• SRF Walrus Issues
  • Sex-Moanastics and Monastics
  • Four Hindu Stages of Life
• Cults and Regrets

SRF Walrus Issues

The SRF Walrus was a cult-related discussion board

Basically, guru subjection and cult-hard living are rather baboonlike.

The antidote to tough downfalls as a human being and to blind submission to airy and faulty beliefs "up in the clouds" should be watchful, rational, and evenhanded inquiry, which includes sound skills in dealing with key information.

The Walrus discussion board was online for about ten years, but with no activity today (December 2010 to June 2011). The board appears to have folded in and hidden a lot of its traces: there were about 30,000 postings once, while today only a few are found. I keep a whole lot of its strings on file, though [◦Online Walrus stub left].

The board was set up by a former monk or nun of the American SRF Order. You may soon come to ask, "Why not salient information and fair criticique of the cult guru on discussion boards related to Yogananda and his fellowship, SRF?" And why did not the guru's "crew" welcome truths about the folly teachings of the guru and give them a fitting place?" "And why did the SRF Walrus fold in very recently, after its modifier optimistically wrote it would be up and around for a long time, with the aim of influencing SRF to chage its ways and improve? Questions, questions.

Someone of cultish minds almost naughtily censured cult-unfavourable material. It reflected badly on former, uneasy monastics involved there, not completely unlike some who find themselves between a rock and a hard place. One the board - and other Yogananda-devoted boards too - you could glib glorifications of the guru Yogananda (1893-1952), who came to the United States in 1920 as a non-married Hindu monk and talked against having all right sex.

Various shortsighted guru utterances went largely unexposed on that board, but with one particularly significant exception: the member who called himself or herself 'Divine Gypsy' on the board saw that the adult Yogananda advocated dictatorship, spoke well of Mussolini, but against individuality, so there was a string on those issues by alarmed guru followers. They were not frantic, though. Bottom line: Unwelcome facts about the sect's guru only rarely and meagrely come to the fore among his worshippers.

❖ Alarmed followers may not allow guru critique to surface, and if it does, may go on to delete such things.

Cult monastics and some of their problems

Leaving and then criticising as far up as they dare to. Yogananda followers who were cult monastics in SRF and left the SRF premises in great disappointment once - about one third did so around 2001-2002 - were strangely inconsistently, like a flock between the devil and the deep, blue sea. They seldom seemed mentally free to face unfavourable truths about Yogananda. However, after leaving the monastic part of his organisation, they were criticising the management and perhaps talking down on ardent beginners, using derogatory remarks and names and up to unhealthy drivel, I may add.

The guru is seen to meddle with gospel teachings too, and he went for slavery, it seems. He did not go for slavery openly, but he did insist on being in one hundred percent harmony with the "original teachings of Jesus Christ." Shewbread aside, Jesus guaranteed with at least one mouth that the Law of slavery was to be valid throughout [Matthew Matthew 5:17-19], and the Canaanite should be kept slave forever, that Law commands [Lev 25:46], and so on. Face the facts: Jesus did not abolish slavery, and Paul did not either. He taught that slaves were to be "good slaves." "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything. [Titus 2:9]."

It you want to set people free, you should not bind them as serfs or slaves and similar.

It is a problem that Yogananda talks against himself on significant issues, disregards traditional Christian sacraments while claiming to be in one hundred percent harmony with a fake original Christianity of Jesus by clowning. Further, he redefines the Holy Spirit, the Father, and Christ so it suits one of the Hindu concepts of a Trinity. He also adds reincarnation and soul immortality to Christianity by meddling with the Bible like a quack, in part distinctly against many passages by Jesus, and so on. The Jesus he claims, acts differently than the Jesus of the Bible on very significant issues too, such as having many masters. Yes, the guru's main teachings take us into the Great Hoax! Is that the universe? The guru says so - too. Most of his ardent followers cannot handle such information - yet.

The for and against blunderbuss. Yogananda, the founder guru of SRF, talks with two mouths on many issues. He talks for and against selfishness, for and against human evolution of the human mind, for and against individuality, and so on. And what do his apparent loyal church leaders do? They are resigned.

How far may a herd of human sheep be atoning for something? Speaking of cults: Very duped ones may turn sheeplike, perhaps mentally cramped and members of some cult with odd programmes. After years of submission to sect gurus, followers rarely dare to search for facts and value themselves. Instead they act clique-like with foolish and nasty arrogance to foster whatever over-grown "majestic ideas" they follow, without seeking to remove their blinkers first.

