance they now
seem to possess in thinking they know more than us about family life!

Tentative efforts are being made in some parts of SRF, I think, to emerge out of the
swamps of didacticism. Not too long ago our meditation group had a discussion with
visiting monks from Center Dept. about meditation groups, their purpose and roles and
futures. They gave us a list of questions to consider for our discussion…and then gave us
a list of the "right" answers. I smile ruefully because I know it's a first baby step (we did
have some discussion) and they are trying and they are stuck in an atmosphere of
distrust at Mt. Washington, but they've got a long, long way to go. And at some stage,
they're going to have to take a deep breath and ask the members for their input and
learn to trust us.

Another encouraging sign I see, albeit possibly just a very minor one, is the ushering at
Convocation. It used to be rather authoritarian-you must sit where we tell you, etc.-but
now it seems much more relaxed. I'm told the lay members who organize the ushers
have a much larger role in the whole Convo. Operation. I hope this is true.

Quote:
Sometimes a person will believe something and is flexible enough to change when it is shown that their beliefs are based on an untruth or if the information they are relying upon is incomplete or incorrect. If we cannot remain flexible, we can become "concretized". Rigid, inflexible, unbending, irrespective of principles involved. I've met people who find it difficult to change their beliefs because their belief systems are more
important to them than the truth. (See Dogma: The Hassle-Free Zone under this forum.) If I'm not mistaken, Master writes that people seek until they're comfortable. Does, then, their dogma become their comfort zone?


Yes, the dogma does become the comfort zone, particularly when that dogma is telling
you that you don't have to think for yourself, that we have a formula for you to follow
and that you have to be obedient in all circumstances. Now, there's nothing wrong with a
formula, it's just when you forget to remind people to think critically that problems arise.
Time and time again I've seen SRF members bash each other over the heads with the
cudgels of dogma. How ready we in SRF seem to be to assume we know what's best for
somebody else, and how arrogant!

SRF makes such a big deal about its "scientific" approach. It is "scientific" only insofar as
people are told to try the techniques and teachings and discover for themselves whether
they are useful. And we have a valuable idea in suggesting that the "scientific highway,"
the meditational approach based on the flow of energy outlined in the teachings, is
universal and behind all valid spiritual practices. But in a number of other ways, SRF
offers little more than dogma; a tragedy, really. How can we claim to be "scientific" when
we have no discussions, no feedback, no critical review: these are at the heart of the
scientific process.



Quote:
Only since World War II have psychologists and historians begun to grasp the fact that many of the world's worst horrors are perpetuated by perfectly normal people, acting not out of sadism or hatred, but in the name of obedience to authority.


Yes, the Milgram experiments are classics in social psychology and highlight the vital
point that you made: perfectly 'normal' people are capable of behaviors they might not
normally perform because of outside social pressures (if you want another equally
shocking study to peruse, do a google search on Philip Zimbardo's prison experiment,
another classic). Put another way, you and I could be perpetuating any of the behaviors
we're criticizing SRF leaders for making, given the right social conditions (such as those
which exist in the ashram leading to unquestioning conformity). Realizing this, we should
have great compassion for those who are in the leadership roles. A quote from Raja's
excellent post: "I'm not saying there is evil intent in the SRF leaders, but I am saying
that, no matter what their reasons are -- even if they are good -- No! especially if they
are good --- such thoughtless assent to authority is exactly the kind of surrender every
great thinker in the world cautions us to avoid. God is what is left when the residue of
other business has been wiped away."
The road to hell is indeed paved with good
intentions, and, according to the ex-monastics, the Mt. Washington ashram became a bit
of a hell on earth.

In psychology we refer to people as having either an internal or external "locus of
control." That is, are they guided more by their own conscience and thinking processes
or more by what others think? It can be argued that SRF (not so much Master), either
intentionally or unintentionally, encourages people to have an external locus of control,
and does not do enough to encourage people to have an internal locus of control. Over
the years, I've seen so many who repeatedly approach ministers and other monastics for
advice on the simplest of matters. Moreover, and even more sadly, they think that God
and guru are far away, and don't realize they are within themselves, ready to be
consulted at any time (that's the ultimate internal locus of control).

