Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Discussion of the SES' satellite schools in Australia and New Zealand.
Middle Way
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:46 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Middle Way » Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:07 pm

Hello Nick. Glad to see you're still around.
nick wrote:Yes, of course, that is why I am on this forum and asking you to provide the evidence.
I assume your last post was directed to the people who have yet to provide that evidence. It can't be directed to MOTS who has many times stated the same thing. I agree with you both, it would be nice if that evidence was provided. Not because it concerns me much, as I am much more concerned with other issues. But rather while this issue stays unresolved it enables you to focus your attention on just repeating this, and ignoring all the other issues.

I'm more concerned with informing prospective students of SFSK about what is really going on in that school. And to that end, you have been asked 32 questions now, by various contributors, which you have ignored. If I was a prospective student reading this, I would want to hear the answers to those questions. One of the major criticisms of SFSK and the other SES/SOP schools is the veil of secrecy placed over the teachings and activities. Consistent refusal by people in the Schools to answer reasonable and non-emotive questions supports this allegation.

Now I don't really expect you to answer them all Nick. After all, I spent 8 years in the place watching questions get ignored, evaded and abusively dismissed, to the point where I just stopped asking any. You, like SFSK, seem to be much better at asking questions than answering them.

So I'm just going to ask you to answer these 2, put to you by another contributor:

Are you a student of SFSK?

If yes, for how long have you attended SFSK?

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:32 pm

Hi Middle Way. Yes I am still in the forum. I am after the truth of what you are all saying.

It is not directed to MOTS but directly to who went to India and spoke to whomever who said the mantrum was not authentic etc. It is also directed to all the tutors whom maintained a facade and misdirected the students. How could you say it is not of concern. It is the most concerning "fact" that if true, then there will be more weight on other things said about the school. If you know about law, the same thing is done in courts. They establish the charactor of the person and that has weighting on other points. I think this has been ignored greatly by you all. Possibly because you want to believe it and there could be a vast array of psychological reasons as to why.

I'm more concerned with informing prospective students of SFSK about what is really going on in that school. And to that end, you have been asked 32 questions now, by various contributors, which you have ignored. If I was a prospective student reading this, I would want to hear the answers to those questions. One of the major criticisms of SFSK and the other SES/SOP schools is the veil of secrecy placed over the teachings and activities. Consistent refusal by people in the Schools to answer reasonable and non-emotive questions supports this allegation.


You say you are more concerned with informing prospective students of what is really going on in the school. Why not provide the most important piece of evidence that will allow people to decide based on evidence and not on psychological issues on the participants. As MOTS said, how in this day and age can it take SO long (over 1 year). Why are not the many tutors who left working to get this done. Why are THEY IGNORING THIS.
In your point on secrecy. There is no secrecy. The school refers to all scriptures. You will find areas taken from the gita, upanishads, bible, plato, etc. If you are referring to the management of the school then there must be secrecy. In the business world, do you know what your manager or executives or CEO are doing all the time. Do you know how much others earn? do you know why one was made redundent??? there are reasons for this but you may not know. I fail to understand what you mean.
Of course when one starts there is a limit to what knowledge can be given to them. e.g you do not teach algebra to a year 1 student. I believe the failing of the school is to give most students the higher knowledge too early. The students who complain are the ones who do not practice and understand. They complain that she is not saying this and he did that. One should be strong. If you see something inappropriate, make a mends or try to understand why it is that way by going directly to the source not complain behind the persons back. If you do not understand and do not have the guts to ask in class, then organise a meeting after class to clarify your doubts. Mrs Mavro is open to all this. You are simply basing your opinions on partial knowledge based on inaction from your own point.
The purpose of the school is not to answer ALL your questions. It is to direct your to your own core to answer the questions yourself. Understand this point well or whatever your reading or whomever your look up to now will result in the same situation as what you did to Mrs Mavro. You have no regard for them in truth. You and I are utterly selfish.

We should all wake up to this and stop pointing fingers.

Are you a student of SFSK?


I am not a full time student due to health problems.

If yes, for how long have you attended SFSK?
[/quote]
I have known Mrs Mavro and the school for quite a long time now.

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Gerasene Demon » Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:01 am

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ella.M.C.
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 6:12 am

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Ella.M.C. » Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:56 am

Hello Nick,

You said .."no-one has said anything bad about the tutors that left"

Yes I am sure this is true ..of everyone, except Mrs Mavro.

