Author Comment
SsSsSnake
Registered User
(1/5/04 8:48 am)
Reply

Something I never got round to posting was my suprise at the goings on at MC.

Being from the backwaters so to speak i had an illusion that all was bliss and love there so was most suprised to find this site.Although intuitively I've never been struck on Daya Mata,just didnt like her vibe much,this being from hearing her ona cassette.:smokin

seekerseeking
Registered User
(3/28/04 11:37 am)
Reply
Re: Surprised
I met some devotees who used to regularly go on pilgrimage to the MC and sit down by the tennis courts gazing up at the apartment on top of the admin. building hoping to receive "Ma's darshan". They somehow expected her to come out and bless them. I admit once or twice I too had the thought I might run into her when I went to MW, especially after I watched that video of her where she says she frequently walked the entire grounds or something like that. How foolish we were, not knowing she was in Sierra Madre. :rolleyes

Did get "darshan" of many of the other senior monks and nuns, usually when I was least expecting it. :lol

I was never a fan of Daya Mata. I certainly respect her, and feel she has a lot of loyalty and devotion to her guru. Can't say I like the direction she's taken SRF in, though. But I learned there are legions of Ma's groupies in SRF who hang on her every word and rush up to her at satsangs and Convo, and they had to take steps to protect her from these bliss bunnies. Is that why the satsangs stopped? I met a few of them at convo and at MW and they are scary. They are like robots. Perfect examples of cult programming.

KS
Registered User
(4/3/04 8:08 pm)
Reply
Royal Court
People read the AY and desperately want to be a part of something magic and mystical like the places in the AY. They believe that saints do exist (and they do) and make the big gigantic assumption that Daya Mata is a saint because she knew Master. Thousands of people knew Master. The Daya Groupies have never met her and attribute all kinds of magic and miracles to her. It kind of reminds me of Jim Jones in a way. It is really sad that SRF became that. These groupies think that the books she wrote (ha ha) are so wonderful that she must be a spiritual giant. I wonder what committee really writes those books. I wonder if they are really mostly lectures of Masters? We have ZERO proof that she ever gave those lectures!

She hides from the membership and even the monastics precisely because she is so spiritually lacking. Imagine her constant fear in being found out. Her living, and the living of her loyal court, completely depends on people buying into that fantasy. It is a sad life she has carved out for herself. Her mind may be so far gone that she actually believes that she is a great saint and the pope of SRF (Master’s one true perfect channel). These troubling times make that type of mental illness easy to catch.

parabastha
Registered User
(4/4/04 1:09 pm)
Reply
Re: Royal Court
Quote:
We have ZERO proof that she ever gave those lectures!


Let us be fair. Several of her talks included in her books have been recorded as audio tapes and are available from SRF:

- A Heart Aflame
- Anchoring Your Life in God
- Free Yourself From Tension
- God First
- Karma Yoga: Balancing Activity and Meditation
- Strengthening the Power of the Mind
- Is Meditation on God Compatible With Modern Life?
- Understanding the Soul's Need for God
- Let Every Day Be Christmas
- Let Us Be Thankful
- Living a God-Centered Life
- Moral Courage, etc.

Edited by: parabastha at: 4/4/04 2:32 pm
SayItIsntSo
Registered User
(3/18/06 3:23 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter

Re: Royal Court
I remember Daya Mata being at MC quite often back in the early 70s. I did meet with her there, even had a Christmas dinner there. Though I am not part of SRF anymore, there are somethings being reported that are not factual.

She did many lectures and I heard her speak many times.

She's very elderly now and, really, can't imagine she's getting around very well. The last time I saw her in person was 2000 and she was frail and had to be helped across a stage. If she were younger, I'm sure she would be out in public.

I do know that when I met her she was a lovely woman, very kind and generous, very interested in talking with me.