Is this process-the lack of focus on internal locus of control--intentional on the part of
SRF leaders. Yes, I think it is unconsciously intentional. It emerges out of fears that we
don't recognize and won't be acknowledged but which nevertheless remain real. And we
don't offer an opportunity for anyone, especially our leaders, to talk about their fears (or
other shadows) and so they remain buried, hidden, but not inactive!

"A leader who empowers others is something else entirely. That demands a certain
optimistic belief in one's fellow man; it requires trust and an amazing amount of
benevolence."
--Raja Begum. And there you have it, beautifully stated. The essence
of true leadership: offering the opportunities for others to become equal to yourself, to
become leaders in their own right. Trust and benevolence. Trust in the membership
(after all, we're all children of the most High, n'est ce pas?). Benevolence flowing out of
a heart that is free from fear, bringing others into the communal circle of love.

I've rambled on here far longer than I should have. What thoughts do you have, AumBoy
about obedience as you guys experienced it in the ashram? Obviously, it's a different
story for monastics than it is for lay members when talking about obedience. Do you feel
any different now, being out of the ashram, in your feelings about obedience to
God/Master or obedience to other people?

A postscript regarding Raja Begum. I've loved reading his many messages; what a
writer! People should read his messages; sometimes they soar clear out of sight in their
brilliance. Thousands, not dozens merely, of Raja Begums are needed to bring SRF back
to its senses.



X Insider
Registered User
(4/10/02 8:58 am)
Reply
Re: Obedience
Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Perhaps you have heard that the "training" for monastics is given in a series of taped classes. These are tapes Mrinalini Ma made in the sixties. Postulants listen to these every day and the nuns hear them over and over again several times a week. On the subject of obedience, they are told that blind obedience to one's superiors is absolutely necessary to save one from the clutches of delusion (maya, Satan, whatever pushes your fear buttons). They are told that when one is tempted to disobey this is the time one is most in delusion and therefore most in need of this "protection."

Some people actually believe this stuff. After awhile, because they have lost any confidence in their internal locus of control, they have to believe it. And it's nice to go along for the ride once your brain is washed. You never have to make an important or even trivial decision because there's always someone to ask.

You wrote this this intention to eliminate the monastics' internal locus of control is unconscious. No way. It is absolutely deliberate. It is considered essential for success as a monastic. And while the leadership can talk on and on about discrimination and using one's common sense, the initial conversion to an external locus of control is demanded of everyone.


rayuna
Registered User
(4/10/02 9:17 am)
Reply
Re: Obedience
Sometimes my guru directs me to rebel. What a novel concept! Oh, and I just did by spelling it with a lower case 'g'.

Great thoughts here. When I was coordinator, I immediately started holding mgmt. council meetings in a circle of chairs and really respecting each person's opportunity to speak. It made a difference. I'm glad to see many of my early observations reflected on this board. This top-down, pulpit-to-congregation, monastic-to-lay disciple dynamic has to be done away with.

Edited by: rayuna at: 4/10/02 9:26:33 am
username
Registered User
(4/10/02 1:34 pm)
Reply
Re: repeated listening to tapes
This is brainwashing. I believe a class action lawsuit is needed by former monks and nuns against SRF. This will be the only way for "them" to stop doing this to new monastics. God save their souls.

X Insider
Registered User
(4/10/02 7:19 pm)
Reply
Re: repeated listening to tapes
Brain washing it is, my friend. And they are darned proud of it. They see it as virtue, a chance to remove one more soul from the clutches of the world.

A class action law suit has been discussed. But who has the money? It would take a "generous donor" to decide to put his/her resources into fighting SRF rather than supporting it.

I have heard that one ex-monk with family resources is suing them, but haven't heard how it is going.

username
Registered User
(4/11/02 8:15 am)
Reply
Re: repeated listening to tapes
class action lawsuits can be brought against organizations with money by an attorney that is willing to work on a contingency basis with perhaps the only cash needed is to cover costs. Perhaps a collection could be taken up to help defray these costs for you.

