Just a few things to add in regard to Nick's and MW's posts:
This was an important point. The issue can perhaps be simplified to two queries:
i) "if these tutors (that left) really cared about the spiritual welfare of their students, how could they leave?"; and
ii) "If these tutors really cared for the wellbeing of their students how could they have left the School in such an abrupt fashion?"
In regard to the first query:
The presumption of this query is that is better for the spiritual welfare of the students if their tutors remain in the School. This presumption is as yet unsubstantiated, and in any case it begs the question: who says that the spiritual welfare of the students would best have been served by those tutors remaining in the School? One of the key reasons underpinning the exit of so many of these tutors was that they thought they were not
serving the spiritual needs of their students by remaining in the School. They felt that by remaining they would be giving tacit support to Mrs Mavro's policies and this they could not abide. They could not sit at the front of groups asking students to accept propositions that offended their own morality and good sense. I hardly think that their actions can be dismissed out of hand as "selfish" and "lacking regard for their own duty". I would say that the duty of a tutor is to their students first and foremost. It was precisely this sense of duty that precipitated the resignation of so many tutors at the SFSK.
Also, how many of these ex-tutors do you know? Have you spoken to them and heard their side of the story? Many of them were pivotal in the early development of the School. Many of them were an inspiration for students to stay in the School despite their misgivings. Do you really think they did all that in dereliction of their duty? Do you really think that inspiring someone to keep up their disciplines and practices is evidence of 'bad company'? We arrive yet again at the point where people seem to become 'bad company' simply on account of their leaving the School. This has proven to be a ridiculous concept and it has been shown over and over again in the course of this thread to be a spurious line of argument.
In regard to the second query:
The manner in which these tutors left is perhaps not known to you Nick. As far as I know, all of them informed their groups that they were leaving and the reasons why. They made it clear that their students were free to contact them and many have. Some others have posted on this forum. If your concern is with the apparent abruptness with which the tutors appeared to have left, it is unfounded. As MW pointed out, the decision to leave the School was not undertaken lightly, and was in all probability reached after a very long process of questioning and 'soul-searching'.
Furthermore, leaving an organisation like the SFSK is never easy. The psychological pressure to stay was huge for many of these people. The official act of leaving may not have taken much time, but brevity is a quality that could be ascribed to any isolated act of leaving or otherwise. What matters is the process that led up to the 'official act', and that process was long and hard for everybody.
Their only real 'crime' in the course of their resignation has been to reveal some unpleasant facts about Mrs Mavro and the way she runs the SFSK. However, there is no way in which that can be said to constitute evidence they lacked regard for their duty.
nick wrote:Try to leave the ball in your court when you answer and not throw in onto my court.
I'm sorry I couldn't let this one pass: The whole point of a discussion is to leave the ball in your interlocutor's court. Leaving it in your own court is either a monologue or an inability/refusal to answer the challenge of the other side.
nick wrote:6) I wonder what you see so clearly. This clarity of vision is temporary. I can assure you of this. Within the school one can see clearly. But the week after they can see the opposite, then back again.
A few questions about this:
i) Can you really assure that MW's clarity of vision is temporary?
ii) If you say that clarity of vision within the School is also temporary, then could you not also be labouring under an illusion about its value and the truth of Mrs Mavro's claims?
iii) If all you are saying is that people's opinions about certain matters change over time, then you have not really said anything particularly controversial. Everyone on this forum would acknowledge that their opinions about certain things
have changed over time. Facts, on the other hand, do not change over time. My opinion about Mrs Mavro is unlikely to change over time because that opinion is informed by hard fact. Moreover, if you are trying to say that MW's and my own informed opinion regarding the School and Mrs Mavro can be put down to the mere temporary and vacillating state of our minds then I think you have simplified the situation to an untenable degree. People in general do not exhibit the kind of unhinged mind that would be necessary to facilitate this kind of indecisiveness. We don't believe in the laws of physics one day and not the next. We don't believe the earth is round one day and not the next. Similarly, we don't see this situation clearly one day and not the next. That is because the facts that inform our knowledge in the first two instances are of the same quality as the facts that inform our knowledge in the third. Unchanging, objective and clear.
nick wrote:7) You have not addressed some of my previous posts today. Analyse them, they should attract your objective psychological mind, because there is some objective truth in them. E.g "If your claims are correct, then why is not everyone who has been at the school experiencing the bad experiences since they joined?"
The "objective truth" of which you speak is merely an assumption inherent in your question; namely that not every student of the SFSK has had bad experiences since joining. But this is really just another claim about the experiences of other people, and hence is not one you can really make with any surety, let alone confidence that is an "objective truth". MW and I are not talking about the experiences of other students per se. We are talking about our own experiences, and (somewhat more importantly) about facts regarding the running of the School and the actions of Mrs Mavro. I have never said that the experience of every student of the SFSK has been all bad, and I'm sure MW has not done so either. What we are
saying is that the actions of Mrs Mavro are objectively bad because they are designed to manipulate and delude people. Whether or not those people actually "feel" deluded is another matter entirely, but the core issue remains. To say that Mrs Mavro's actions cannot be bad because not everyone feels deluded is simply to miss the point.
5. The mantram issue
It's high time that whoever has proof either way show it here on the forums. I know that an audio file exists of His Holiness' stating his view that the SFSK mantram is of little worth, but Nick is right - it has been quite a while since this claim was made and this audio file has still not been made available here. It really can't be that hard to get it together and provide a link to the file.
I left the SFSK before this issue came to light, and still think there are plenty of very good reasons to leave the School independently of any of this, however it does nothing for our general argument against Mrs Mavro when details like this are ignored.