Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Discussion of the SES' satellite schools in Australia and New Zealand.
bluegreen
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:42 pm

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby bluegreen » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:14 pm

Hi Earlgrey
Well it turns out that maybe I'm not really interested in the spiritual path, but I want to resolve my anxiety

It seems to me that as you have admitted that you are more concerned about your mental health than a spiritual path, advice about that would be more useful to you than alternative spiritual paths. I know it seems a little obvious but I hope you have sought help from your GP and maybe a counsellor who comes recommended by someone you trust. I think that sleep deprivation and exhausting physical work and some of the other practices that people in SES etc suffer in pursuit of inner peace, may actually exaccerbate anxiety problems. Not to mention, being made to feel confused and inadequate half the time. A self nurturing lifestyle might be better for you for the time being. If meditation or yoga help then you could continue with them but do it for you, not for seeking something which may not be attainable. But maybe you have stuff you need to talk about and work through, which your tutor made it plain, is not what the sfsk is about. And maybe some prescribed medication could help with the physical symptoms of anxiety in the short term. Also avoiding caffiene and other stimulants helps some people. And there's no medicine like a really good laugh. I do hope you're able to find some relief and to find a way to enjoy life without the sfsk. And if when you're well you want some sort of spiritual path, there's no shortage of things to try. But also life can be pretty wonderful without one.
St James Girls School 1977-1981

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Gerasene Demon » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:23 pm

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nick
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:24 pm

Tootsie wrote:
"I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others "


I would like to refer you to manonthestreets comments on cherry picking areas. Where does Krisnamurtis statement fit in regards to his other teachings? Did he say that after a particular proceess he followed? e.g reading books by wise man etc. this is a process. You need to reflect not regurtitate on these matters.
There may be no contradiction between him saying this and him working in an organization. How do you label it a "problem".
In regards to your comments on Mrs Mavro, you need to come down a notch intellectually and see. Simply put, people who attend ANY school related to spiritual topics, have to stop doing what they are doing at there current situation. e g, indulgences such as drinking, pornography, associating with bad people, gossiping about others, sitting in front of a t.v, reading rubbish material etc. I am not saying there are more valuable things people can do with their time. But if people want to associate with more spiritually inclined people then they normally attend one of these schools. Naturally they stop doing what they were doing and do something else. In this case, they sit in class and discuss spiritual topics. They stop indulging in the mundane areas of life for those couple of hours. Is this not slightly helping society. My question to you is, how are you helping soceity? Mrs Mavro surely is and has opened her doors to many via this organization. I do not see her closing the school after all her supporters and students have left. It indicates something. Reflect and see.
Last edited by nick on Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

nick
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:34 pm

Babs wrote:
snapper wrote: The amount of time and effort given to us by Mr and Mrs Mavro for little financial or any other reward shows the
excellence of their character which cannot be sullied by a the poisonous remarks,based on heresay by a few
intolerant people in an frenzied self serving witch hunt out of the darkness of their own minds.
snapper


I note the instructions given by the Sydney Morning Herald for would-be letter writers: "Keep it civil. Don't abuse people. However strongly you feel about your point, extreme language and wild analogies are unlikely to make it more effectively. We tend to follow the old rule that the first person to mention the Nazis has lost the argument."

Snapper, it's great that you found your time at the SFSK rewarding, as did I for a number of years, but your summing up of the intent of the comments posted on this website is misconceived and uncivil. People who have had direct (not indirect and therefore "hearsay") experience of the Mavros, the SFSK, the SES and SOP and other like organisations, are posting here in a civil attempt to honestly share their experiences, observations and insights and attempt to find some answers to experiences which have ultimately been troubling and difficult for them.


If your claims are correct, then why is not everyone who has been at the school experiencing the bad experiences since they joined? There are people who have had positive direct experiences and have been at the school for many many years. Could it be just an interpretation on an individual level that created the bad experience? If so, your claims are not usable for people who do not have the same mental composition as you? There are more stronger people in the world who can deal with many shortcomings in life and approach life in a positive manner. They do not condemn life, in this case Mrs Mavro for there shortcomings. Looking forward to your response.

nick
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:45 pm

Students at the school have seen proof of the validity of the mantra. Mrs Mavro has documents to prove this and the gurus organization has confirmed this. I urge you to contact http://jagadgurushankaracharya.org/contactus.html they will inform you of the authencity of the school. I guess this refutes most people argument about the mantra issue. I wonder what else has a question mark against it

We are yet to see any proof of your version of the claims. Surely it cannot take this long? Top tutors have left over a year ago with no mark. Swift exit. Similar to when people leave a country when they do something wrong.