I would suggest seeking out an attorney who has worked with cults before, check with the other cult groups for recommendations.

AumBoy
Registered User
(4/11/02 1:11 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
More thoughts on obedience
Obedience training: I think I would have summed it up in four words: Your superior is God. This type of thinking puts superiors decisions and decrees beyond question! I mean, if you disagree with your superior, you’re disagreeing with God! Imagine that! In an old post someone wrote, ‘Thinking is not allowed, positive thinking is.’ And the danger that I encountered in this type of superior-subordinate relationship is the few who know how to manipulate the system. (Lions and tigers and bears, Oh My!) Was it Martin Buber who wrote, something to the effect, that the best place for evil to hide is in a religious?

I look at my thinking processes back when I first joined SRF, when I first entered the ashram, and then look at the Milgram experiment results. I am appalled. As much as I’d like to “think” that I would be one of the individuals that stopped, I’m sure, in retrospect, I would have zapped people to the top of the scale. Under obedience. Blind, non-discriminative, non-thinking obedience. Scary, huh? But after what I went through, my perspective has changed from an external locus of control back to internal. Similar to what Covey expounds upon in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. I write 'back to' because this was another thing I willingly strived to give up.

One of the reasons that the Learning to Obey chapter struck me, was not only does the current membership go through our school systems, but that everyone has, essentially, been conditioned to obey! From the BOD down.

In the book I mentioned above the authors write, “In the Polizeistaat, any individual in conflict with the government is assumed to be wrong.” Wow! Let’s make this a little more understandable: “In an authoritarian organization, any individual in conflict with the management is assumed to be wrong.” (Guilty until proven innocent. Since there is no trial or discussion, one is simply guilty. Period.) Is it any wonder that those who have left the order, not only had “the problem”, which is why they left, but probably were “the problem?” This is the only way this makes sense in light of the kind of organizational structure and behavior that is involved. The problem is always “out there” somewhere, pulling, tugging, tricking those, perceived to be, too weak to stay inside! Maya, Satan, always something tugging. So those fallen ones (me included) left. And were we met with open arms from other devotees? Nope. Immediately ostracized. Those leaving need to be ostracized.

In the early 1990s, during the Gulf War, most Americans supported this action to free Kuwait (I think they still have chattel slaves) from the evil Iraq. This information that stirred Americans up was put out by a Hill and Knowlton, the largest PR firm in the U.S., paid for by Kuwait. Nice manipulation, huh? Some information was true, some not true. But most people simply ate it up as a noble ideal.
Quote:
People “simply accepted without serious question that their children were fighting, and sometimes dying for the “freedom” of a country that wouldn’t let its American defenders drink beer, celebrate Christmas, express their opinions, or (if they were female) drive a car.”
As the authors write: “There is nothing new in such willing suspension of judgement for the sake of belief in noble-sounding aims.” For SRF? Read the Aims and Ideals. Read the AY. I’m not saying that any of this is propaganda. I am suggesting that many simply suspend judgement (stop thinking) because the information is authoritative. We’ve been conditioned to stop thinking when we encounter some authoritative, noble-sounding ideal. Even Victor Klemperer wrote that the Nazis emphasized ”believing without understanding”. (He was a Jew who survived Nazi Germany without being sent to a concentration camp.)

“God said it, I Believe it, That Settles It”. This quote is from a Born-Again T-shirt or bumper sticker. It is very telling. If we change God to ‘Master’ or ‘SRF’ we have the same type of non-thinking being perpetuated. And those who think differently are ostracized. On another board it was mentioned that people contributing here were “mentally unstable”. Of course. How can it be any different? Someone on this board compared people to being “in collusion with Satan”. Yep. How can it be any different? These observations must be correct, right?

