You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to Beyond Orange. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Veritas

Silver Member

(82)

Posts: 205

Reputation modifier: 5

Level: 32 [?]

Experience: 447,062

Next Level: 453,790

  • Send private message

16

Monday, January 9th 2012, 12:58pm

Also somehow familiar?:


batawe

Bronze Member

(39)

Posts: 63

Reputation modifier: 4

Level: 27 [?]

Experience: 136,653

Next Level: 157,092

  • Send private message

17

Monday, January 9th 2012, 5:23pm

maybe she says it, but she plays nonetheless some other kind of guru game; and she is also very boring:), maybe she needs another tattoo:))) (meaning the previous video of the woman-swami)

Roman

Silver Member

(212)

Posts: 240

Reputation modifier: 5

Level: 33 [?]

Experience: 523,575

Next Level: 555,345

  • Send private message

18

Monday, January 9th 2012, 11:58pm

People in and out.

I have just returned from vacation in Europe where I was visiting my family. It was nice to see Prague during Christmas time and to be with those I love.They live their "mundane" lives without trying to be the special ones who know something more than the rest of the humankind and as far as I can say, they are happy, they know how to love and how to give the love. No strings attached. They had no problems with me being vegetarian because I didn't make any problems with them being non-vegetarians. We had wonderful time. At some point during my trip I got to talk on Skype with a woman who is still part of YIDL. It was interesting. She was surprised that I don't have three heads (we've never met before) and after first hesitation to participate in the discussion with me, she came in front of camera, saying: "Er ist ganz nett (He is very nice)." Because I don't have horns and speak with others respectfully and openly (most of the time :) ). We had actually very nice talk, even laughed quite a bit. It brought me back to times when I was part of YIDL too, being with all those nice people and it got me thinking about complexity of this whole affair. I don't want to give out any identity of this woman, I want to just communicate certain points which we had shared during our video call. It would be helpful if people like her had participated openly on the forum to clear certain misconceptions and confusions out but for whatever reason they don't want to do it and they have full right to make that decision. So I will just bring up certain issues which we had touched.

One question was who is "Roman's army". First I wasn't sure what she meant but then I got an idea. This whole "anti-swAmi effort" must be based on some calculated strategy how to destroy the guru and his organization. Many people in the organization are nice, good, hard working selfless individuals who are doing everything possible to live positive and spiritual lives. So here was an idea: "Roman's army", the joke of naming those who are trying to expose swAmi's misbehavior by the same people has turned in the organization members minds into validation of the need for the villain. SwAmi's sex, money and hitting escapades have been acknowledged by staying members and are not enough to convince them that there is something wrong with their master. The only thing which can be wrong are "the others", especially people like me, the leader of the swAmi hating army. I tried to explain that there is no calculated effort or some kind of guided organization. The army of misfits (like jokingly Tony once called it - now I am interested what this joke will create in devoted minds ;) ) is comprised of people who care for those who had been hurt. I don't know if she accepted my answer. At least she listened to it.

Another issue was that we are causing hardship in devotees' lives by describing the organization as a cult (especially in newspapers and magazines). What if somebody is looking for a job and the potential employer googles YIDL? Being part of the cult can make them unqualified for the job. My response was that how about the other people who left and are trying to put their lives together and have hard time explaining big gaps in their resume because they were doing lots of selfless low paid or not paid at all work for some cult. So should everybody just shut up and pretend that nothing happened? According to my opinion, those who are independent, strong and well qualified would eventually disperse any generalizing misconceptions about them. Of course, if somebody is looking for a job in women's shelter or as income tax enforcer and is associated with a group whose leader conducts himself like our swAmi, it may be a problem. Justifiably so. Again, I don't know what she made out of my answer to her, I would love her to join this forum and give us her perspective.

And one more issue. Why are the descriptions of the incidents written so "pornographically"? This is the common perception of the other side that the testimonies are not "nice, positive, spiritual, full of light", that they are written in "ugly, porno-like, rude and non-spiritual" way. It just amazes me how far are YIDL people from "normal" world reality. Things which were done were "ugly, porno-like, rude and non-spiritual" and each of the affected women described them in a way they felt it was appropriate. Beside that, some people should probably watch or read "real porno" to see what that means. According my opinion the testimonies were written appropriately to underline the seriousness of the situations without becoming XXX industry material.

There is a huge divide in minds of in and out people. When I answered someone's else question if I still practice yoga with "No", I had received a condemning and worrying look. I got over it with a joke, but it really pissed me off. That was the same person who's opinion about all this was that "it takes two to a tango" and that basically all the affected women had a choice and if things happened, it was their fault too (i.e. mainly their fault and I am still with the guru somehow). Again pattern of trying to justify misbehaving of a god-like guru in non god-like situations. The fact that many of the women were groomed into these situations, manipulated or cheated into them doesn't matter. It takes two to a tango.