Spot the Looney

Paramadas
Registered User
(3/18/06 5:53 pm)
Reply
Daya Ma lectures
I am no great admirer of Daya Mata, but I was present at two of her public lectures. The first one was in Pasadena, circa 1983, and her words reduced the entire audience to tears of love for God. A powerful and beautifully delivered speech. The second one I attended, only a few years later, was much less impressive. In that second lecture, which was also videotaped by SRF, she started off with a long, rambling plug for SRF's latest book (I think it may have been the Rubiyat), and I thought to myself, "This is just an advertisement for the book...definitely not what I came to hear". I was surprised and disappointed at the second lecture, but hey, anyone can have an off night. What concerns me is the dictatorial way she has run SRF. Forcing the closure of the spiritual life committees has to be the stupidest thing I can imagine, and the long string of monastic defections has done nothing to change her mind or enlighten her as to the error of her ways. The monks I know say that everyone is just waiting for her to die, so the organization can change....reminds me of two other tyrants from history, King Henry the eighth of Britain and Joseph Stalin of the USSR, whose lingering deaths caused their nations to wait anxiously for the opportunity to change the ways of the past. Daya Mata has been a poor leader of SRF for decades, since the 1970s by my reckoning, largely because she wields absolute authority in SRF, and has used that authority to quell any and all dissent, even to the point of preventing anyone from exercising initiative or creativity. The point that I keep raising in the Walrus is that great spiritual souls, like Yogananda and like Daya Mata, can be both spiritual giants and first class jerks at the same time, and as I always say, I still haven't been able to get my head around this one.

ranger20
Registered User
(3/24/06 11:14 am)
Reply
Re: Daya Ma lectures
I probably went to a dozen convocations and heard Daya at maybe 7 or 8 of them. It's hard to say whether it was the message or the enthusiasm of hundreds of people in the rooms, but I remember being uplifted. Also, several of her articles in the magazines and books made permanent contributions to my spiritual life.

I'm increasingly convinced that one of the central SRF stumbling blocks is their attempt to equate "enlightened" and "perfect." In one sense it's unfair to anyone to expect that having had some samadhi experiences (benefit of the doubt, let's assume she has) automatically qualifies them to be a personnel and financial manager.

Even the Pope isn't expected to be infallible on anything beyond church doctrine. I'm pretty sure nobody troubles him about salary guidelines or an inside tip on who is going to win March madness.

cussacat
Registered User
(3/24/06 10:35 pm)
Reply
Re: Daya Ma lectures
Hey, gang. I was interested in one of Ranger’s statements, (I'm increasingly convinced that one of the central SRF stumbling blocks is their attempt to equate "enlightened" and "perfect."), and in a follow-up, perhaps this could be the beginning of a new thread, assuming it hasn’t been covered before.

The mindset of the entire monastic order(s) of SRF is that the monastic is in a higher spiritual position, in the general order of things, than anyone else on the path. I’ve never actually heard one of them say those words, and probably never will, but the authoritarian and aboveness attitude displayed in varying degrees says it quite clearly. Most of the time, I think one has to be on the inside of the “beast” to rub shoulders with them in closer quarters for this attitude to bubble to the surface. One of my friends and correspondents tells the story of getting into really hot water with the monastics of an SRF ashram by saying in a class, run by the monastics, that he thought there was no spiritual difference between the monastic and householder. He was called on the carpet the following day by the ashram administrator, saying that his remarks had “hurt a lot of people”.

There is an abundance of proof that the monastics have been taught and really believe that they are separate and above the rest of us. Another thread documents the changes to the AY and other literature which clearly demonstrates this point. In one of Dharmananda’s talks at Hidden Valley, he talked about the “special reward” of the monastic life, and how some had to wait even until their deathbeds to receive it, but that his had come “a little early”. I have misplaced my earlier copy of “Give me thy heart”, which alludes to this unstated carrot. Perhaps someone could post the text?

I suppose this kind of thinking originated, as best I can determine, with Faye’s “vision” and telepathic receiving of the “monastics only” instructions that led to the ousting of householders from the BOD, and of course, paving the way for her family and close friends of the family to “elect” her as president. They then began a systematic effort to consolidate the mystique of that chair, and of the monastic order in general, culminating with the evolution of the “realized president” spin.

I’d like to see continued this discussion on what they really mean by “self realized”. It is quite interesting to note that the founder of the Dasanama order, Adishankara, was of the conviction that no person should don the ocre cloth until they were liberated, or “self realized”. You’ll likely never hear that quoted at convocation. It’s a self destructing statement for them. To varying degrees, it has been my experience, from the “up close and personals” I’ve had with them, that they all have this aloof and above mindset. No matter how far apart their thinking may seem on the surface, at some point they all join ranks. It’s the loyalty thing.

The absolute power, complete authority, and aboveness persona which they carry as part of their uniform is quite revolting. What they’re really saying amounts to the same thing as the Pharisee’s prayer in the Christian new testament, “I thank god I am not as other men are….”, and then goes on to tell god what his spiritual achievements are. SRF monasticism says, look at me, I’m different from you, and I call attention to that fact by wearing this special cut and color, one size fits all uniform. Then there are the vows of poverty, loyalty, etc. which set me apart…..and on, and on, adnausium. Basis for further discussion?