With respect to her ..she is very very manipulative, and speaks about virtually
every student (even her favourites) to other students.(behind their back)
Her comments are selective and can be very critical .. and in school we were taught the opposite.
I know this as fact from personal experience.
Mrs Mavro cares for no-one (my opinion) this is to be seen in her actions ..they speak louder than words.

So most of your comments and comments about the senior students sound to me
very much like you are repeating things you have heard from her or via her deputies.

In regard to the crucial mantram issue ..
It is not over one year now.
The many senior students that left, did so around a year ago.
But the trip to India was not until August/September last year, so around 6 months ago.
The tapes that we have are very long indeed as there were many audiences with HH.

In the considerations of how to do this properly, someone with technical knowledge was needed to
help with putting the relevant pieces together and uploading it.
No one is stalling on this issue ..it takes time, people work and have other commitments in life,
but I assure you it will happen!
AND ..that the content is true in regard to the Mantram, I have heard it with my own ears.
There can be no mistake.. as in his compassion HH illustrates our plight of being 'fools' led astray
with some very telling stories.

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Middle Way » Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:31 am

Gerasene Demon wrote:Trolls.

You may well be right GD.

Until a genuine attempt is made to address the specific points made in this forum, not relying on avoidance, obfuscation, misrepresentation and ad hominem attacks I won't be continuing with this dialogue.

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby ManOnTheStreet » Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:37 am

There are a few salient points here that I would like to address.

1.
nick wrote: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.


The second sentence does not follow from the first. It is entirely possible that these tutors were genuine and acted in a way they thought at the time was best for their students. This may have involved going to groups/residentials even if they didn't particularly want to. I don't think these tutors maintained a facade; it is more likely that they struggled through as best they could in the circumstances. Do you really think it would have been preferable for them not to have questioned anything about the way the School was run and what they were being taught there? What sort of tutors would they be if they couldn't think for themselves?

2.
nick wrote: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.


If by "true to oneself" you mean "honest" then how do you figure these tutors were not genuine? They were honest while they were at School and remain honest now. Or do you think honest people should never change their minds about anything? Moreover, it's hardly a "spiritual crime" to change one's mind. After all, self-inquiry is bound to change your mind about some things - surely you don't mean to suggest that self-inquiry leads to dishonesty?

3.
nick wrote: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?


I don't think the "others" (whoever they are) are right because they speak what I want to hear. On the basis of our own independent inquiries, we have reached similar (but not identical) positions regarding the School. We agree with each other to the extent that our views happen to overlap, but we certainly don't agree because they overlap. I might well say that you disagree with us because we don't say what you would like to hear, but I think you probably wouldn't agree with that assessment would you? It is no more accurate than the assessment you give of our apparent consensus.

4.
nick wrote:People are believing all this without any evidence.


Actually this is untrue. I would venture to say that all the ex-members of the School that post here do so with a backdrop of considerable experience and evidence-based thinking. For some of us that experience goes back 20 or 30 years. Are you really suggesting that we "believe" what we say without any evidence at all? The evidence is obvious to anyone who reasons out the various propositions given to them in School and observes the effect they have on people. When someone tells you that the "teaching" you get at School is from "ancient wisdom" etc. and it turns out that most of it can be found in the writings of two 19th/20th Century occultists, you have to wonder how honest these people really are.

5.
nick wrote: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.


But the "personal rubbish" is a very important factor in determining the character of Mrs Mavro. If someone is willing to lie to you about what they've said is the most important part of your life - how are you supposed to trust them in any other matter? The rest of your paragraph paraphrases a few slokas in the Katha Upanishad, but I don't see how that helps your argument.

6.
nick wrote:
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.


As a matter of fact, it is a rule in statistics that previous results do not help to predict future ones. Also, it's hardly "all of a sudden, it is clear again". As I've said before, this process is long and difficult. I don't think you quite characterise it properly when you seem to suggest that these changes of mind are sudden. In any case, surely it is better to realise your error than stubbornly stick to one point of view just because changing your mind is a bad thing (apparently).

7.
nick wrote: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.


If no one has said anything bad of tutors who have left, whence this "information"? That accusation is false anyway - how would this person have known whether or not they were stipulated in Mrs Mavro's will? That person gave 40 years of service to the School - do you really think he did that just so he could be stipulated in Mrs Mavro's will? No one in their right mind could take this accusation seriously - it doesn't even stand up to reason.

The other thing is - if Mrs Mavro is bothering to tell junior students these sorts of ridiculous things, then she really must be desperate.

8.
nick wrote: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).


You picked an unfortunate counter-example. The fact is that while the Earth exists, it is round. The "end" of the Earth will be when our Sun explodes and swallows the Earth up in the process. The Earth will continue to be round all the way to the end. As far as the laws of physics are concerned, my point still stands. They are permanent in this universe, and will persist that way. The existence of other laws in other universes does not change this. In any case, the existence of other universes has been postulated but not proven.

9.
nick wrote: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.


What makes you think the other tutors would swim to safety? Moreover, what makes you think Mrs Mavro would save me? This kind of hypothetical situation solves nothing. I might well ask: "what if she didn't save you?"

I have plenty of evidence that she has lied and manipulated us all for a very long time. If I had some evidence that she was not of this character then I would be happy to revise my view, but so far none has been provided. She has responded to our exodus with petty tales of "angry" tutors leaving because they weren't stipulated in her will. Are these the actions of a truthful and genuine person?

10.
nick wrote:In your point on secrecy. There is no secrecy. The school refers to all scriptures.


When was the last time your tutor read to you from the Qu'ran? You'll find Mrs Mavro is not overly keen on Muslims in general either.

11.
nick wrote:If you are referring to the management of the school then there must be secrecy. In the business world, do you know what your manager or executives or CEO are doing all the time. Do you know how much others earn? do you know why one was made redundent??? there are reasons for this but you may not know. I fail to understand what you mean.


First of all, the School is not advertised as a business. Secondly, the key thing is that the administration of the School should be made transparent to anyone who has an interest in it. Why on earth not? What's there to hide? The most important point here is however that the secrecy relates to the material and the teaching itself. Any organisation that purports to some kind of higher knowledge should make its sources available. Again - why not? This is a key question - what is the issue with making this stuff available? Your analogy about teaching algebra to a kid in year 1 doesn't apply - these sources are not incomprehensible. All they require is that the reader speak English. The situation in the School is akin to the teacher of the year 1 student actively discouraging the student from even asking about algebra. Why on earth would anyone do this other than to feather their own nest. If Mrs Mavro knows more than her students she can always assume a superior position. What I found upon actually reading "algebra" was that Mrs Mavro really doesn't know that much at all. She is very good at appearing knowledgeable, but only because she refuses to answer rigorous questions.

12.
nick wrote:The students who complain are the ones who do not practice and understand.


How could you possibly know this? In my experience, it was precisely those students who practised the most (and as far as everyone was concerned understood the most) that left the School.

nick wrote:If you see something inappropriate, make a mends or try to understand why it is that way by going directly to the source not complain behind the persons back.


How many times do you think we all tried to do this? Everything I say on this forum I have said to Mrs Mavro face to face. My conscience is clear on that point. She was utterly unreceptive, to the point of callousness. Moreover, are you really suggesting that we left the School because we were just lazy? There is no possible basis upon which you can assert this.

nick wrote:Mrs Mavro is open to all this. You are simply basing your opinions on partial knowledge based on inaction from your own point.


Again, how can you possibly know the bases for our views? I've told you mine, and whatever you might think of them you can't honestly say they are based on "partial knowledge" or "inaction". Mrs Mavro might tell you that she is open to discussion, but that is only because you probably haven't questioned her rigorously yet. If and/or when you do, you will find she is not so pleasant.

nick wrote:The purpose of the school is not to answer ALL your questions. It is to direct your to your own core to answer the questions yourself. Understand this point well or whatever your reading or whomever your look up to now will result in the same situation as what you did to Mrs Mavro. You have no regard for them in truth. You and I are utterly selfish.

We should all wake up to this and stop pointing fingers.


The only problem with this is that when the answers you get are not approved of by Mrs Mavro, you are criticised and branded as a trouble-maker. There is an official party line at the School and those who deviate from it are not welcome. I don't see how this in any way represents a genuine search for truth. The School advertises itself as an organisation whose principles will lead you (ultimately) to realisation of the truth about all and everything. Mrs Mavro sets herself up as the fount of this knowledge. In other words, she can't ever be wrong. What kind of inquiry does that engender? What it engenders is a servile attitude and a weak discrimination. This is not "directing people to their own core"; rather it's directing people to Mrs Mavro. It is exactly my point that the School does not help you to answer the questions yourself. It gives you a set of vague questions and then gives you a set of vague answers. This is not inquiry of any kind.

13.
nick wrote:I have known Mrs Mavro and the school for quite a long time now.


Ten years? Twenty years? I don't understand what the problem is in telling us how long. It doesn't really matter if you've only known her a short time - it just means that we may have had more opportunities to observe her actions than you have.

MOTS

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:22 pm

capitals are used below in some areas to emphasize the importance.

With respect to her ..she is very very manipulative, and speaks about virtually
every student (even her favourites) to other students.(behind their back)
Her comments are selective and can be very critical .. and in school we were taught the opposite.
I know this as fact from personal experience.
Mrs Mavro cares for no-one (my opinion) this is to be seen in her actions ..they speak louder than words.


Constructive criticism is vital in this work. If you want to be high on fairy land, there are many other teachers who will tell you want to hear. You will find you will not listen too well to people who are kind and nice all the time. They are nice but not worth hearing too. Of course if it becomes destructive criticism it is another story.

So most of your comments and comments about the senior students sound to me
very much like you are repeating things you have heard from her or via her deputies.


They are true unless you prove otherwise. Students have seen her proof on paper of the authenticity of the mantrum. She is open for any one to come and see. So far, none of you have done that based on her.

In regard to the crucial mantram issue ..
It is not over one year now.
The many senior students that left, did so around a year ago.
But the trip to India was not until August/September last year, so around 6 months ago.
The tapes that we have are very long indeed as there were many audiences with HH.


This is what I mean, people are psychologically not up to the standard of doing any real work. You have your facts wrong. The mantrum issue was clearly started in late 2011. Please refer to other tutors. I can put names on this board and bring down a few key tutors whom have done serious wrongs but I will not. They know what they are. We have many many things to say but we will not. We respect peoples privacy unless hear where you have brought down over 40 years of hard work by Mrs Mavro.


In the considerations of how to do this properly, someone with technical knowledge was needed to
help with putting the relevant pieces together and uploading it.


YOU HAVE SPENT MANY HOURS PUTTING YOUR OPINIONS AND POSTS UP ON THIS BOARD. IS IT NOT POSSIBLE TO DIRECT YOUR MIND TO PUTTING THE MANTRUM PROOF ONLINE. THIS IS TOP PRIORITY. REFER TO MY PREVIOUS POSTS AS TO WHY.

In the meantime, in your next post is it possible to put down the transcript of what HH said word for word. if you have time translate it as well. This would be very helpful.


No one is stalling on this issue ..it takes time, people work and have other commitments in life,
but I assure you it will happen!


THERE ARE OVER 16 PAGES OF POSTS. THIS WOULD HAVE TAKEN MANY HOURS TO DO SO. NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY PROOF OF THE MANTRUM ISSUE.

AND ..that the content is true in regard to the Mantram, I have heard it with my own ears.
There can be no mistake.. as in his compassion HH illustrates our plight of being 'fools' led astray
with some very telling stories.
[/quote]

THE MAVROS HAVE BEEN VISTING HH FOR MANY 10S OF YEARS. HE KNEW THERE WAS A SCHOOL. DID HE THINK PEOPLE AT THE SCHOOL WERE LEARNING TO DANCE AND SING? I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THAT LONG TERM STUDENTS WOULD NOT BE GIVEN PRACTICES DIRECTLY FROM HH. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT LONG TERM STUDENTS ACCOMPANIED THE MAVROS. WERE THEY SITTING PASSIVE AND DID NOT HEAR WHAT WAS SAID?

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Gerasene Demon » Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:28 am

.
Last edited by Gerasene Demon on Thu May 30, 2013 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby ManOnTheStreet » Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:35 am

nick wrote:I can put names on this board and bring down a few key tutors whom have done serious wrongs but I will not. They know what they are. We have many many things to say but we will not. We respect peoples privacy unless hear where you have brought down over 40 years of hard work by Mrs Mavro.


Again, this flies in the face of your earlier statement that "nothing bad has been said about any of the tutors who left". Given that you haven't been at the School for that long, how could you possibly know anything about them unless you were told? You have chosen to believe the people who told you those things, but what proof did they offer? To what standard did you hold them? Furthermore, people's privacy is hardly being respected when everyone is told tall tales about them. If you have something to say then say it - do you really think we will be intimidated in this way? If "we know what we are" and your stories happen to be true, then you're not really going to surprise us are you? In the case of the person "angry" about the will, this is demonstrably false, as I showed in my last post. In the absence of any evidence one way or the other, why make the accusation?

The most important thing is that the burden of proof is on you Nick, not us. We have provided plenty of evidence and reasoned argument regarding Mrs Mavro's actions. There are 16 pages of it on this thread alone. You have not provided a shred of evidence for any of your assertions regarding Mrs Mavro or the tutors who left the School. You will end up doing yourself a disservice if you continue to avoid your burden of proof in this way.

MOTS

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:15 am

Gerasene Demon wrote:YOU HAVE ATTRACTED MY ATTENTION TO THE MAVRO BEING, NICK. BAD MOVE, EXPECT ME.


Gerasene Demon, speak with some more details. You confuse me.

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby nick » Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:51 am

The most important thing is that the burden of proof is on you Nick, not us. We have provided plenty of evidence and reasoned argument regarding Mrs Mavro's actions.


I beg to differ. You have provided opinions based on what you call facts and not evidence. The evidence sought has been requested several times.
In regards to people who have served the school for a long time. It is unlikely but not impossible they would do it for mundane purposes. As much as you would like to argue otherwise, this includes Mrs Mavro (who continues to serve the school). Has she spent 40 years to misguide you? It is unlikely but not impossible. Similarly people do very crazy things for money and power. Is there is possibility that very senior tutors did not get the power and money they expected? Maybe someone else did and that was unexpected? People react in mysterious ways. What happens behind the curtains is a mystery to people who only see the "play".

What are you thoughts on this logic? The Mavros and other tutors have been visiting HH for many many years. HH knows about the school and must also know they do not sing and dance but make a serious effort to grow spiritually. Hence practices must have been given to allow this. He must have known and provided authority. There is no reason for visiting him so many years regularly and not obtaining instructions on how to run the school. He would have known students progress to senior students etc so other practices must be given.
All of a sudden, a ridiculous statement is made, that HH did not give authority. Or he did not even know. Mrs Mavro has visited him since and there were no issues. Such a large spiritual organisation would not ignore this. I am sure none of you have contact HH through contact details provided earlier.

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby ManOnTheStreet » Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:24 am

1.

nick wrote:I beg to differ. You have provided opinions based on what you call facts and not evidence. The evidence sought has been requested several times.


If you mean with regard to the mantram issue then I have said all I'm going to say on that subject. As far as I'm concerned it is merely one example of many where we were deliberately misled. While I am confident that the proof will be provided here, I am also a little cheesed off that it has taken this long to do so. I am aware that the proof exists but unfortunately I am not in a position to provide it here.

As for everything else we've said, the proof has been provided. If you read anything at all by G.I. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky and/or H. Blavatsky (the occultists I mentioned earlier) you will see that their work has been almost directly plagiarised into the SFSK material. Anyone who knows anything at all about the vedantic theory of karma would realise that the picture given in the SFSK is totally inaccurate. etc. etc. I don't think I can really summarise 16 pages of material into one post. Again I ask: Why hide the source material? Why pass it off as "ancient wisdom" when clearly it is not? The mere fact that this is happening is cause for concern. Do you think any researcher at any educational institution would be taken seriously if they hid their sources? I don't see why we should hold Mrs Mavro to the same standard as we hold everyone else.

nick wrote:In regards to people who have served the school for a long time. It is unlikely but not impossible they would do it for mundane purposes. As much as you would like to argue otherwise, this includes Mrs Mavro (who continues to serve the school).


But this is exactly my point - she has misled us for a very long time in order to procure power and "worshipers". I don't argue otherwise - this is my argument! The point here is that whereas you have no evidence at all to support the notion that the tutors who left served the School for selfish reasons, we have plenty of evidence to show that Mrs Mavro manipulated us all.

nick wrote:People react in mysterious ways. What happens behind the curtains is a mystery to people who only see the "play".


What are you trying to say here? Do you claim to "see beyond the play"?

nick wrote:Similarly people do very crazy things for money and power. Is there is possibility that very senior tutors did not get the power and money they expected?


Everyone knows that tutors at the School don't receive financial remuneration for their work there. So those tutors could not possibly have been tutoring for money. As far as power is concerned, Mr and Mrs Mavro had all the power. This was always so. No one who spent more than a few terms in School was in any doubt about that. Moreover, those two were not about to give up that power, and so the idea that any tutor would take groups for the purpose of acquiring that power is ludicrous. The other thing is: if they wanted power, leaving the School was the worst possible way to go about acquiring it. Even if they were disgruntled, surely staying in the School still offered them a better chance at that power than leaving. As it stands now, none of them will ever possess the power that Mrs Mavro currently enjoys. Thus I think your argument is flawed - if they wanted power the last thing they should've done was leave the School.

