39 replies to this topic

[susmariosep]

Having said that, and back to Ken Lloyd Russell, I just want to share with you maybe some kind of axe to grind with people like Ken and also Billy Graham, namely that they make from the preaching of spirituality or detachment from the world a good and even luxurious living in the style of the rich and the famous, at least the rich if not famous.

For me people preaching spirituality should lead a simple frugal lifestyle, certainly with all the conveniences of modern life in a urban setting to be able to stay comfortable and exercise their preachment effectively, but not into luxurious circumstances.

Is Ken into a lifestyle the kind similar to Billy Graham? I don't know, but he charges a fee I am sure for people attending his seminars on meditation and other spiritual crafts which he seemed to have discovered and perfected, that is in holding receptive minds and hearts in thrall to him.

The best thing for people like Ken and Billy Graham and similar personages is to get a living doing what everyone is doing for a living, but not to live off one's spiritual preachment and to live off very well.

I don't know about Buddha, but Jesus Christ led a very simple life, so that He could say "Foxes have holes, birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head". My Christian bias, admittedly, which many a Christian preachers are conspicuously in direct contradiction to in their lifestyle.

That is why also I tell people who are starting off in life to go into religion and even found one, for there is a good living there, but beware of entrepreneurial religion. You can be doing a decent living from religion without the stigma of worldly commercialism and luxurious perks, if you content yourself with just a decent comfortable living from it. Like achieve a middle class lifestyle, even a bit lower, with the fruits of religion, and give the rest to the provision of food, health, and housing and education in the deprived regions of the world.

Susma

[susmariosep]

I challenge the religious people here, whether Buddhists or otherwise, show me in today's religious world preachers who live poor like the masses of suffering humanity in their own countries. And really poor, not exhibiting tokens of being poor but with fat bank accounts.

For example, Catholic mendicant friars live in palatial convents or monasteries, and profess to live on charity from begging. Same also with Buddhist monks who go forth in the morning with their begging bowls, and big ones at that, supposedly to beg enough for their whole communities, and return to their sangha residences, which can look like sports club compounds from afar. Because they want to live a life of detachment from worldly goods and material needs.

All of them should be doing honest work for a living, and then go and preach spirituality or enlightenment or heaven and Nirvana.

Prescription for Christian mendicant friars or religious men and women vowed to poverty, and also Buddhist monks intent on extinction of the self, [i]go out of your monastic edifices, which are to the sight of Martians no different from medieval castle intallations or today's city hall edifices. Live in the lowlands in midst of the poor and ignorant and unwise, take abode in elemenatary huts like them, then you can talk to them about Jesus and heaven or Buddha and Nirvana. And also enjoy the privilege with them of being washed away by tsunamis.

Shouldn't that be a new take on religion?

No, I am not religious in my own prescription for Christian mendicant friars, Protestant missionaries, and Buddhist monks or meditation masters. I am a very earthly worldly materialistic and cynical man in the street.

Susma

[gwright]

Having said that, and back to Ken Lloyd Russell, I just want to share with you maybe some kind of axe to grind with people like Ken and also Billy Graham, namely that they make from the preaching of spirituality or detachment from the world a good and even luxurious living in the style of the rich and the famous, at least the rich if not famous.

For me people preaching spirituality should lead a simple frugal lifestyle, certainly with all the conveniences of modern life in a urban setting to be able to stay comfortable and exercise their preachment effectively, but not into luxurious circumstances.

Is Ken into a lifestyle the kind similar to Billy Graham? I don't know, but he charges a fee I am sure for people attending his seminars on meditation and other spiritual crafts which he seemed to have discovered and perfected, that is in holding receptive minds and hearts in thrall to him.

The best thing for people like Ken and Billy Graham and similar personages is to get a living doing what everyone is doing for a living, but not to live off one's spiritual preachment and to live off very well.

I don't know about Buddha, but Jesus Christ led a very simple life, so that He could say "Foxes have holes, birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head". My Christian bias, admittedly, which many a Christian preachers are conspicuously in direct contradiction to in their lifestyle.

That is why also I tell people who are starting off in life to go into religion and even found one, for there is a good living there, but beware of entrepreneurial religion. You can be doing a decent living from religion without the stigma of worldly commercialism and luxurious perks, if you content yourself with just a decent comfortable living from it. Like achieve a middle class lifestyle, even a bit lower, with the fruits of religion, and give the rest to the provision of food, health, and housing and education in the deprived regions of the world.

Susma

He does charge a lot, as much as a lawyer (and possibly more than some lawyers). I have had a unique second hand experience with him in that I know three people who see the man who I call, the man with three first names.

The three people that I know who see the man with three first names have very interesting commonalities. It has only been "very" recently that I learned these three people held a connection to the man with three names.

1) Each are highly seductive -- so much so, that upon meeting the three men at different times over the course of two years I have had the same auto-response to each: Stay away from me.

2) More ironic, the first question that popped into my head upon meeting the first man was, "Don't you SEE what you're doing? It's unethical, and your Zen-like facade is transparent.

3) Each are highly affluent, highly influential, and have enormous egos (yet very fragile ones as well).

This whole thing is actually very fascinating to me, which is why I am here.

[susmariosep]

Are these guys honest?


Thanks, Gwright, for your contribution, after all this time, in this thread from Scottl on "A very different take on religion", started on Dec 23, 2004; it is now March 19, 2005 in my part of the world.

I have a keen interest in this thread, and had posted I think the most messages here, even though I am not the author.

The reason is because I am looking for the really pure religious preachers, but so far I have not found anyone who go into religious preachment without monetary outlook.

Ken Lloyd Russell and his colleague, Brugh Joy, are what we know to be practitioners of the business of dispensing meditation instructions, sourced from Hinduistic concepts and practices, the original ethnic masters of which are also in the same business as avant-guards from their homeland of India to the human terrains of the modern West.

I say that they are in the business, because they make money in exchange for lessons and training in religious meditation, spiritual relaxation, and even mystical illumination.

I am glad to have come across from you a confirmation of my suspicion.

Let's see if others can also give us some confirmation of my suspicion.


Susma

[gwright]

I believe that all sorts of people seek all sorts of help (for very real and good reasons). Some can afford more expensive help than others. Some choose psychotherapy, while others choose life or spiritual coaching. What bothers me most about this particular situation is the monetary mask to transcendence. And quite frankly the sheer wording, "way of seeing" -- few phrases could be more ironic. The man with three first names is going to teach you "a way of seeing" yourself, the world and the truth? I might be more confident if the three men who I know to be his clients actually were genuine beings. Instead, each are powerfully manipulative, especially through intimate means.

Seeing yourself, your blind spots and how you adversely affect others takes guts. This does not take dogma wrapped in consultant-speak, wrapped in a large wallet. Moreover, if you take one prone to narcissistic behavior and then teach him to only look inward as a source of freedom...? What have you then created?

I'm glad you're still here! I thought there was only a slight chance that someone might be still checking this thread.

[stranger]

Susma,

"I have a keen interest in this thread...''
"The reason is because I am looking for the really pure religious preachers,but so far I have not found anyone who goes into religion preachment without monetary outlook."

What about me? I might not be a 'pure religious preacher', or a preacher at all,but I have shared some religious stuff without seeking monetary compensation.
I look forward to the day when I can finance the publishing of my book. And then I'll share it for free with interested parties. Susma, besides you, I have other acquaintances that are receptive to my unusual stories.

stranger

[susmariosep]

(This is an experiment to observe the censorship policy here.)


Free sample meditation classes.

I posted yesterday here a message where I mentioned about the monetary aspects of the Vidyana Foundation of Ken Lloyd Russell. The message seems to have been removed and I don't know where it went; for I could not find it either in the Catcher section.

In the websites of this foundation we read the kinds of monetary concerns in return for its meditation classes.

Free Meditation Classes are held at 6pm on Monday evenings in downtown Seattle.

Vidyana Foundation is a 501 ©(3) organization. Your contributions are tax deductible and will be greatly appreciated. It is our hope to keep our services and programs either free or reasonably priced so that all who are interested may participate.

Donations may be mailed to:

Vidyana Foundation
4001 Aurora Ave. N. #200
Seattle, WA 98103

In that message which is no longer appearing here, I said something about free classes being similar to the marketing stratagem of business establishments to bring people inside their stores, with offer of free gifts.

Once you get inside their stores you are gifted with some token free merchandise, like a trinket bracelet. Having received this insignificant bait you are ashamed to leave the place without making some purchases; because you feel that you are such a cheapskate, for not returning any favor, after receiving their gift, taking their time, and causing them inconvenience in entertaining you like royalties.


Let's see if this message get removed also; so that we can be sure whether there indeed was a scissor snipping, or the disappearance was due to some computer-internet fluke.

Susma

[susmariosep]

No, the preceding trial message to detect snipping here has not been snipped, unlike an earlier one with a similar content.


What's wrong with taking money for religious service?

There is nothing wrong with taking money for religious service, but there is everything wrong in the name of religion with taking too much money for religious service.

Why? Because too much money is not in consonance with the whole emphasis of religion and thus the whole motivation of preaching religion. It's like the advocate of conservation driving a gas-guzzling giant US made SUV or sports utility vehicle.

Why? Because religion as traditionally and conventionally understood is concerned with non-monetary values, like not being preoccupied with worldly greeds: for example, having more houses than one can live in at any one time, more lands than one can use to grow crops for food, more livestocks than one can eat.

But isn't the worker in religion entitled to live from his work? Of course, but he should not charge or collect money exorbitantly in order to live in manners inconsistent with the whole spiritual orientation of traditional and conventional religions.

As far as I can see, all religions that are traditional and conventional emphasize the importance of non-material aspirations, what we know as spiritual longings.

It is the whole philosophy of such religions like Christianity and Islam, the two largest faiths, which are monotheistic, to bring man to the thought and the desire of attaining an existence that is over and beyond this world of flesh and blood, that of the soul.

The soul in these religions is conceived of as being in need of freeing from the bondage of the carnal body, in order to ascend to the superior world of the spirits: spirits that is beings which are not of flesh and blood, of which the Creator they advance, Author of all things, the whole universe, is the supreme exemplar -- that is of spirits.

Even the so-called atheistic religion of Buddhism, I say socalled atheistic because it is not really atheistic except in verbal pronouncements only, propounds the idea that man must work for liberation from his body of flesh and blood to reach his ultimate destiny of Nirvana, which is total extinction of the body of flesh and blood, resulting in complete release from all its needs, wants, desires -- whatever in explanation or in addition or in elaboration it consists in moreover.

The preacher of religion then in acquiring exorbitant quantities of money by, through, with, and from the preaching of religion, is deceiving people, cheating them, and effectively a swindler.

Such a preacher is like the predatory white merchant who tells African natives that diamonds are worthless, but he accumulates as much as he could inveigle from the innocent natives in exchange for his cheap baubles.


Susma

[stranger]

Susma,

If a guy came up to you in the street with a bunch of jewels and offered them for a bargain,not knowing what he had in hand, and you do knowing,would you tell him?

I don't think we're all that saintly,including yours truly.

The jewels that I deal in are the antique muscle cars. When I get an opportunity to obtain one I don't tell the seller what he's got. Sometimes, they think they're getting rid of junk. I,on the other hand, am well aware of their potential value. Like the old saying goes, One man's junk is another man's treasure. But that's your secret.

The cars that I'm not interested in, I tell them about their value.
I once had a guy offer me an old jet black classic Pontiac in almost mint condition for less than two grand. I told him that the paint alone in the condition it was in, was worth more than two grand. That made him think. Of course, he decided to keep it.

I know you're discussing religion and compensation here,but I just wanted to make a point.

Yes, I agree with your qualms. I've heard of swamis that have owned dozens of rolls royce cars at a time. Even those TV preachers who endlessly ask for 'donations'. The sad thing is that the elderly are the victims.

stranger

[susmariosep]

You miss the subtle crucial nuance.


Dear Stranger:

Apropos of this paragraph from me, I wished you could see the critical differences in its scenario from what you do for a living in your world, away from the pre-technological and pre-commerce code environment of ethnic African natives practically still in the stone age.

Such a preacher is like the predatory white merchant who tells African natives that diamonds are worthless, but he accumulates as much as he could inveigle from the innocent natives in exchange for his cheap baubles.

I invite you to consider what you do for a living even buying junks for paltry sums, to rebuild, overhaul, restore in order to resell for a much higher price, consider namely on the following three levels whereby we might judge the human transaction of barter or trade to be acceptable or not:

1. legality, 2. morality, 3. nobility.

I am sure that if I look hard enough there are laws in your society whereby you would be a criminal if you buy socalled junks from ignorant aboriginal Indians living in their remote isolated reservations.

One final comment: When you buy a junk car for cheap, it's universal price in your society is still junk cheap; it's the dedication and skills and art, the time, labor, and expense, you put into it to turn that piece of junk, namely, to turn its potentials for worth, into a mercantile object some people find satisfying to their acquisition drive. But when you buy raw diamonds from African natives, its universal price is already very high even though not as high as the polished product.


Susma

Susma,

If a guy came up to you in the street with a bunch of jewels and offered them for a bargain,not knowing what he had in hand, and you do knowing,would you tell him?

I don't think we're all that saintly,including yours truly.

The jewels that I deal in are the antique muscle cars.  When I get an opportunity to obtain one I don't tell the seller what he's got.  Sometimes, they think they're getting rid of junk.  I,on the other hand, am well aware of their potential value.  Like the old saying goes, One man's junk is another man's treasure.  But that's your secret. 

The cars that I'm not interested in, I tell them about their value.
I once had a guy offer me an old jet black classic Pontiac in almost mint condition for less than two grand.  I told him that the paint alone in the condition it was in, was worth more than two grand.  That made him think.  Of course, he decided to keep it.

I know you're discussing religion and compensation here,but I just wanted to make a point. 

Yes, I agree with your qualms.  I've heard of swamis that have owned dozens of rolls royce cars at a time.  Even those TV preachers who endlessly ask for 'donations'.  The sad thing is that the elderly are the victims. 

stranger