All this convinces me even more that YIDL is a cult because smart, intelligent, good and nice people will do everything it takes to justify actions which they deplore deeply in their heart. By now everybody had a chance to take some stand in this situation. My attitude towards it is to view it as a learning opportunity for myself. How about for others? I am old enough to give everybody freedom of making up their minds. I do just my little part to be able to live with myself and give others the same chance.

PallasAthene

Silver Member

(193)

Posts: 201

Reputation modifier: 6

Level: 32 [?]

Experience: 435,508

Next Level: 453,790

  • Send private message

19

Tuesday, January 10th 2012, 7:45pm

The fact that many of the women were groomed into these situations, manipulated or cheated into them doesn't matter. It takes two to a tango.

That is an very old programming of women, starting in our culture with the determined role as women by the catholic church and the right for property, which came up as twins. Eva was guilty, not Adam. And many women are not aware that such programm still works perfectly. That's also the reason why women prefer to remain silent. They know that in their herstory are many situations where women have to accept the rules given by men, if they want to live in security. Only Maria was allowed to dance with herself.

Our education tells us that man and woman are on equal terms, but our strategies in front of an old fear in womens life speaks another language. To say that it takes two for a tango may imply that women are safe if they don't dance. :(

falseswamiji

Silver Member

(304)

Posts: 213

Reputation modifier: 8

Level: 33 [?]

Experience: 462,231

Next Level: 555,345

  • Send private message

20

Wednesday, January 11th 2012, 11:00am

"Only Maria was allowed to dance with herself"
No way, she dances with the God, and he is male.
Made her pregnant too but never showed up later (- how typical for men?) so she had to marry another ;)

PallasAthene

Silver Member

(193)

Posts: 201

Reputation modifier: 6

Level: 32 [?]

Experience: 435,508

Next Level: 453,790

  • Send private message

21

Wednesday, January 11th 2012, 6:31pm

perhaps Maria was pregnant before she met Joseph. And Joseph was a very nice guy in love with her and both decided to tell this story. Everybody looks to Maria but the very interesting person at all is Joseph. He is the secret pivotal point of her story. ;)

batawe

Bronze Member

(39)

Posts: 63

Reputation modifier: 4

Level: 27 [?]

Experience: 136,653

Next Level: 157,092

  • Send private message

22

Wednesday, January 11th 2012, 7:46pm

That is an very old programming of women, starting in our culture with the determined role as women by the catholic church and the right for property, which came up as twins.

I think it's not only about the women, both males and females can be a part of certain group, strategy, belief and certain ideology, starting from the family ideology and the patterns that we know, want them, or repeat them or don't want them; the psychological makeup is much complex, and the most dangerous thing is to believe into something or someone with totality of your heart (essence of bhakti etc:); it means to totally surrender and 'lose' your will in that Other (person or god); it's like parents that are in some way or another like gods to the children, omnipotent and omniscient, "they know", and we little kids we of course don't know and not to mention those let's say psychological or whatever theories that speak about collective consciousness etc. Individuality is a complex thing also, it's not something like we are used to think, that we are totally independent and totally individualistic without this intersection with the collectivity; the individuality is always sort of embedded into the social matrix, want it or not and those social relations feed back upon our individuality; and it is also known that in religious structures like in a sense in militarist structures, like army etc, and maybe the religious structure even more, we see these central role of a priest, a Father, A god the Father etc.., in a sense (generalizing a bit), a father-complex, everything is structured around the central figure of the Father and his Love unites all other subjects, and his Love is multiploied and it reflects itself in all the subjects that give 'life' to the Father..that is more or less clear, the Christ figure is definitely a male/father figure also, it's like one big family, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit (whatever that is), a certain mediator or completely individuated entity on its own, or just the sexless neuter?

Can the older people and people in whom we trust/ed, misuse our trust? Sure. Is it easy to get rid of the god-complex that we embraced as children when we watched all the grown up people how they manage things and how 'superiror' and capable they look like?, why this need that once again we need another Father, another love, uniting love, something which we need to somehow give us a certain meaning, a feeling of completeness? Can we really find this supposedly lost completeness? Can we find it in the Other (partner or a guru etc...); do we really have to give away our 'inner object', our love, our emptiness to the Other and than be totally carefree, as we gave all of ourselves into the hands of that Other, like woman who gives herself totally to the husband, whereby from than on, he decides how she will breathe and how she should function, by the dictates and whimsicalness of her husband? Does she really need to 'sacrifice' her being and offer it totally to her chosen love? Than her Master is responisble for her life, than her whole life revolves around the gestures and will of the Master, she has no will anymore...with other words, it is called "obedience", you can be safe and secure, as the responsibility for yourself is in the hands of the Other. Can you really be carefree and secure in this giving away of your 'individuality'; husband is than your god, and in 'god's' hand you are mere object, instrument.

All the godmen have gigantic megalomaniac claims about themselves and people just accept it as if it is the truth and is it really something which is self-obvious? "You will know them by their fruit" etc., another nice slogan, another nice sentence which than becomes the measure, it's a sentence but sentence we give meaning to, and what does it mean? It could mean anything, depends on the issues and interest; but it does not necessesarily mean that only and only the good tree can bear a good fruit and the bad tree can only and only bear bad fruit; it is just rigid logic and suitable example, which only can serve certain purposes; black-white logic is redundant here...

I would say that the moment we speak something, we are never identified and one with ourselves (whatever that means, to be "one with yourself"); what we speak, or speak about, is never the thing which we speak about, in its direct and full property or meaning; the moment we utter a thing, the thing is already gone, and the thing uttered and the thing which 'bears' the utterance are always divided; I am never there where I am supposed to be, when I speak, in the act of speaking. There is always this minimal gap between what is real and the process of its symbolization (the story we tell ourselves or the others) ; it's never there in its complete and empirical actuality, supposed unity of the event and supposed unity of the spoken word; and when the saint speaks, he falls in the same structure by the mere fact that he is speaking and if he or she is speaking than she always lies as much as s/he tells the truth, and even when we lie we tell the truth (that we lie:)

So, my hypothesis would be here, that even the greatest saint, when he opens his mouth, he misses the thing, he is not unified and never was; maybe in his extra special and privileged subjective interiority, he enjoys the supreme bliss and is one with his eternal Self (one with cosmos, imanent and transcendent features of Absolute etc...p.s. someone said to us that he or she is enlightened and One with God or the Absolute, ergo: it must be the Truth, he or she not only speaks about it, she actually knows and realized/or realizes it all the time, that oneness with god; but nobody explained how do you maintain your individuality than, who is there, and if there is no one there, than who is there that is working or doing ...some string are pulled from the behind to maintain the play etc., that is what we are told again:), and in his interiority is "one without the second", but still there is multitudionous difference and multireality with so many different species and plants on this earth, the planet that we know, that still remains where it is, and where is our saint that merged into oneness?

and who said that the saints or the godmen really know everything, and who said that their words and actions are totally selfless and totally 'enlightened', do the godmen really know all the consequences of their actions and know how and what will happen to all the people that he or she comes in touch with; isn't it a little bit presumptious, even of the godmen, that he or she believes that everything will be a blessing and that every action and decision and redirection that s/he imposes on his/her precious believers will bear only good fruit? Does a godmen ever doubt in her/his self? Is s/he self-critical? Is s/he absolutely right or relatively delusional (about her/himself)? Is s/he really humble and honest? Does s/he ever lie, tell a lie (even if the lie is a 'neccesary' step towards the truth?) Does a godmen lie to him/herself and s/he doesn't even recognize it as lying? Who speaks through the godmen, a god, a divinity? Is really a divinity speaking through the godmen? Can the message be fuc..ed up in the process?

The supposition that somebody else is speaking through the godmen, is a schizophrenic statement, like split personality; like dreams and their supposed divine content, the divination process, where the divinity is sending us the message and we have to resolve the secret message, decode it; divinity sends as an encodded message, full of twists and turns and enigmas, puzzles, chaotic rendering, and than we have to decipher it, maybe look into the cards, and some Herbert or Herberta will tell us what the divinity meant to say to us...If something speaks to us or through us, it doesn't mean yet that it actually exists. It's not a proof of the existence of some Divinity that is sending us cryptic messages through cryptic dream-medium; but we want to beleive that there is Divinity that is sending us a message, it's not our own making, our own symptoms, our own enigma, we create daily, and we want to believe that something or someone speaks to us, but what if that Other is not there, there's no one to say or answer, it's just our own questions and answers, echoed back to ourselves? Lacan would said: "The Other does not exist." No divination helps. There is none to answer.

But if we find that Other who will decipher our questions and symtomps in the Other of the analysit or the guru, than we are supposedly safe; we adress our riddle to the other but the other does not give solution; ok, saints and guru's they give us solution, we all know what it is, many prescriptions and many rules and many meditations and whatever, but who says that even what they say or represent is the obstacle to the understanding of yourself, and who is so sincere to say, that he can not help you at all?

Husband knows, father knows, guru knows, obey and surrender, and the Truth will be on the Other's side...

Similar threads