In the chapter “Thought Control, Lies and Language” the authors write that a “prime necessity … has been to impose uniformity of thought on the populace.”
Quote:
Uniformity of thought also tends to lead to uniformity of everyday behavior. This satisfies a bureaucratic craving for social order. It also ensures that those who don’t “fit” – that is, who don’t think or act like others, or who fall into a category defined as “undesirable” – can be more easily identified, ostracized, marginalized, and conveniently used as a scapegoat for whatever troubles …” [appear]


Was Gandhi wrong for identifying with, and feeling for, “undesirables” (pariahs)? The main purport of the above mentioned chapter concerns the politicalization of language which allows authorities “to control people down to the level of beliefs, opinions, conversations, and daily life choices.” Words and phrases take on whole new meanings. Remember the conditioning to obey? The authors write
Quote:
Language doesn’t just determine what we say; it molds what we think and how we think. Language that is imposed upon us (for instance, by social pressure…) ensures that we will be more likely to think as elitists want us to – and ultimately comply with what they wish to do.”

And

“…rigid speech codes on college campuses to the knee-jerk use of such labels as "racist," "homophobic," and "hateful" in an attempt to socially ostracize people with opposing viewpoints, speaking one's mind today has become increasingly dangerous.


Like Raga Begum wrote: "Why do I always feel as if I'm in the passenger seat with SRF? I'm always in
the audience, the important things are happening in front of me, to me, at me. Why
can't we all sit in circles or huddles, like the knights a King Arthur's Court? …


Which is why I question when someone uses the term “heavy censorship” with respect to the moderation of this board? No answer, at yet, has been forthcoming, even though I’ve posed the question several times. What makes us “mentally unstable”? Because we think differently? How are we “in collusion with Satan”? Is this, in my opinion, thoughtless use of language simply to demean, diminish, and dismiss those who left SRF, or left the ashram, or who simply think differently? Should we be medicated? Eradicated? Locked up? Burned at the stake? Sent to a gulag? (History repeats itself.)

Someone once asked a Brother what they should expect when going into postulancy. He replied, vociferously, “You’re nothing. You’re zero.” Compare this to:
Quote:
“You don’t exist. You are nothing. I am god,” was such a typical phrase of Argentine torturers that later, during highly publicized political trial of the mid-80s, teens picked up the expression. “You don’t exist!” became a popular expression, which could mean either “You’re the greatest” or “You’re a zero.”


Only love can take My place?

Budda says "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." One of the things I found so compelling when I found SRF was the idea of not simply believing, but that we are all given the tools to prove what Yogananda has said: Self-Realization. Not SRF-Realization. Not Self-Realization Fellowship Realization. Simply, Self-Realization.

I think I’ve rambled enough.

chuckle chela
Registered User
(4/11/02 2:57 pm)
Reply
Stunned, yet again
Wow. I had no idea, not the slightest inkling that the training for the renunciants was this warped. I mean, since early December I've read all the posts on this board, and I've gotten an idea of what things are like, and I knew the parameters of the monastics' "education" were probably somewhat rigidly confined…but what you've disclosed shocks me. I am stunned yet once again.

My God, this stuff is straight out of the cult handbook, just as X Insider implied elsewhere. When I wrote that the process might be unconsciously intentional, I was thinking of this from my perspective as a lay member who hasn't seen SRF from the "inside." If they were teaching you as you outlined, then definitely it is completely intentional. Your messages have helped me understand some of the earlier postings on the board about the utter differences between the monastic milieu and that of the lay members. This is chilling to the core.

The fears that must be locked inside the SRF leaders! . And the damage that can result. You guys are right--it is brainwashing. I keep thinking back to Bro. Vishwananda at last year's Convo and shudder at the memory. To think that my donations have gone to support this madness….

Rayuna, your description of how you ran your council meetings is right on. That's how we've run our managing councils for over 20 years, and it's worked well. As I mentioned in an earlier reply to you regarding meditation groups, we've worked on a consensual model for years now, and it has worked well. This is why I was initially in amazement reading all the stuff on this board when I first arrived. I had assumed that the monastics followed a similar model. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. To think that the current SRF leaders actually think their "educational" model is useful to the world today is laughable. To see and hear of the suffering perpetuated by employing this cultic model makes me cry.