2.

nick wrote:What are you thoughts on this logic?

a) The Mavros and other tutors have been visiting HH for many many years.
b) HH knows about the school and must also know they do not sing and dance but make a serious effort to grow spiritually.
c) Hence practices must have been given to allow this.
d) He must have known and provided authority.
e) There is no reason for visiting him so many years regularly and not obtaining instructions on how to run the school.
f) He would have known students progress to senior students etc so other practices must be given.
g) All of a sudden, a ridiculous statement is made, that HH did not give authority. Or he did not even know.
h) Mrs Mavro has visited him since and there were no issues.
i) Such a large spiritual organisation would not ignore this.
j) I am sure none of you have contact HH through contact details provided earlier.


I have broken up your paragraph so as to make the logic clearer.

(a) is granted.

(b) is problematic, because the Mavros did not really tell him very much about the running of the School. They admitted this to us a few years back, saying that "he wouldn't understand what we do, because we've set up the School for "westerners"". So (b) is shaky. I would probably say that HH assumed that the School was set up for the genuine study of Advait-Vedanta, and that some students meditated, but no more.

(c) Does not follow from (b), even if we allow (b). The practices we were given in the School largely resemble those practised by "fourth way" adherents (Gurdjieff). They have very little to do with Vedanta and the Indian tradition of which HH is a part. So (c) is shaky. Even if (c) were true, how do you know the Mavros gave us everything that was given to them by HH?

(d) Given the above, I don't think it's at all self-evident that HH knew about the practices we were given and provided authority.

(e) There most certainly is a reason. The Mavros went to HH for a dual purpose: 1) To get as much information as they could from him for themselves, and 2) to give the appearance that they brought with them the authority of a holy man. This cemented their own power here at home. They did not allow anyone to go to HH without their express permission. In fact, visiting HH was vehemently discouraged by the Mavros. What were they trying to hide? So (e) is shaky as well.

(f) See answers to (c) and (d). (f) is shaky.

(g) The statement is by no means ridiculous, especially given the above points.

(h) This is not correct - there have been issues - she just isn't telling you about them. Mrs Mavro and the other people she took to India last time were given an extremely cold reception. This makes a lot of sense in light of the above.

(i) From (h) this is false - HH has not ignored the problem, and Mrs Mavro's relationship with him is at best very very strained right now. Why else do you think she's trying to jump ship to one of his other disciples?

(j) Actually, a few of us have been to see HH since we left and those meetings confirmed what we knew. So (h) is demonstrably false.

Thus I think your logic is again flawed. Your premises are not established, and your conclusions do not follow from them.

Have you given thought to what I wrote 2 posts back (the long one)? What I said there might go some way to answering your points more fully. I do believe I gave a rigorous treatment to your earlier answer to MW.

MOTS

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby Middle Way » Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:33 am

ManOnTheStreet wrote:
nick wrote:
Similarly people do very crazy things for money and power. Is there is possibility that very senior tutors did not get the power and money they expected?

Everyone knows that tutors at the School don't receive financial remuneration for their work there. So those tutors could not possibly have been tutoring for money.


I know, from speaking with other ex-SFSK students, that I am not alone in seriously doubting that Nick has ever been a student of SFSK. This is based on Nick's continuing evasiveness on this question, even refusing to state how many years he has been a student.

However, his quote above makes it clear he has never been a student at SFSK. When MOTS says that "everyone knows..." he is not saying that figuratively. This is literally the case. The fact that all tutors are not paid is stated at week one, Part 1 and is constantly repeated thereafter. It has to be repeated, to drive home the message that as a student you are to provide service to the school with no expectation of reward. Mrs Mavro repeated it dozens of times: "no-one in the school receives any payment for their services". Therefore every student does know it. The fact that Nick does not know this speaks for itself.

I don't know whether or not Nick is a troll, but I do know, to borrow his analogy of a law court, that he is a very unreliable witness.

sydneykatieking
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:10 pm
Location: Texas USA

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby sydneykatieking » Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:52 pm

.. . excuse me, but why would anyone pretend to be an SFSK student when he is/was not? What would be the point of that? I'm really asking. Thanks from a Sydney SOP survivor.
Sydney SOP survivor 1969-1980, proud contributor to the expose, Secret Cult.

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

Re: Sydney School for Self Knowledge

Postby ManOnTheStreet » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:13 pm

I actually don't think he's pretending; I just think he hasn't been in the School for very long. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

MOTS


Return to “The Australian and NZ schools”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest