Thanks again Nick for your response.
As a general tip, you can use the quote function (top right of the post from which you want to extract a quote) so you don't have to use capitals all the time - makes things a bit easier to read as well - so we know who is saying what.
I will address your points in the same order they appear above. The numbering is going to change as I think we are beginning to split up some of the original points.
1.
nick wrote:"ONE NEEDS TO THINK OF WHAT ONE IS READING FROM SCRIPTURES AND NOT ALLOW IT TO CREATE MORE CONFUSIONS IN ONES HEAD. SIMPLY STATED, EVERYONE IS SERVING, YOU CANNOT NOT SERVE. TRUE SERVICE IS WHEN YOU ARE NOT SERVING YOUR EGO BUT A HIGHER ETERNAL PRINCIPLE. ALL ELSE IS SELF/SENSE GRATIFICATION, WHATEVER YOU MAY CALL IT."
A couple of things here:
i) What you say is still quite vague. What exactly do you mean by "higher eternal principle"? Which one? What is it? How do you know we are not serving this principle? etc etc. As I said before, it is precisely my contention that Mrs Mavro is serving her ego only, and not the 'spiritual needs' of her students.
ii) I am happy to accept the view that "we always serve something", however I contest the premise that we are confused simply because we disagree with what Mrs Mavro is doing and teaching. That is not a basis upon which to decide anything.
iii) What exactly do you mean by "confusions in one's head"? Is a thought a 'confusion' simply because it dares to challenge the official SFSK story?
2.
nick wrote:"COGENT MEANS "appealing forcibly to the mind or reason". IF YOU HAVE READ VIVEKACHOODAMNI, IT IS BASED ON PURE REASON. IT IS NOT A STORY BOOK WHICH YOU CAN READ AND SHOW AND TELL. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. E.G DISCRIMINATE, DETACH, FIND GURU, TAKE SHELTER OF HIM, ETC. IF YOU READ STRAIGHT THROUGH IT WITHOUT DOING ANY OF IT, YOUR MIND WILL NOT GRASP IT. THE TRUTH IS ONLY SECOND HAND KNOWLEDGE IN THE BOOKS and even tutors/teachers. ONE WILL THEN FIND ANOTHER BOOK/teacher/tutor, THAT MIND CANNOT COGENT.
SIMPLY PUT, IF THERE IS A PIN LOST IN THE OCEAN THAT YOU NEED TO FIND. YOU SEARCH BY READING A MAP. YOU UNDERSTAND OR THINK YOU UNDERSTAND IT BUT DONT WANT TO START LOOKING, SO YOU WALK TO ANOTHER LOCATION AND FIND ANOTHER MAP. OF COURSE THE MAP WILL BE DIFFERENT AS IT STARTS FROM DIFFERENT POINT. AGAIN, YOU DECIDE TO FIND A BETTER MAP SO ONE DOES NOT START. YOU READ HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF MAPS ALL FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS BUT NO START HAS BEEN MADE. ONE CAN DO THIS FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. "
i) I have indeed read Vivekachudamani many times. I don't think it is based on pure reason, rather I think Shankara (the author) attempts to use a reasoning process to come by the conclusions therein. Thus it is possible to analyse the effectiveness of that reasoning process. In other words - does it achieve what it sets out to achieve? (Viz. a cogent means to knowledge). I do not think it does, and that is why I reject it as a cogent means to knowledge.
ii) To take your analogy of the maps: I think the situation we find ourselves in is very much akin to looking for a treasure that may or may not exist, with a whole lot of merchants trying to sell you maps describing 'how to get there' in varying levels of detail. The point is that many, if not all, of the maps could be totally misleading or downright wrong. Some could be drawn up by people who genuinely think there is treasure and would like to help you find it, but many others are drawn up by charlatans and deceivers who wish only to take your money and time. Now, the obvious question is 'how to distinguish the merchants?' My contention is that only reason can help you decide which is which.
If you are following a map for 20 years and getting nowhere then I would suggest that it's likely the merchant sold you a dud map. There is no inherent value in 'sticking to one path' - particularly if the path is false. Surely it's better to be humble and say "I don't know" than to think you do, for at least in the former case you afford yourself the opportunity to search - the moment you say "I know", you stop searching, and that is the death of true inquiry. Any genuine inquiry involves questioning the validity of your most fundamental beliefs - otherwise the whole thing is just an exercise in self-confirmation, and that is really quite pointless. It's like sitting on a rock somewhere telling yourself over and over again that there
is treasure and that your map is true (essentially because the merchant told you so and you believe them). We would never do such a thing in any other context - it's no more valid in this one. I might add that Science has not suffered at all from taking the "different maps" approach - yes, some of them were red herrings, but overall there has been incredible progress - I wouldn't call that "no start has been made". The idea that "one must stick to one path only" is often used by cults to entrench their members and prevent them from leaving. It has very little to do with the search for 'truth'.
iii) The injunctions in scripture to discriminate and detach etc are all contingent on you wanting to pursue 'spiritual' knowledge. These statements are always framed as "
if you want X,
then we recommend you do Y." They are not general commands. The scriptures just assume that there is such a thing as 'truth' - and my questions deal with that assumption. There is no injunction to search for the truth in the scriptures, because at the time they were written, the only people reading them were assumed to have already affirmed the existence of that truth and the validity of those scriptures. I am merely challenging that assumption.
3.
nick wrote:"MOST PEOPLE HAVE LEFT BECAUSE OF THE KEY TUTORS WHO HAVE STATED THIS BUT HAVE PROVIDED NO PROOF TO THE STUDENTS BUT WORDS. WE ARE SIMPLY SICK OF WORDS, WORDS, WORDS. SHOW US SOME PROOF BEFORE WE MAKE ANY DECISIONS. I THINK THAT IS INTELLIGENT. PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN THERE FOR MANY YEARS, CAN DEVELOP MOULD WHICH CAN CAUSE CERTAIN THINGS TO GERMINATE. I DO NOT THINK WORDS SPROUTED FROM THIS IS WORTH ACTING ON. HENCE PROOF IS REQUIRED. NO DELAYS HERE PLEASE. I WOULD CONSIDER THIS TO BE YOUR DUTY IF ANYTHING. (SORRY, I DO NOT WISH TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO BUT I AM FRUSTRATED WITH PEOPLE WHO MAKE DECISIONS BASED HERESAY, IT IS SO STUPID). "
What exactly do you mean by "mould" and "causing certain things to germinate"? This is extremely vague. What is this "mould"? What things are germinating? If length of time in School is a factor, then the obvious rebuttal is that Mrs Mavro has been in the School longer than anyone - so by your argument she has had the greatest chance of 'mould' and 'germination' of 'certain things'. I think you may need to clarify what you want to say here.
It is unfortunately not within my power to provide evidence of the mantram fiasco. I can only urge that those who possess that evidence make it available. I do know that it exists - but I think it is a recording and as such will have to be uploaded here somehow.
It
is within my power to speak of the manipulation and hypocrisy present in the School. This I have done before, as have many others. I might add that it is not just the 'key tutors' that have left the School. Many others have also left, citing general misgivings about the place that were merely confirmed (but not instigated) by the actions of those 'key tutors'. With so many dedicated students leaving, you have to wonder whether Mrs Mavro is really telling the truth. Also - has she provided any evidence to the contrary? (Apart from vague statements about things like 'mould' and 'germination'?)
4.
nick wrote:"BEST THING HERE IS TO VIEW CONSISTENCY. ONE WHO BELIEVES IN WHAT THEY SAY, WILL NOT BUDGE. SHE STAYED PUT ALTHOUGH ALL HER KEY SUPPORTERS, STUDENTS, TUTORS LEFT.
YOU HAVE TO REFLECT OBJECTIVELY HERE AND NOT ALLOW ANY MOULD TO GET IN THE WAY. SHE IS NOT AT SAME LEVEL AS JESUS BUT EVEN HIS STUDENTS LEFT AND CONDEMNED HIM. IT IS HUMAN NATURE. THE ONE WHO IS STILL DURING THIS TEACHES A LOT AND SHOWS ONES TRUE CHARACTER. I AM SURE YOU WILL ATTEST TO THIS WHEN YOU ARE QUIET. I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO ATTEST TO THIS IN THE DUAL FORUM. "
Consistency can be misleading. Nikolai and Elena Chauchescu (Romanian communist dictators) were 'consistent' right up until they were shot by their own people for their many crimes. It's very possible to be 'consistently' selfish and manipulative. What else is Mrs Mavro going to do? Admit her fault? Any change in her message would completely undermine the image of herself she has worked so hard to foster among her students. It's not in her interest to change anything. Every con-man wants the charade to continue. What dictator 'chooses' to give up power?
Also, (as a side point) the disciples of Jesus did not condemn his character - they only said they didn't know him to avoid persecution. We are not saying that we don't know Mrs Mavro - quite the contrary - we
do know her, and we
are condemning what she did and continues to do.
5.
nick wrote:"PLEASE SEE ABOVE. ONES CHARACTOR IS REFLECTED IN WHAT ONE SAYS BEHIND THE PERSONS BACK. I AM SURE THERE IS A Better way to communicate this with everyone present. "
Everything I say here I have said to Mrs Mavro's face. She knows my view and we had a few rather heated interchanges before and after I left the School. I think that addresses the 'behind the person's back' point.
As for a better way to communicate - many of us here have expressed a wish to discuss these points with any member of the SFSK. So far, you are the only one that has responded on the forums. For my part, I would welcome any response or attempt at communication. I think that it is in fact Mrs Mavro that discourages her students from speaking to us.
6.
nick wrote:"DONT KNOW ABOUT RAMA AND SITA. But I am sure it is a story attachment and how one can do crazy things because of IT. Enlighten me.
THE WISE SAY TO RISE ABOVE YOUR ATTACHMENTS. ITS ALL IN THE BOOKS TO BE PRACTICED. "
My point was more in lieu of why you specifically referred to men and women. The story of Rama and Sita is to be found in the Ramayana - an Indian epic akin to the Mahabharata. It's a bit complicated, but your characterisation is incorrect - Rama's attachment to Sita is what prompts him to save her from the demon Ravana. Anyway, you can probably find a synopsis on the web - it's a very famous story in India and south-east Asia.
7.
nick wrote:"OK, CAN YOU PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR STATEMENTS AND YOUR ASSERTIONS OF HER. WHY IS THE GURU NOT DOING ANYTHING. CAN YOU ORGANISE SOMETHING EVERYONE HAS A OPEN FORUM. I MEAN EVERYONE FROM THE SCHOOL AND OUTSIDE, INCLUDING THE GURU ETC. DONT YOU THINK THIS IS YOUR DUTY. 20 YEARS HAVE PAST. A FEW HOURS OF PLANNING THIS WONT HURT. A LITTLE ACTION ON YOUR PART. "
I would be more than happy to engage in an open forum. It would obviously require acquiescence from the other side, but I don't think that will be forthcoming (see my answer to point 4).
As an example of what I am talking about - we were led to believe that the "silence material" read to us at residentials was an inspired work of Mr Mavro's and a product of his inquiry and 'spiritual work'. It turned out that this material was plagiarised almost verbatim from a book by Helena Blavatsky, a 19th Century occultist and founder of the Theosophical Society. This material was presented to us as part of the 'eternal tradition' of Advait-Vedanta and so on. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Advait-Vedanta, and in places flatly contradicts it. The material used in the junior part of the School is almost entirely lifted from Gurjieff and Ouspensky with no acknowledgement of that fact. Read "In search of the miraculous" by P. D. Ouspensky and you will see what I mean.
The question is - why would the Mavros lie about this sort of thing? The fact is that they look a lot better and wiser when they say that the material is composed by them alone. It enhances their position and consolidates their authority. Furthermore, as pretty much no one in the School has read any of the above authors it's very easy for the Mavros to keep up the charade. This is but one example - there are many more, and we have spoken about them at length earlier on in this thread. I would strongly encourage you to go back and read what we have written.
8.
nick wrote:"IS MRS MAVRO KILLING PEOPLE? SHe may be teaching based on what she knows. It may be incomplete. She is trying. I just cannot grasp why one would intentionally mislead or deceive for 20 + years in a spiritual path. I just cannot fathom that. You need to provide conclusive reasoning about this. The mould must be removed before you speak."
My point was simply to illustrate that there is no hard an fast rule about 'casting the first stone'. To say that Mrs Mavro is 'just doing to best she can' is simply not good enough. She is not doing the best she can at all. The best she could do would be to teach Advait-Vedanta pure and simple. She wont do this of course, because there is no concept of hierarchy or 'schools' or anything like that in Advait-Vedanta. In other words she could not use it to acquire power over others. Your personal incredulity regarding her ability to intentionally mislead people for 20+ years is no argument either. I
can grasp why she would do it, and I have explained why in point 4 above. She does it because it's in her interest - she has a lot of power within that school and she will do anything to keep it. 'Spirituality' is merely the vehicle she uses to acquire power over others - and it's rather easy for her to maintain that power because the language of 'spirituality' is so vague and undefined that it's always possible to have an answer or pull the wool over people's eyes. That power is the only thing she has to lose by coming clean and admitting what she has done.
9.
nick wrote:"I DONT KNOW THESES THINGS. BUT MRS MAVRO IS NOT IN THESE FORUMS TALKING BEHIND PEOPLES BACKS. SHE IS WORKING AND SERVING STILL. HER INACTION TELLS ME SHE KNOWS SHE HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO."
I have addressed the 'talking behind people's backs' point above. I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence.
10.
nick wrote:"WHAT INFLUENCE, YOU ARE INDEPENDENT. 20 YRS OF LISTENING TO "YOU ARE NOT THE BODY BUT THE SOUL"????? HAS THIS NOT FREED YOU???? WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNT AND MORE IMPORTANTLY UNDERSTOOD AND PRACTICED????"
That's not all I heard. I heard things about karma, and koshas, and "astral bodies", and a whole lot of complete nonsense that crippled me intellectually and put me in a state of fear and self-doubt almost constantly. I don't know if you remember Mr Mavro, but no one sitting through one of his tantrums could honestly tell you they felt "freed".
Yes, I'm independent now, but that is only after quite a few years of great internal struggle. I am simply lucky to have been able to free myself from the clutches of SFSK - others have not been so lucky.
On the subject of practise - I was very diligent with my practises. For quite a few years I was doing at least 2-3 hours of 'spiritual work' every day. What I found was that the validity of what I was being taught in the School was totally independent of how diligently I practised.
That was the real beginning of my freedom, and not anything the Mavros ever told me.
11.
nick wrote:"I AM NOT IN ANY POSITION TO STATE WHAT IS YOUR DUTY IS. LET ME ASK YOU? WHAT NEED IS IT YOU ARE SATISFYING BY DOING YOUR "DUTY"? Objectively is the satisfaction of the need good for you, others including Mrs Mavro? Or is it good for you and other for a shorter term. If people have left because of your posts, have you given them an opportunity to attend your classes? Or have you left them in the wilderness to find something else? "
The 'need' is that people know what's really going on in the SFSK. The 'need' is that they be provided with an alternative point of view to that of Mrs Mavro. The 'need' is that egomaniacs not be allowed to rule the lives and minds of other people. The 'need' is truth-telling in a sea of lies and deceit. The 'need' is the provision of facts and the exercise of reason.
It's not about what's 'good' or 'bad' for anyone - the truth is not interested in what people think is good or bad for them or others. What people think is good and bad will change, but facts do not.
I don't run classes because I don't believe in Vedanta any more. I do think it likely that alternative classes have been set up by others. I don't think that I am leaving anyone in the 'wilderness'. Quite the contrary - if the 'wilderness' is anywhere, it is to be found in the School. But there is a deeper point here, and that is that the distinction between "School" and "the world" is completely false. The School is just as much part of the world as anything else. So I disagree that leaving the School puts you in the 'wilderness', because we are all in the wilderness - the only difference is that in the School you have someone there pretending that they are not.
There is a very common argument to the effect that if you leave School you will be 'like a leaf in the wind'. This is ridiculous. What did people do before the School was around? In fact, the tradition of Advait-Vedanta grew up in the total absence of "schools". You might well ask where Mr and Mrs Mavro got all that "knowledge" - they got it in the SES in London during the 1960's. There's nothing particularly special about that. They simply chose one of many organisations around at the time and became cogs in the machine. Now Mrs Mavro sets herself up as a leader, but where is her authority? She doesn't want a public forum because she couldn't stand up to the questioning that would inevitably accompany it. The moment you get past all the vagueness in her statements and try to pin her down on detail you will find that she doesn't have a leg to stand on.
12.
nick wrote:"YOU CANNOT BE DECEIVED IF YOU THINK THROUGH THINGS. ONE MUST MUST MUST USE ONES HEAD IN THIS WORK. I Believe THERE ARE WOLVES IN SHEEPS CLOTHING IN THIS WORK. THE WOLVES ARE A PERSONIFICATION OF IGNORANCE. "
This is exactly my point. Mrs Mavro is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
13.
nick wrote:YOU ARE CORRECT, I DID CHERRY PICK. TO BE HONEST, I CAN GIVE YOU PLENTY TO SUPPORT THE POINTS FROM SCRIPTURES. LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO DO THAT. THE THING IS NONE OF US REALLY FOLLOW WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY. WE THINK WE DO IN OUR FAIRY LANDS. WE ACTUALLY DO NOT. JUST LOOK AT THE LIFES OF THE ACTUAL REALISED SAGES, JESUS, THE SCHOOLS GURU INDIA, ETC.
Yes - I would welcome any points from the scriptures that you deem relevant. It's always better when we have an actual quote. The existence of 'realised' sages is another topic altogether so I won't go into it here.
Thank you again for your response - I hope we can continue to engage in a vigorous discussion. I apologise for the length of my post - there were admittedly a lot of points to address and I did not want to be accused of not answering them. I think we can probably narrow the discussion a little; perhaps you should pick the points that most concern you and we can deal with them particularly, with a view to addressing the others later.
MOTS