Ardent fools get their defences up too. If ugly "holiness clowns" get very ardent, they are hardly better off, as they take to drivel and attempts to oust those who think differently. Group psychology describes such conduct in more details. Sectarians are really not to be trusted: if they perceive that some of their main mental anchers are threatened - by unwelcome information, for example - they resort to defences of various sorts. Such infirm unfairness is to be expected in general, but since people differ, we do wrong in treating all alike, of course.

The problems and repercussions of a so-called flawless dogmatism. In that sledgehammer scenario we may wake up to see dumb opinionation seeping through a lot of stands by victims of false teachings far and wide. Deeply degraded clique fillies are what Fuhrer talk rides on, and a tragedy may contain some humourous parts too. Victims of Yogananda devote their energies to claiming his guidelines are infallible and his wisdom flawless, instead of discarding him. Such conduct is clownish, among other things. To get beneath Yogananda is to be victimised in a cult way, even though Yogananda said, "It breaks my heart when I see blind dogmatism." [Ak 48]

Go against confusing the gullible. One of the prime hallmarks of a cult is Big Boss hailing, exemplified in SRF claiming Yogananda to be divine and not just semi-divine, and so on; growing confusion among naïve members, who tend to be so gullible; and claims of guru infallibility against sound documentation to the contrary.

❖ To leave a guru who is found to be meddling with Christian core teachings is not as easy as one might imagine, among other things due to written Yogananda statements of colossal sufferings in store for many lives for us who do. [Broad discussion with Yogananda quotes in the matter]

A few examples

The foremost example of messing with minds:

There is no material universe; its warp and woof is . . . illusion. [Paramahansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi, ch. 30.]

If so, there would be no Yogananda either, for one thing. A humorous example or three:

"The next generation will not give us a thought." - Yogananda [Ak 344].

However, SRF is there to spread his teachings and counteracts his sayings by such and other means. How odd and biblical in its way. Why "biblical"? Have a look:

Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, [and] overcame the Amalekite army with the sword. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." [Exod 17:9-14]

The Lord's ordinance secured that the memory of Amalek was preserved and not blotted out - the opposite of what the Lord wanted. His approach was plain stupid. Besides, much content about conquests and genocides of Joshua, are unsupported by bible archaeology, and in part contradicted. [More]

"We don't really know what is right or real . . . we are often incorrect in our judgements." - Yogananda. [Ak 414].

Compare: "We do not find fault with Yogananda's guidelines. Since we believe that . . . his wisdom is flawless." - Self-Realization Fellowship, in a notarised letter.

"No more blind believing." [Yogananda, Ak 456]

What is entertaining to outsiders is more like tragedy to victims of guru-hailing. To be a victim of false doctrine is bad, and to be a victim of a cult with confusing guidelines is bad too. By all means, Yogananda is a source of many problems that run deep in his society, the Self-Realization Fellowship Church. And if corrections need to be made, as in the sorry case of SRF, one is to direct one's fair and fit points to those in charge, and not omit remedying the true source of present errors. If such basic steps are ignored, reform is hardly had.

❖ Not to give Yogananda a thought any more may be right and really good on his own word above, but see whether his no-fault-finding followers live as he tells.

The Walrus Discussion Forum

"The walrus world is cold, cold, and merciless, I say!"

This brings us to the SRF Walrus discussion board, which has been ◦online till recently, at least. It may have "imploded". Be that as it may: I have saved so many of its strings that I feel quite content.

Many originally well-meaning monastics and SRF devotees became disillusioned and dismayed with their fare in SRF. I hardly think it was because they suddenly discovered that monasticism was not a part of the deal of Jesus the Jew, after the monastics in SRF for years had fondled the idea that they should show "the original Christianity of Jesus Christ". It is in the public aims and ideals of SRF. The historical fact is that "Monasticism was unknown in Christianity until the end of the third century." [1]

At any rate, one third of all the SRF monastics left the SRF premises in 2001-2002, and some got nervous troubles and found it hard to quit crying at night. These disgruntled ones and some others started to pour out their concerns and hearts and hurts on a discussion board. It affords many glimpses into the true state of affairs in SRF - things that ordinarily remain hidden from outsiders.

Further, someone who posted on the Walrus board said that at least parts of the Walrus Board look like a swamp. That is an alternative to the Hornet's Nest of troubles - organisation, according to Yogananda. He created his own.

Some who start discussion boards may get disappointed or disillusioned as the conversations drift or wind along according to those who get involved and how they involve themselves. And some seem to lose interest in keeping the board tidy and as a result disillusionments may grow.

❖ To suddenly realize there has never been any original Christianity of Jesus, what does it to a Hindu guru's follower?

Success would be fine . . .

Skill in studying and observing can be trained or nurtured. Besides, basic skilfulness, study, and mindfulness are all advocated by Buddha. Many of the ways of success are fine.

To nurture success is to assist character.

Also, a boring life-style - if solid and well founded - may nurse many future leaders, as boredom encourages initiative and things like that.

Fair ones have to tackle decent critique to appear normal. Most Yogananda's followers would say he still rides - as he wrote in his poems he would.

❖ To nurture sound progress, one may try to welcome sound or imperfect criticism too, just as Yogananda favoured.

Spirited Conversations with Monastics

Is becoming some Christian monk and nun becoming at all? What is so great about being a monk or nun? Is it better than not becoming one, or becoming a former monk or nun? In such deliberations, the question of what kind of monk or nun that we talk about, matters just as much. After all, some monks may have sex, which can be quite good for health. They seem to be in the minority, but in such as Tibetan Buddhism there are some, for your information. Also, in early Celtic Christianity the man-made rules and regulations against the sex life were not so stiff either.

You have probably heard that "the life of a monk is not easy", as an SRF monk said to me when he was back "home" at the SRF headquarters after some time in India. And that would depend on what kind of monk it is that speaks. If monks and nuns in the SRF monastic order have sex with one another, it may give rise to puritan scandals.

Instead of suppressing human nature, it is often advisable to regulate it tactfully, and free from lies and such human weaknesses.

Another SRF brother, Anandamoy, said directly to me once, "Have you ever thought of becoming a monk?"

"Yes, but it will have to wait," I said. I was an SRF member then. I did not quite feel I was at death's door.

"I think that is wise," he consented.

❖ Adhere at least to what is quite good for the holistic health.

Greatness of not being a monk or nun

In the set up scheme of dominant life stages in Hinduism, the phase of being a renouncer goes before death, roughly said. That is not quite the bottom line of it, for young and healthy ones may find it more fit for them to live as renouncers than to go through other phases of life, and some turn gurus too. The real-life scenario of how a Christian monk should be is: Almost dead (to the world), at least when it comes to having sex far and wide.

Hindus traditionally divide life into four main stages. And to add to it: In the old Vedic times there were only three such stages, and eating meat was not prohibited. In later Vedic times these things changed, so "Vedic times" were not really static. But letting such issues rest for now, here is more:

In ancient times . . . the individual practiced self-discipline [and a wide-ranging education with martial arts too] up to the age of twenty-four; then, with character formed, he entered family life.

Later, giving half of his worldly possessions to his children and the other half to his guru's hermitage, the man (often with his wife) retired to the guru's place in the forest.

The fourth and final ashram or disciplinary state of life consisted of complete renunciation of all worldly ties; the man and his wife would become homeless ascetics, wandering over India to receive the veneration of all householders and to bestow their blessings of light on all receptive hearts.

Such was the fourfold path of life pursued by the ordinary man of Vedic India.

- Yogananda, Self-Realization Magazine, 1950.

Some parts of the above look idyllised to me, like "not eaten by wild animals while wandering across many jungles", but, anyway, the outline is there, and it stands out that the last life stage originally was firmly aligned with leaving the world or better: gaining Godhood, Brahman. And Hindu renunciation is in part for just that.

Here I would hasten to clarify: If your world is not working and you sense storms and ruin in the future, maybe becoming a monk is a fit thing to do all the same. And very much depends on what kind of monk you become. If you have an unduly optimistic flair, you may disregard the signs of coming storms in your life and live to regret that you did not enter a swami order. Also, as swami-monks get older, they may start to bear different fruits than married couples, for example good books. Some produce books by the dozens. Others too do that. Some publish them online.

And if your optimistic, even affirmative attitude to life is warranted, it should work well to make the best out of every season of life, without renouncing anything of value voluntarily. In such a case there are overall life designs to be helped by [More]. Also, there may be a whole lot of solid skills to master in all likelihood, so long as success in the world may not come wholly undeserved.

If, on the other hand, you entered a stiff convent and find that your negative forebodings as to your life and world were too tough, you may live to regret your monastic life too. It can be awfully hard, nay, impossible, to build up a new network of buddies and associates if you drop out of a monastic order in the USA after, say, ten or fifteen years. For example, the pretty girls have married, and some twice and more, and you may still feel creative!

To be serious, there are some who disregard the social taming and strive to gain Enlightenment even from their early childhood, and others from their teens or so. In Hinduism, such outstanding individuals are allowed to forgo the other life stages to take up a life that revolves around meditation. In other cultures, they may be met with questions like, "What is the matter with you?" "Aren't you here in this world?" when they easily lose interest of so many things that others are occupied with and ask, "Is this all to life? All that life is about?" and similar probing queries.

Swamis are therefore a group of quite dissimilar persons. Some swamis are outstanding! As for Christian monks, I would not be among them.

❖ When you are truly blessed, is it fit to change for the better? If so, what must you steadily work on and cultivate so that future, ominous clouds will not gather above your head?

Four Hindu Stages of Life

We do well to go firmly against moanastic self-condemnation. First, let us define some more central terms: The sex monastic is a monastic that has not dropped having sex and auto-sex. The ex monastic is a former monastic. One may become an ex monastic by dying or quitting. Then we have the moanastic that moans. He can be a monastic and a sex monastic. However, he does not even have to be a monastic, just someone having sex or moaning for other reasons, such as getting old, or getting the thing going. The sex moanastic can be just about anyone who has reached puberty or adulthood.

These things made soapy, some monastics tend to think down on sex moanastics and sex monastics. There is no biologically necessary reason for that. Faking favours hypocricy. Also, the Christian who eats blood food, is about as good as the Congressman who commits adultery for that matter, according to the central chapter 15 of Acts. The Christian who has an ample supply of black pudding, Brat, Wurst, and similar blood food in his stores, and still talks down on adulterers, oi oi! [Acts 15, 21:25]

Foolish consistency is still foolish. If you look for great consistency and self-condemnation among common eaters of blood food, give it up. They seem to take the Transcendentalist philosopher Emerson's words against foolish consistency to heart instead: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines". If you stick to foolish consistency, you persecute adulterers and smile benignly at all who eat black pudding, for example. So many unread Christians do that! They may appear to read the Bible, but have not got the wit to not take its four basics for the Gentile Christian (themselves) to heart. It is the Apostolic Decree that is talked of here.

Anyway, the life stage of being a common monastic seems so close to being dead. And the sexual abstinence tied in with being a monastic, is fairly clumsy. The question is what has been set up for all to follow or adjust to. No to having sex is no God-given thing, generally.

A human is a sexual being, begotten by sex, entering the world through sexual organs, and when the id (libido, zest) leaves him, there is a problem. And those who look down on women may have forgotten their mothers and fathers too, and so on.

Four life stages delineated. Hindu scriptures spell out four stages of life (ashrams), and duties of each stage.

1. Childhold is for play and fun and a little well adapted teaching.
2. Adolescence is for studying thoughts to live by, gaining know-how of how to handle the needed things in a normal life, and so on.
3. Adulthood is for getting wed and for having children and support the rest, after all. The householder or breadwinner "carries them all on his back".
4. Retirement is for getting deeper and favouring one's dear ones and making the best out of what is left and right -

It should work well to adhere to some pliant, basic scheme like that. Erik H. Erikson has devised a scheme of eight phases. It should be rewarding to look into. Now, in addition to the four stages, Hindu scriptures divide persons into four layers, or castes according to how bright they are. First comes the casteless - hundreds of millions. As you know, they can be very bright, but hindered and scoffed and mercilessly suppressed without any decent reason.

1. The lowest caste is the sudra caste of manual workers. As you know, they can be very bright as well, and suffer from lack of privileges, including education and fair wages.
2. The next caste bargains, deals in trade, money-making, and gets richer day by day if things go well. It is mercantile, like the West is becoming.
3. The third caste is for statesmen. They stage strifes and wars and order and meritorious living.
4. The fourth caste is for the fully grown information-getters and -seekers and -finders, in other words the well-educated ones or great and croaking frogs, as the case may be. Some froggy ones have serious assertion problems on their own behalf. A 'frog' in this context is not a Parisian; it is a term from the Transactional Analysis, TA, that was first formulated by Eric Berne in Games People Play. [Gyl].

Granted that the strict caste system is like a shroud that makes those beneath it tight and stiff, at least of mind, we may gradually become more cultivated-conform citizens, althought Abraham Maslow spells out higher goals to aim for than that. Personal and individual development can take time for some - a whole life, for example; the important thing is to keep on going and not lose sight of that there may be more suitable and even higher values, and keep some mental space available for new good things. And inner and outer development has to be combined for each to work well. One needs to be firm. A quickly ascending soul may be hated for it. That's in the teachings.

❖ Foolish goings - do not be devoted to them. Gautama Buddha maintains that even association with fools had better be dropped.

On SRF Monasticism

Eric Dwight Ben-Meir (alias Sankara Saranam) was an SRF monastic who left and got married, and also got at least one child. Eric has this to say about other monastics who left SRF:

SOMEONE: You stated that those on the Walrus Board are biased. [. . .]

SS: "The real problem with ex-SRF monks is that they are writing to people who do not have an insider's perspective . . . This is the bias . . . After reading much of the material and considering it . . . I saw unconstructive gossip, bias, and spleen venting. . . . most people involved in the discussion are not trained in . . . mathematics, philosophy, and the historical study of religion. They are simply people". (Sankara Saranam) . . . .

Sankaram seems a tad condescending, flagging that he has some education! However, what matters is to choose to communicate fairly and well enough, tend to sincere dealings, and keep enough tact to make the exchanges run smoothly as newcomers ask, "Why this trouble? Why such a troublesome board? What are the causes?" Beautiful feet and hair is not a necessity either, but deft communication that may help some to grow, others to examine things first-hand, and so on.

It could help to know why the many monastics left like that [one third of them left SRF in 2001-2].

They left for all the reasons that were written up in that series of articles that appeared in the New Times LA.

The long answer: the exodus had been brewing under the surface. The Internet that came and changed everything in our lives, also made its impact felt in SRF. People were talking. News was coming out. There were leaks [and] stories.

Ananda people were . . . telling people about the SRF lawsuits over a decade. The changes to PY's teachings. The forgeries, signature changes, airbrushing of pictures and history, etc.

Then the New Times articles dropped like a hundred atomic bombs. Until now NOBODY knew, not even most monastics, what had really been going on behind the ramparts of 3880 San Rafael [SRF international headquarters]. The mansions. The illegitimate children. The duplicity. The abuse. The dysfunction. The secrecy. The lawsuits. The high-powered million-dollar attorneys. The biggest secret of all: [The SRF Leader] Daya Mata hadn't lived in MW [Mount Washington] for over 30 years and nobody even knew, even the monastics!

All this sent tidal waves throughout the membership and the ashrams. Copies of the New Times were smuggled into MW and the other ashrams. People were talking. At the temples. In the ashrams. In hushed tones. [To many] monastics the farce was too painful to keep up.

In the end, the year 2000 was the beginning of the fall. Monastics were secretly plotting their escape. Many knew what the others were up to. For some it was a collusion. They planned their escape together. For others they could no longer stand to be in a place that

• was no longer conducive to spiritual advancement,
• no longer lived by the now held ideals and the ideals of its founder,
• was abusively and severely repressive and dysfunctional and did not turn out to be the heaven they thought it would be.

It was a shakeup that was long overdue. [Extracts]

You cannot tell it very much clearer than that, I guess.

❖ The mansions, the villas, the million-dollar attorneys, the newspaper rumours - for some monastics it might have been the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to escape SRF.

Cults and Regrets

Jesus said, "It's not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick . . . go and learn what this means: "I desire . . . not sacrifice." . . . "I haven't come to call the righteous, but sinners." [Matt 9:12-13, excerpts]

So to be a Christian is to be sick, which is not the best there is. So is being herded if you were created for something better. Man was.

Allegedly Christian monastics who stick to "original Christianity of Jesus" - from centuries where there were no Christian monastics, alas for that! Note the SRF Christianity appears to be shewbread , more likely than not. SRF might disagree with that view.

The dictum "The more Christian, the worse," deserves some explanation, but not expiation. There are many degrees of being Christian, or fanatic, or mislead, or both. In traditional Christianity, the vast majority in Scandinavia feels lax and hardly goes to church more than a couple of times a year. That is how it is in Scandinavian countries by and large. As for so-called personal Christians in Norway, about one fourth or third of all who are registered as Christians, are personal Christians and "reborn". As you may see in the light of what Jesus says, that calls sinners, their (inner) health may be at risk also.

To be Christian is to be a member of what once started as a sect, one with millions of killed members. "It has not rained; the Christians are to blame," said Romans as they made martyrs of millions.

There is something better than being a Christian slave: it is being healthy and having a fine moral - says Jesus: "How much more valuable is a man than a sheep!" [Matthew 12:12]".

Also, Christianity is founded on vicarious sacrifice - the idea that it is good to let someone innocent pay for your errors. Do go for higher moral than that. Buddha shows how.

Some forms of conformity and its shared, tense faith may be detrimental to higher health.

Now "the message received is not necessarily the message sent." So double-check to see you have got the meaning intended, as in "foolish consistency" by Emerson. Is it "foolish consistency" or "foolish consistency" or both he is at? The bet is that the philosopher had the second meaning in mind. Just remain aware of possible double meanings here and there in other passages too, so as not to be taken in.

Following a decent Eastern path is vastly more worthwhile than adhering to brutal, vicious vicarious sacrifice, which burdens innocents. And learn to recognize who are your friends, in time. Buddha offers helping guidance here. [Link]

Many cultic groups seek to "contract" members by demagoguous skills and a play on such as isolation, nervousness, no way out, all too common insecurity, and largely unfulfilled natural yearnings too, and all too often turn out to be a nuisance, even a danger to members.

An initially painful truth can be less painful and serve you far better than returning to a pleasant lie as a willy-nilly. Small wonder that many ex-members of the SRF cult have been depressed and grieving over lost time, lives, and other resources.

❖ Guidance that harms innocents is not good enough.

Against depression

When depressed, seek to acknowledge this:

1. A vocation helps against despair many a time. A vacation should help a lot too.

2. Be bold enough to have it your way. And, secondly, be bold enough to recognize that you have been discouraged, for that may well be a fact that you don't want to confront. Confidence to believe what suits yourself and not cult leaders is basic, and time to see it through. Critically reexamine many ideas that you may have held for a long time.

3. A long series of small steps, even baby steps, may be needed, Set about doing something sensible about what bothers you. But as you do, try to look behind the surfaces too, to avoid the stumbles. Look sweet enough; that often helps, especially women.

4. Apply principles and skills of problem solving to identify and evaluate optional strategies toward one or more of your true goal in life. This phase may be assisted by common-sense oriented therapy. [Link]

The Adlerian approach of social learning assumes that problems may be solved or modified by recognition of them or their areas, or both, and then regulated a bit or more. In step with this, solutions nearly always require a series of strategic small steps toward one or more long-range goals. And especially initial progress should regularly be monitored and solution strategies altered for the sake of more success.

With regard to vocation one can re-examine the possible directions to take and review the career options open. One may deliberate very carefully.

Get to know enough. One may take adult education courses, join clubs, join museums and attend museum social events, and other such activities.

Make extra effort to contact extended family members and old friends, even though most of them will be busy with their careers and families. Making friends (male and female) will most likely come from getting involved in social activities that are likely to be frequented by single people.

Don't try mind-emptying techniques of meditation if you are too introverted. Ample rest could do you well. If you don't expect all too much, you may simply enjoy nature, happenings, meetings, and things as is convenient till you find somebody with whom you "click."

A monastic life is suitable only for the few that feel great with having no sexual contacts and outlets. They live "old peoples' stage of life", one may say. That they are a harsh step from death is another way of putting it.

5. Choose a suitable, realistic course of action, and don't look down on tavern people: Don't feel snub. Some there try to be comrades too.

Some need to have good feelings about themselves through opinions as facts, but rise above it.

Good intentions include getting old as someone of sterling worth too. To age with grace is no unattainable ideal today either. Nonetheless stay flexible and accept help as you need it.

6. You may also want to look at the pages on complementary remedies, such as Bach Remedies. Such things may accompany other and well-directed efforts.

Among antidepressant herbs there are St. John's Wort and oats to try too. Even basil tea may be tried, and thyme tea too. The first suggestion, St. John's Wort has now acknowledged, well documented effects against mild depressions. David Hoffman goes into some of these and some more - including ginseng, lavender and rosemary in his excellent The Complete Illustrated Herbal [Tih 207-8]. Tea can be made from one or more of these combined, and had three times a day, for example.

As for homeopathic remedies, if anyone with a depression came to me to get some assistance, I should suggest Ocimum basilicum D30, (it is basil) and Benzodiazepine D100 among the remedies to be tried. Against periodic depressions I might suggest Kalium muriaticum D6, or Mercurius nitros D12.

How to take them: [Link]

Broadly on homeopathy: [Link]

There are many other remedies to consider, however, and medical investigation and proper medicine is not to be abandoned for the sake of complementary stuff.

❖ Depressions speak a lot, so can you decipher them and remedy their possible or likely causes? [E.g.]