Also, people claim there is no reason for leaving. I wonder what that means. Do I eat food for no reason. What are people hiding, more so how can they live with what they are hiding. Truth seekers, must be true to themselves first and foremost.

nick
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:50 pm

Leonie wrote:Well done Ella, and thanks.

'When a system in chaos is far from equilibrium, it tries to right itself by going backward to the old; ..... But an evolving system cannot return to the past. It must seek out new structures and systems, and quickly ascend to a new configuration - or else face rapid decline. Fortunately, according to the theory, small positive fluctuations in this sea of social chaos can jump the system to such a higher order.' From 'Birth 2012 and Beyond: Humanity's Great Shift to the Age of Conscious Evolution' by Barbara Marx Hubbard.


Correct, what you are saying is "theory". People in search for truth is not too concerned with theory. Surely, truth seeker is in search of truth not a theory on something. Also, I urge you to read up on Ms Barbara Marx Hubbard and understand what she means by reading her whole work and not cherrypick ideas.
Last edited by nick on Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Gerasene Demon » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:37 am

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Middle Way
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:46 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Middle Way » Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:17 am

Hello Nick, and thanks for your posts. Contributions from current students in SFSK can only help the debate in this forum, and again, I urge other students still there to post here.

I disagree with almost all the points you have made, based on my years in SFSK, but happily I can agree with your comment on Mrs Mavro:
nick wrote:I do not see her closing the school after all her supporters and students have left. It indicates something. Reflect and see.
I agree that Mrs Mavro will not shut down the School when she is the only one left, because her rock-solid, arrogant belief that only she knows the truth is more clearly confirmed every time someone leaves. I would ask you to reflect on the reasons why all the students are leaving. There are quite a few of them, and they're all carefully documented in this thread. And try to resist the temptation to restrict that consideration to just pointing the finger at, and abusing the many excellent people leaving, because that really doesn’t help.

You will be very pleased to know that of all the people I know who have left SFSK, none have resorted to:
nick wrote:indulgences such as drinking, pornography, associating with bad people, gossiping about others, sitting in front of a t.v, reading rubbish material etc
But I strongly suspect that those people really didn't do a lot of those things before they came to SFSK.

Thanks for this link:
nick wrote: I urge you to contact http://jagadgurushankaracharya.org/contactus.html they will inform you of the authencity of the school.
I looked it up but really had no idea where to start looking within that site for the “proof” of the authenticity of the school and the mantra you claim is there. Could you do us a favour and provide the link directly to the “proof”?

Finally you state that students
nick wrote:sit in class and discuss spiritual topics.
The point has repeatedly been made in this forum that while there certainly is some discussion in the early years, ever so gradually that discussion is subtly restricted, so subtly that you don’t even realise it, until after some years the only “discussion” allowed is to either agree with what Mrs Mavro says (or ignore the really silly anachronisms etc) or to parrot back exactly what Mrs M wants you to say. This is not discussion. There are a myriad of comments or opinions you are not allowed to voice. You are not allowed to disagree with, or even question anything she says. I ask you to reflect on this too, and again resist the urge to shoot me as the messenger. You have simply ignored this criticism.

And by the way, believe it or not Nick, I haven’t really turned into “bad company” now that I have left SFSK, and can see so much more clearly.

nick
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:17 am

Middle Way wrote:Hello Nick, and thanks for your posts. Contributions from current students in SFSK can only help the debate in this forum, and again, I urge other students still there to post here.

I disagree with almost all the points you have made, based on my years in SFSK, but happily I can agree with your comment on Mrs Mavro:
nick wrote:I do not see her closing the school after all her supporters and students have left. It indicates something. Reflect and see.
I agree that Mrs Mavro will not shut down the School when she is the only one left, because her rock-solid, arrogant belief that only she knows the truth is more clearly confirmed every time someone leaves. I would ask you to reflect on the reasons why all the students are leaving. There are quite a few of them, and they're all carefully documented in this thread. And try to resist the temptation to restrict that consideration to just pointing the finger at, and abusing the many excellent people leaving, because that really doesn’t help.