Used Yogi
Registered User
(3/26/06 8:48 am)
Reply
Re: Daya Ma lectures
Cussacat,

When did Faye claim she had a vision that only mosastics would be on the BOD? I know there were claims that Yogananda told them after Lynn was gone he only wanted monastics in the president's position but I've never seen a direct quote of that either.

Where did she say her vision originated? Yogananda? He said during his lifetime that after he was gone many people would claim to channel him, but that he would never be channeled.

Lynn also told members at the convocation after Yogananda's passing that there would "be no more gurus." That indicates that Yogananda never said there wouldn't be more gurus. Daya has said that members were ready to accept him as the new guru before he said that. I've heard other stories of Yogananda saying it was God's wish that there would be no more gurus after him, which contradicts Lynn's having to tell people and Daya's saying they were ready to accept him as their guru.

I have also heard that Dr. Lewis was told after the fact that Daya was elected. In other words, she was elected without the participation of Dr. Lewis, Yogananda's first American disciple and the VP of SRF at the time.


Used Yogi

stermejo
Registered User
(3/26/06 11:55 am)
Reply
Re: Daya Ma lectures
"I am no great admirer of Daya Mata, but I was present at two of her public lectures. The first one was in Pasadena, circa 1983, and her words reduced the entire audience to tears of love for God."

The same experience, reduced to tears of love for God, can be had by reading, listening to and thinking about the Ramayana, your Ishta Deva, etc., etc.. While a cleansing and even joyous experience, the state is self-induced. Of course, it could be SELF-induced, too. Hey, we're all One.

Fuzzy Logic, Chaos Theory, I love you, too.

moyma
Registered User
(3/26/06 3:08 pm)
Reply
Re: Daya Ma lectures
well said Ranger !
we all are a sum total of our parts.....to be enlightened has nothing to do with being perfect....
If we were perfect we would be "adorning" some other planet !
there is always some level of delusion covering us.
mohammed may be the best example of a true prophet that did not have perfect understanding of all things.
those that do have a perfect understanding are avatar's and even then they have a cover over them to play there part.
Padre pio is another saint that wasn't perfect in all things ....but it doesn't take away from his greatness.....It makes them real.......
It makes them human, something we can relate to.
a saint is a sinner that doesn't give up.

cussacat
Registered User
(3/26/06 10:20 pm)
Reply
Re: Daya Ma lectures
Hey, Used Yogi and gang: I uncovered this "monastics only" tidbit while researching the subject several years back. I've packed away all that material in the attic now, but I believe the reference was in Faye's "Only Love". As I remember, she was answering the question, "Has Yogananda appeared to you since his death?", and she replied that he had. The setting is during the "election" process, and she was supposedly in a quandry as to the householder's role. Said she was meditating, and was aware of a presence, saw the flutter of a robe, and was called to another spot, and claimed that without words, she was given the answer.....monastics only!

So, she goes downstairs and reports the "vision", dream, wistful thinking, outright lie, or whatever, to the rest of her family, and was voted in.To my knowledge, this is the only reference anywhere to the monastic only BOD. They began, as we know, a calculated and systematic campaign to build the monastic control to the point of the infallibility of the office. Vishwananda once told me that anyone who criticized the organization thereby found fault with Dayamata, and thereby found fault with the guru, because, he stated, as far as I'm concerned, DM and PY are the same person! Direct quote, and all in one breath.

Somewhat reminds one of a third world coup to gain control of a government, doesn't it? Amounts to the same thing. Absolute control with no questions asked. And, back to the spin, as quoted above, their trump card is "don't question me or you reject the guru"......and the penalty for that is, as they have fabricated, several lifetimes of wandering. I fault myself for having bought into that line of bullshit for so many years.

Paramadas
Registered User
(3/27/06 11:36 am)
Reply
Re: Daya Ma lectures
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott) .

Sounds like Daya Mata has been engaged in some pretty serious deceiving, and the damned thing is, it's working. A few years ago, I was working at the ashram, and some old lady tattled on me to the monks because I had criticized Daya Mata during a conversation at lunch. What I had actually said was, Master said God had made mistakes in creation, and if Master reflects God, then Master must have made mistakes too, and assuming that Daya Mata reflects Yogananda, then Daya Mata must have made mistakes as well. I never said what these mistakes were, I was just making a philosophical point. The interesting thing is, I lost my job NOT because I criticized God or because I criticized the Master, but because I criticized Daya Mata. It's very much like how some Catholics revere the Pope. You can make a philosophical argument to a Catholic about how God made mistakes in creation, and it won't get them bent out of shape because it's an abstract argument, but if you say the Pope made mistakes, it gets personal and they'll defend his infallibility, even though it's pretty damn obvious to everyone else than Popes have made plenty of mistakes. I have an SRF friend with a very strong Catholic background and he's exactly like that--takes offense when anyone criticizes the Pope. So, this bizarre defense of Daya Mata is not so bizarre at all, in fact, it's very common. Christian Scientists are this way with Mary Baker Eddy, for example. Daya Mata was a very shrewd opportunist. Surrounded by her Mormon family whom Yogananda had foolishly put into positions of responsibility (talk about the Guru making a big mistake), she saw the opportunity to push aside Dr. Lewis and her own brother, whom many people feel the Guru was grooming for being the next president after Rajarsi. As an aside, does it seem odd to anyone that this charismatic business tycoon would have taken zero leadership of SRF after Master's passing. Rajarsi acted like a limp noodle after 1952, using none of his considerable business skills to save SRF and bring it together after the crisis of losing its founder. And why did Richard Wright limp off to a job in the aerospace industry and not continue with his leadership role? And why did that firebrand Dr. Lewis, whose energy was nearly boundless, not exert more influence on SRF, or help to guide it? Here are three men, all of whom could have led SRF very capably and well. Why did they do NOTHING to help SRF or stop Daya Mata's takeover and her cannonization as the Infallible Pope? The answers are lost in the history of SRF which SRF has been busy rewriting and covering up (which is why the Walrus serves such an important function). Whatever the reasons for the failures in leadership of these three capable men, Daya Mata was shrewd enough to recognize a golden opportunity when one came her way, and she has been milking it for everything it's worth ever since. Dislodging her from that place of infallibility will probably prove impossible (I'm sorry to say). People have a desperate need to believe that there's an incarnation of God on Earth, and Daya Mata has skillfully manipulated her way into that position.

Edited by: Paramadas at: 3/27/06 11:37 am
ranger20
Registered User
(3/28/06 10:34 am)
Reply
Re: Daya Ma lectures
Quote:
cussacat wrote:

Vishwananda once told me that anyone who criticized the organization thereby found fault with Dayamata, and thereby found fault with the guru, because, he stated, as far as I'm concerned, DM and PY are the same person! Direct quote, and all in one breath.

Somewhat reminds one of a third world coup to gain control of a government, doesn't it? Amounts to the same thing. Absolute control with no questions asked. And, back to the spin, as quoted above, their trump card is "don't question me or you reject the guru"......and the penalty for that is, as they have fabricated, several lifetimes of wandering. I fault myself for having bought into that line of bullshit for so many years.
Fortunately I no longer fault myself though I certainly did in the "Ohmygod I've been had!" days when I first found the Walrus. I guess I've found compassion for the younger self that swallowed hook line and sinker.

Late 20's, life in a mess, the AY like a Beacon of hope. The first convocation, when I entered the Biltmore Bowl, I had what I now know was kundalini spontaneously shooting up to the heart center. The vibes of a first visit to MC, my "spiritual home" (so they said). Initiation at Hollywood. All those calm and wise guys in orange robes. The music room. Unlike the churches, the invitation to seek God as I understood Her. Going home to a tiny meditation group where we all learned to play the harmonium together...

--what was not to like? By the time I began to figure that out I was swimming upstream against the belief that having doubts meant I was a delusion-soaked infidel, racking up extra incarnations.

So clearly, one of the core ideological problems with SRF is the perfection issue. I think you pointed to another one in your comments about rejecting Daya => rejecting PY => extra incarnations.

On two occasions I've been in school degree programs where a class required to graduate had only one section, taught by petty tyrants who used that power in abusive way. No fun to bite the tongue to make sure of getting at least the necessary C.

What is wrong with an image of God who is imagined as delegating responsibility to one and only one guru, and you have to get him to sign off on your request to get out of this "ocean of suffering." And you can't even get away with biting your tongue, because "he knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!"

Holy liberation, Batman, am I glad I'm out of all that!