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