You will be very pleased to know that of all the people I know who have left SFSK, none have resorted to:
nick wrote:indulgences such as drinking, pornography, associating with bad people, gossiping about others, sitting in front of a t.v, reading rubbish material etc
But I strongly suspect that those people really didn't do a lot of those things before they came to SFSK.

Thanks for this link:
nick wrote: I urge you to contact http://jagadgurushankaracharya.org/contactus.html they will inform you of the authencity of the school.
I looked it up but really had no idea where to start looking within that site for the “proof” of the authenticity of the school and the mantra you claim is there. Could you do us a favour and provide the link directly to the “proof”?

Finally you state that students
nick wrote:sit in class and discuss spiritual topics.
The point has repeatedly been made in this forum that while there certainly is some discussion in the early years, ever so gradually that discussion is subtly restricted, so subtly that you don’t even realise it, until after some years the only “discussion” allowed is to either agree with what Mrs Mavro says (or ignore the really silly anachronisms etc) or to parrot back exactly what Mrs M wants you to say. This is not discussion. There are a myriad of comments or opinions you are not allowed to voice. You are not allowed to disagree with, or even question anything she says. I ask you to reflect on this too, and again resist the urge to shoot me as the messenger. You have simply ignored this criticism.

And by the way, believe it or not Nick, I haven’t really turned into “bad company” now that I have left SFSK, and can see so much more clearly.


You wrote a response to my query, however to the untrained eye, one will incorrectly notice how intelligently convincing you are in your responses. But there is a key issue, you have not addressed the original points but have taken areas you see fit for your preconceived ideas. This is a flaw in the intellect. You work as a psycholigist. A key positive quality in a human is forgiveness. Meaning, it is process of a change in attitude and emotion towards the offender. How have you exhibited this. I surely do not see this quality in any of you posts. If you are sincere, study yourself and your posts. I know I have and I can surely say I have incorrectly said a few things.

1) You have ignored what i said. Mrs Mavro has proof of this. If you are strong enough in your own being, I suggest you go directly to her. Then, go to the site, the link provides you CLEARLY, with phone number and emails addresses and names of contact person. State everything you wish to know in an email. As a second resort you can go to if you do not see yourself fit to go to Mrs Mavro directly.
2) You have also ignored, "we are yet to see any proof of your version".
3) Also, what is your assessment as a psychologist of people who leave without reasons. Especially key tutors, teachers, etc. My understanding is, they have no regard originally for their work, but have done something wrong themselves. That is why they leave without concern for whom they teach or look after. It seems all the tutors especially who have left have utter no regard for duty. They spoke many great things. e.g mind needs to controlled, practice forgiveness, it is all an illusion, antidote to worry is to be happy, do not forgo your duty and all the rubbish to go with it. However, none of them seem to exhibit these mental diarrhea in there actions. what is your analysis of this as a psychologist.
4) You all speak of Mrs Mavro showing no regards for peoples feelings etc. However the tutors who have left have had NO UTTER REGARD FOR THEIR OWN STUDENTS. Most who have I am sure been left confused if they are not mentally strong. What is your analysis of this? I can assure you the tutors who have left, left very quickly like sheep in a herd. They have shown no regard for how the school will run after they will leave etc. It is OK to leave, but the way they left shows no integrity of character nor concern for students emotional wellbeing. Mind you, some tutors have been tutoring for many years and students come to them for many forms of assistance e.g personal and spiritual. What is your analysis of this? and the sheep herd mentality? Try to leave the ball in your court when you answer and not throw in onto my court. I have many flaws.
5) You stated very openly that people you know have not resorted to the various vice I have CONSERVATIVELY listed. I am surprised that as a psychological you can stated "NONE" have resorted to them. Let me tell you, the subtle seeds are very difficult for you to see. Do you see what the people you speak of do at all times? No, I rest my case. My own experience has shown this contradiction. You will be surprised. I suggest you read further on Freud etc. try to understand it from your own experience.
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.
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?"
8) I do not care if you have left or stayed in the school. I would appreciate a truthful answer.
Last edited by nick on Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:25 am, edited 3 times in total.

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Gerasene Demon » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:21 am

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nick
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:22 am

Gerasene Demon wrote:That'll be a no then...


Demon, you make no sense.

Gerasene Demon
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:20 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Gerasene Demon » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:26 am

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Middle Way
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:46 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Middle Way » Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:42 am

Hello again Nick. You asked for honest answers and here they are. There are some questions in there for you as well and I would appreciate your honest answers to them.

nick wrote:A key positive quality in a human is forgiveness. Meaning, it is process of a change in attitude and emotion towards the offender. How have you exhibited this
There is a difference between pointing out problems in the way SFSK currently operates and “forgiving” them. I don’t need to “forgive” those or the way Mrs Mavro operates. Rather, I want those problems addressed, in the school’s best interest. If the trains don't run on time I want that fixed, not forgiven. When I was in the school I could see plenty of areas for reform and I would have liked to be involved in identifying them, and maybe helping to implement some reforms. I even tried a few minor changes to the way Part 1 is run, when I was a tutor – already noted in previous posts. It became clear to me that Mrs Mavro has no interest in evaluating how the school is going, and that any suggestion for change is viewed as “arrogant”. I don’t want to “forgive” that: I want it to change. The question of forgiving individuals is not relevant. You use the word "offenders" - I use no such term. I hold no grudge against anybody in the school. I have tried to point out where I believe the behaviour needs changing, not identifying “offenders” who have to be “forgiven”. Do you believe Mrs Mavro is interested in reforming the school? If yes, please provide your reasons.

nick wrote:You have ignored what i said. Mrs Mavro has proof of this. If you are strong enough in your own being, I suggest you go directly to her.
Sorry Nick, I wasn’t deliberately ignoring that. Whether or not there is proof is of no great import to me, although it is of much interest to other contributors to this thread. I just thought if there was “proof” in that website somewhere it would have been interesting to see. So I have no need to check up with Mrs Mavro on that score. But even if I did I would not waste my time or hers calling her. On the night of my departure from SFSK I rang her and left a message. She did not bother to call back, as I had expected. Mrs Mavro has no interest in speaking to me because I am now “bad company” and presumably have been cast into outer darkness.

nick wrote:You have also ignored, "we are yet to see any proof of your version".
Again Nick, I wasn’t deliberately ignoring that. As I say, not really of great interest to me so it’s not "my version", and others in this forum have said it will be provided in due course, not me.

nick wrote:Also, what is your assessment as a psychologist of people who leave without reasons. Especially key tutors, teachers, etc.
I’m not going to make an “assessment” of anyone until I have listened to them for some time, and even then any “assessment” I make is going to be tentative at best. I’m intrigued by your statements that they have left “without reasons” and “they have no concern for students’ wellbeing” ? How can you make those assertions? Have you spoken to them and they then told you they had “no reason” for leaving and they didn’t care about the students? I can't conceive of any human behaviour which is done "without reasons". To the contrary I would say they certainly have reasons, which have been well documented in this forum, as I stated in my previous post.

How did you arrive at the understanding that the tutors who left have done something wrong themselves? Based on my experiences I have no such understanding of any of the tutors that have left but if I wanted a fuller understanding I would need to talk to them to find out, as indeed would you. I would expect they stopped being tutors only after a lot of soul-searching and some anguish about leaving their students, but I have no proof of this because I haven’t spoken to them. I stopped being a Part 1 tutor because Mrs Mavro relieved me from it without consultation with me. I wasn’t particularly upset by this, but I did find the tutoring to be quite a positive experience because the Part 1 material is very practical and often elicits great responses from the students. But here’s a question for you: do you think it was reasonable of Mrs Mavro to sack me without talking to me at all and not having the courtesy to tell me herself and give me her reasons? Do you think that showed any concern for my “mental wellbeing”?

nick wrote:You stated very openly that people you know have not resorted to the various vice I have CONSERVATIVELY listed. I am surprised that as a psychological you can stated "NONE" have resorted to them. Let me tell you, the subtle seeds are very difficult for you to see. Do you see what the people you speak of do at all times? No, I rest my case. My own experience has shown this contradiction. You will be surprised. I suggest you read further on Freud etc. try to understand it from your own experience.
I don’t know what people do in secret Nick and neither do you so let’s stop guessing. I have read Freud: modern psychology has moved on from that pioneer.

nick wrote:I wonder what you see so clearly.
What I see more clearly is about the School and how it’s run, as outlined in what I have already posted, especially in my first postings.

nick wrote: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?"
All I’m doing is pointing out the flaws in the way the school is run based on my own experiences. Many others on this forum make similar observations and offer other observations that I may or may not agree with. I'm not going to guess about other people’s perspectives. I don’t think any of the contributors here have ever said everybody should be experiencing problems. I said in one of my first posts that people want to stay there for many reasons. I just want to point out my perspectives, based on my experiences, for others to consider (and accept or reject as they see fit).

Please give me an honest answer to each of the few questions I have asked you above. Also please answer this one: Is what I said here true or untrue:
Middle Way wrote:The point has repeatedly been made in this forum that while there certainly is some discussion in the early years, ever so gradually that discussion is subtly restricted, so subtly that you don’t even realise it, until after some years the only “discussion” allowed is to either agree with what Mrs Mavro says (or ignore the really silly anachronisms etc) or to parrot back exactly what Mrs M wants you to say. This is not discussion. There are a myriad of comments or opinions you are not allowed to voice. You are not allowed to disagree with, or even question anything she says. I ask you to reflect on this too, and again resist the urge to shoot me as the messenger. You have simply ignored this criticism.
I note that again you have ignored this criticism. If you believe this to be untrue, please provide reasons why you believe it to be untrue.

ManOnTheStreet
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:32 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby ManOnTheStreet » Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:43 pm

Just a few things to add in regard to Nick's and MW's posts:

1. Tutors/Duty

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.

2.
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.

3.
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.

4.
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.

MOTS

nick
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:48 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:52 am

please refer to Man on the streets post and my answers below.

1. Tutors/Duty


I can see tutors may have had a long process to come to the conclusion to leave and I accept their choice. I fail to understand how can these tutors be at the school for so long and maintain the facade of acting in the best interests of the students. Week in and week out these tutors would act like genuine tutors but inside they do not want to be there. Duty comes from being true to oneself. How can you say these tutors were geniune at any point. Even now. That is the spiritual crime. The greatest crime. Thier history shows they believed thier own act. The act they are playing now, that is Mrs Mavro is wrong and the others are right because they speak what I want to hear is not an act as well? People are believing all this without any evidence. I am not concerned of personal rubbish e.g she did this in 1985 and he did not say this when she was depressed etc. I face that in my day to day life. I am after the truth. One needs to give all these things up if they are going to step towards truth. It is not an easy path. Out of many many many who endevour, 1 may be serious, out of many many many who are serious one may know me in truth.


3.
i) Can you really assure that MW's clarity of vision is temporary?


Yes, she entered the school thinking her vision is clear. Then it become muddy. Then all of a sudden, it is clear again. Chances and history will show it will become muddy again.

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?


Yes, of course, that is why I am on this forum and asking you to provide the evidence. We have been waiting for over 1 year now. Not any of the key tutors have contacted anyone from school to provide this proof of mantrum issue or anything else. They have rather spoilt the show by speaking behind peoples backs. No one has said anything bad of tutors who have left. There is plenty to say. I will give you one of them. A top tutor, who has been at the school for many many years, was unhappy because Mrs Mavro Will/Estate did not stipulate him and his family so he became angry. Then decided to create a huge drama and left.

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.


It is a fact today the earth is round. The fact is relative to time. Time will ensure the fact is NOT unchanging (because the earth has a life span and will no long be round).
Physics laws apply in this universe, yes. Is it a fact in other universes?
Your opinion on Mrs Mavro is unlikely to change. But if she saved your life while you were drowning while the other tutors swam to safety, the weighting on that opinion may change.

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.


The delay of the most most important evidence is a reflection on how seriously the tutors carer for the well being of current students. Where is the duty here? THIS IS A FACT ISNT IT? This an a very importance piece of evidence. I cannot fathem why if you tutors are so concerned for the wellfare of the current students are withhoding this?


MOTS[/quote]


Return to “The Australian and NZ schools”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest