This is a copy from http://archive.is/gP3IK#selection-963.1-956.19
Propaganda and Web lies
The word ‘Sangha’ is used all over the place without any clear definition to support what is meant by that word, one could say that the vagueness is intentional as to give the auditorium the only impression he can get from reading the content, that of a large worldwide collection of communities active and organized around a common goal. Vague enough to keep it totally unaccountable in case of any legal, moral or financial responsibility.
The USA organization does not have any ordained monks within it. There is no ‘Sangha’ activities organized by it, other than the collection of donations (money). The Nepali ‘Sangha’ is having some monks, some of which were given robes without any ordination or vows or ethic being required from them. No education or teaching really takes place, those monks are at times involved in violent acts, and spend most of their time, either playing with their mobile phones, or training to chant the ‘Prayers to the seven Deities’.
All the ‘Sanghas’ represented on the website etapasvi now maitreya.info, are just web pages, google groups, youtube channels or facebook pages, no oversight, no monks, no teaching, no structure, no authorization to create them. That is what most people would call ‘propaganda’. What used to be a single Google Group for all, became obsolete as a big campaign of propaganda was launched by an American born living in Japan Andrea Good, against a former devotee Ms Takacs known as “Marici” after she was chained and detained by the closest collaborators of Ram Bomjon in Halkhoriya. Slander and defamation was propagated against her, access to that Google Group was blocked for her, and a series of new Google Groups were created baring names like “The Core Maitri Sangha group“, the “Sangha Dev group“, “Maha Sambodhi Dharma Sangha Group“, and another dozen others, to cater for the most faithfull to that same Andrea Good more than to any other cause.
“A lot of the sentences there are creating division and discrimination. Does Guruji wonder whether someone is truly faithful or not before he gives his blessing, does He select who to give a blessing to?
First sentence: “Welcome Sangha members, devotees and followers of Maha Sambodhi Guru Dharma Sangha. This group is formed for those who, in deep trust of the Guru, are making a serious effort to follow the teachings.”
Question: Who needs to judge if someone is making a serious effort to follow the teachings or not? Are we following the teaching by creating a separation between some brothers and sisters and others? Isn’t this separation and creation of groups for the “truly faithful” a clear contradiction with the First Precept: “Never discriminate on the basis of name, appearance, complexion, class, belief, community, power, position, or qualification; even discard differentiating between the concepts of material and spiritual”.
Third sentence: “As this group is for the truly faithful, we are blessed by the Guru’s presence.”
Question: Who are we to judge who is truly faithful or not, who are we to ask from anyone to examine whether he deems himself truly faithful or not? Shouldn’t we be inclusive while Guruji works at uniting all religious traditions, here we are creating already division among us. From the moment this division was created, some brothers and sisters feeling ‘unworthy’ of the new group (which by the way is just an internet discussion platform), left with sadness and sorrow and maybe some of them even gave up. From 964 members we are left with 138. We’ve eliminated 826 brothers and sisters from our family. An internet discussion group is not the Holy of Holy of the Temple, and even in Buddhist temples throughout India and Nepal, everyone is welcome, even animals are free to roam. So why are we preventing others brothers and sisters to receive our brotherly love and compassion? The pretext is given on the top: “In respect of Guru’s request not to refer to him as “Buddha Boy” we are shifting this group to a new link which does not contain that label.” Doesn’t this sound like a lame pretext, when you can change the name of the group in the settings of the group? Where is our compassion for “ALL” sentient beings?
Fourth sentence: “Thus, we are kindly requested to behave in the same way as we would in his physical presence.”
Question: Did Guruji ever ask anyone to behave a certain way, or does He through His boundless compassion for ALL naturally invites respect and devotion from all of us? If anything, shouldn’t we be trying to emulate compassion instead of adding precepts of our own making for internet discussion groups?
Fifth sentence: “When entering this group it is in understanding of the Samaya (agreement) between the follower and Guru to uphold the 11 precepts.”
Question: What does entering an online discussion group have to do with a Samaya “Covenant” that is a personal engagement between oneself and the Teacher? Why do we need to distort a tool that can help bring brothers and sisters together and feel among a family, become a tool to divide?
Last sentence: “If the Samaya is transgressed, then we will remind one another of this responsibility and make an honest effort to repair it by showing a sincere willingness not to repeat the unwholesome act.”
Question: Who is the judge of the transgression? Isn’t the creation of so many different groups for this type and that type of brothers and sisters precisely a clear transgression towards the efforts of Guruji to care for ALL sentient beings? How long will it take for us to grow and be inclusive, open our arms and hearts to all our brothers and sisters in this world, regardless their religion, belief, color, faithfulness, unfaithfulness, or any other attributes? Are we really following the Maitri Path when we do this? Is this really what Guruji is teaching us? Did Guruji ask to create many groups to cater for certain types of brothers and sisters and segregate them from the rest?
Is there enough groups, to hold all the various degrees of faithfulness? Are we sure we shouldn’t create maybe also Google’s groups for visitors of this website or that website, for Facebook users and twitter readers? Then some for very faithful readers and others for not yet enough faithful? And who is in charge of determining who passes the examination of faithfulness?”