Aldous Huxley said it best in his novel, Island, in giving an appropriate response to such madness:

"Karuna. Karuna. Attention."

Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.

AumBoy, you wrote: "So those fallen ones (me included) left. And were we met with open arms from other devotees? Nope. Immediately ostracized. Those leaving need to be ostracized." That is truly, truly saddening. I've said before that you guys epitomize courage and integrity. The Aussies have a saying they use when addressing someone who they appreciate or admire: you'll always be welcome in my camp.

And how laughable that the SRF monastic superiors were trying to "save you from the clutches of the world!" The more I hear that the more I think these superiors really have some issues with "the world"; they really seem to be rather attached to it, in an unhealthy sort of way.

As far as a class action suit, that might be a useful thing for everyone, including SRF. What would be interesting is that you'd be up against SRF's lawyer, Mike Flynn, who has gone after Scientology in the past and who was the one who went after Kriyananda/Ananda on behalf of the woman who claimed to be sexually abused. If you guys know of one former monastic who is suing, I would follow up on username's suggestion and try to get in contact with him/her. The lawyer and the monastic's family would be only too happy to welcome the rest of you as plaintiffs as it would make their case stronger and more compelling. Goodness knows, based on the number of people, monastic and lay member, who have posted stories about their experiences at Mt. Washington, you'd have a sizable number of witnesses. And I for one would be happy to see all you guys get lots and lots of SRF's money if you won the suit. After all, some of that SRF money was given by me, and nothing would make me happier than to see it go to you guys. After all your dedication, after all the abuse you took, after the little cash they left you guys with, you deserve all you can get.

The other benefit of such a lawsuit is that it would force all these issues out into the open. It's clear SRF isn't interested in the sufferings that have been caused. A lawsuit might be the only way to clean up this tragic mess.

Pig Ma
Registered User
(4/11/02 3:06 pm)
Reply
Re: Stunned, yet again
I wouldn't encourage lawsuits. I don't think they "solve" things. It's part of the american mentality- victims should sue and get lots of money. I didn't agree with it as I sat in the courtroom as a bailiff, and I don't now that I am retired and away from courtroom dramas.

Healing can occur in a lot of ways. Healing is what is needed, not lawsuits.

chuckle chela
Registered User
(4/11/02 3:09 pm)
Reply
Thomas Merton on obedience
More from Contemplation in a World of Action, from the chapter on obedience.

"The Constitution on the Church affirms the primacy of spiritual life and its fruitfulness over organizational rigidity, juridical exactitude, and temporal power. Certainly the Church is a society with laws, an organized institution; but the laws and organization are for the sake of love, of life…. Thus the institution, its power and its influence do not become ends which every Christian must serve, even at the cost of his own inner spiritual fruitfulness and growth."


"The religious, and particularly the monk, desires the bonum obedientiae [the good of obedience] because it is a means to closer union with God….Now a merely external and juridical obedience, no matter how exact, is hardly to be prized as an especially efficacious way to union with God."

"The monk must obey, not because he has become the subject of the Abbot who has all the authority of a Roman paterfamilias, but because he is a disciple of Christ and because, in faith and humility, he wishes to see his own function as a service to be exercised in all humility and love. The Abbot desires not only to get his own will carried out, or to see that the Rule is strictly enforced, or to guarantee that the community is well-disciplined and prosperous, but to help his monks to seek and find God more truly, more sincerely, more intelligently, and more efficaciously."

"[We will] perpetuate certain unfortunate confusions if superiors continue to regard obedience, consciously or unconsciously, as ordered primarily to the good order and efficient functioning of the religious institute. Any renewal of obedience that begins from such a viewpoint will hardly be more than a consolidation of what amounts in fact to a spiritual disorder. This disorder consists in considering that the monk exists for the sake of his institution and in order to keep it going, and that his good and his sanctification are to be found above all in the obedience which places him totally at the service of his superiors in working for the interests--and, we may add, the prosperity and prestige--of the community."

"The unfortunate tendency to regard the problem of obedience and authority as primarily one of order obscures much deeper theological implications."

"The end of Christian obedience is then not merely order and organization, not the abstract common good, but God himself, the epiphany of God in his Church…. This in no sense means all abdication of his basic human rights and dignity in order to become an inert and uncomprehending utensil in the hands of a religious superior. It means a dedication and consecration of liberty in which the superior first of all must see that he is obliged to serve and preserve the spiritual liberty and dignity of his subjects. The superior cannot demand blind and total subjection to his own authority in order that he may make an arbitrary use of his subjects for his own ends or for those of the organization…. He must realize that all other ends are subordinated to the spiritual good of the subjects as persons and as a community, and to the good of the souls they serve."


There's lots more great stuff in that chapter. If we in SRF have made a fundamental error, it is in forgetting that individuals and their relationships with God are the "bottom line," nothing else. The organization was brought for man, not man for the organization. I suspect that the reason this has been forgotten, and why we have assumed some fascist attitudes of placing the organization in a superior position, is because the leaders do not fundamentally trust people. At some deep level, they do not believe we all are equal to them in any number of ways as children of God. This mistrust, this fundamental and unconscious fear, is, I suspect, based on the early experiences of some of the SRF leaders. Regardless of its origins, it appears to be a fact that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with appropriately.


AumBoy
Registered User
(4/11/02 4:05 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
Re: Thomas Merton on obedience
Thanks for the quote, Chuckle Chela. I, still, do have friends living inside SRF who do ask why I don't come around more. And I do have friends outside of the ashram in SRF.

But I cried when I read your post. I can count on one hand, people outside of the ashram, in SRF, who I have been able to be completely open with. And I'm not using all my fingers. (I'm excluding my Brothers and Sisters who I knew inside who have left.) That's why this board has been helpful for me. Each time I've posted here, I'm moved to a new, deeper realization and understanding. And a deeper longing for God-realization.

I have not finished the organizational communication thread because I'm endeavoring to understand the world that SRF is dealing with. I don't feel that one can simply look at forces internal to SRF and understand SRF. External forces operate on it, too. (Like looking only inside a boat on a turbulent river never understanding the effects the river has on the occupants of the boat!) What I have been shown (or guided to) by Master has encouraged me to pray for everything. And, I do mean everything. I pray for the upliftment of people, plants, animals, rocks, gems, fish, trees, planets... everything. I don't want to go Home without taking everything back to God. I just perceive incredible suffering here... on this plane. I think I would have become too attached to serving a "perfect" SRF. So Master destroyed this. And in my wanting to understand SRF, Master has destroyed my wanting a "perfect" America, more "perfect" than other countries. I feel people's suffering now. Even in the Palestine-Israeli problem, my heart aches.

AumBoy
Registered User
(4/16/02 9:39 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
Catharsis
This board, and messages, have been very helpful to me. But this thread in particular has been a catharsis to me. Initially after posting some of the comments above, I felt uneasy. Two days after my prior post, I woke up and felt "It's Gone." I'm not sure what is was but I finally feel at peace with myself and with my SRF experience.

Since Sept 2001 I have posted under different names until I "transmogrified" (ala Calvin and Hobbes) into AumBoy. I hope that my contributions to this board have been helpful to some. At this point, it looks like this may be my last post here. I do have more that I can add to this thread and to the Organizational Communication thread, but time will tell.

Wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get wisdom and with all thy getting, get understanding. - Proverbs 4:7

Namaste, all. And Peace.

chuckle chela
Registered User
(4/16/02 5:00 pm)
Reply
To AumBoy, with a sidebar for Pig Ma
Your thought about external influences on SRF and how it operates intrigues me. If you ever do decide to post, I'll be interested in reading what you have to say.

You messages have been great. I'm happy for you that you're feeling at peace. I think you're right: it seems this board has been a wonderful thing for many of you guys who were burned, and many seem to have felt the same catharsis as you. I meant it when I said you and your confreres would be welcome in my camp anytime. Sometime I'd be honored to meet any of you guys, and I wish the best for you. I appreciated the quote from Proverbs; it's long been a favorite of mine.

Pig Ma, you're probably right about the lawsuits. Healing is the answer. I mentioned it partially because I thought, if nothing else could initiate the needed healing, a lawsuit could force an opportunity for healing and change. Note that I said "could." A lawsuit would have to be initiated with the proper motives in order for this to happen. You would know far better than I the likelihood of such a "properly motivated" lawsuit occurring...and you'd probably say that it wouldn't be likely.

rayuna
Registered User
(4/17/02 11:25 am)
Reply
Re: Stunned yet again
Thanks for acknowledging the lay disciple side of this experience we call SRF. Not much emphasis here on that so I do appreciate it. I want to read up and post more. So much has been added but time hasn't been available. I'm just relieved that there are people in SRF that read relevant material and have taken off blinders. The God authority dynamic determines SRFs approved book list too, yet there are such gems out there. Thanks all. A wider scope would be appreciated however. We in the world have been burned too.

Edited by: rayuna at: 4/17/02 11:27:00 am
AumBoy
Registered User
(4/30/02 8:36 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
No independent thinking...
I wasn’t sure whether to post this under this thread, Obedience, or under Raja Begum’s thread How the SRF experience holds our thinking hostage, for it fits under both.

Quote:
Avoid independent thinking! How is such independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the council that is provided by God’s visible organization. – The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p 22.


Quote:
Fight Against Independent Thinking! Yet there are some who would point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: that shows that we have to make up our own mind on what we believe. This is independent thinking. Why is it the danger? Such thinking is evidence of pride. – The Watchtower, January 15, 1983, p 27


These are quotes from Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publications. The founders of Jehovah’s
Witnesses were Masons, 33rd degree Freemasons.

There is also a handout from a leadership conference held in Utah for Mormons. It is a document entitled: “Profile of Splinter Group Members or Others with Troubling Ideologies, southern Utah Leadership Conference (LDS) on Dealing with Apostate and Splinter Groups.” (A mouthful.) The subject of the conference was troublemakers in Mormonism, those who might cause trouble by thinking independently and not blindly following the leadership. One of the 20 items listed in this pamphlet is to keep your children in public schools. Does this have any relation to what is outlined above about staying dumb and obedient in school?

The founders of Mormonism were, also, Masons, 33rd degree Freemasons. The rites in the Mormon church are identical to masonry except the words are slightly changed.

username
Registered User
(5/1/02 6:26 am)
Reply
Re: masons
How much do you know about masons? Someone told me that if you join the masons (convert as opposed to birth into the religion) that you are not allowed to go to the higher levels. Is this true?
Is 33 the highest level? Is there a lot of "secret teachings" in this organization? If so, does the Witness or Mormon groups freely disclose this information?

AumBoy
Registered User
(5/1/02 7:17 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
Re: masons
UserName,

I know extremely little about Masons. I've come across them because I've been revisiting US history and have stumbled across these few quotes listed above. Also, George Washington was a Mason as well as 33 other US Presidents. There are 33 degrees in the Scottish Rite and 12 degrees in the York Rite, basically equivalent. It is a secret fraternal order which I am not about to join but I'm just wondering about this. As to higher degrees, I think they become more secret above 33. Would this have, in any way, influenced SRF being that the Wrights and the Browns come from a Mormon background. I don't know the answer to this. Freemasonry seems to be a very old order which has had different names over many many years, possibly thousands of years.

Their "teachings" and other esoteric stuff seem to be shrouded in symbolism and allegory which is more clearly revealed the higher up one goes. Rosicrusians are Masons, Alice Bailey and her husband, etc. I'm simply endeavoring to understand how all this relates to SRF. They are very strict heirarchical organizations, it seems to me. I cannot tell if they are "good" or "bad".

What struck me in the above quotes is the "no independent thinking."

Page 1 2 << 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 - Core Issues -



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