Yoga Gurus and Followers 2

4 1 5

The Walnut Discussion Board
"Like a Strolling One"
The Sects and Widespread Insecurity of Members, if not Narcissism
A tentatively mapped sect country

The Walnut Discussion Board

CONSIDERING SOME SELF-REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP SPINOFFS

Relevance and tidiness tend to assist essentialism.

Here a discussion board is compared to a backwater, an eddy. It may not be so in all the cases, but there may be little progress to be had from making contributions to a discussion board that is not cosy, where riff-raff gathers, and where postings are often deleted.

The Walnut Now

Sorry wives and husbands [1] of Yogananda do not criticise the guru as needed or asked for

"The "walnuts" said they wanted to change SRF, but dropped telling their real names. And drifted away - Ouch!"

A walnut

A walnut is a nut of any walnut tree, especially Juglans regia, which has a large edible nut. To benefit from a walnut, crack the shell and eat just the savoury yum-yum parts, and do not overeat. You can grind walnuts and make other dishes, using the walnut as one meat substitute. The able cook Yogananda offers recipes in his East West magasine. We give out some of them on other pages.
For the fun of it, in some essays a 'walnut' is someone that has posted things on the SRF Walrus discussion board, which started out focusing on the fare of Self-Realization Fellowship, SRF. That reminds of a Norwegian-American joke passed on by reverend R. A. Steward:

OLE AND Lena were up in years and Ole passed on to his heavenly reward. Pastor Sven had the funeral service and offended Lena a bit in his sermon comments, especially when he said, "Here lies Ole but it is not really Ole. It is just the shell of Ole. The nut, Ole, has gone on to heaven." [MORE]

There is no account of how many of us "walnuts" that have passed on to heavenly pleasures.

The Walrus and Walnut

A likeness of an Alf who let snowballs start rolling

"Rebuke me a million times - do scold med now!" - Paramahansa Yogananda. In SRF they say his wisdom is faultless, and find no faults with his guidelines. [Pa 432]

You may wonder if they follow the guru's guideline and rebuke him a million times at the SRF focused Walnut Board, or as needs be, according to another saying of his: "Our best friends are those who criticise us the most . . . who never condone our faults". But criticism has to be friendly and apt to work as intended.
How often is the saying true for critique as for counsel, that it is "seldom welcome, and those who need it the most, like it the least," as Lord Chesterfield aptly put it. Many proverbs evolve that basic idea: "Advice is something the wise don't need and the fools won't take [Ap 9]." A variant: "Fools need advice most, but wise men only are the better for it [Ap 10]." Apropos, "He asks advice in vain who will not follow it [Ap 10]."
You may read on or find out of how true these sayings are for criticism too, such as "Great criticism is something the wise seldom need and the fools would rather not take." [T. Kinnes]
The scope of the Walnut board is limited in that fair criticism of the guru is usually banned. But not all that spend time in contributing to it, are bad.
The Walnut did not become bulky and shelly only as a result of irresolute editing. In early 2006 there was some relevant activity on it. The Walnut supports many of our views here, and gives valuable evidence of how things were really like in SRF and near its centre before and after the years 2000-2001, when one third of the monastics left. The "Walnut Board" was erected and run by one or more SRF ex monastics, and many more contributed to it. There is much significant material on it, particularly in earlier postings. And some water has run past that mill since.
Even though many ex monastics and other disgruntled SRF members take a stand against goings of the monastic-run society their guru founded, they remain Yogananda's 'co-wives', 'co-husbands', and cohorts, in short, followers. Not going very far in guru rebukes or politer tellings, and not rising out of anonymosity appear to hinder heart-felt and sound criticism. Sound critique for the purpose of correcting a systems, needs to be addressed to the guy(s) on top, and then be spred to many others as needs be. That is usually how it works. If you have something of value to be implemented for the benefit of gurus and other bosses of very authoritarian clicques, however, think twice. That could be the best you could do.
Paramahansa Yogananda's teachings slowly turned into "God-lore" rather than "Selfhood serving". You may say he luffed to serve one sort of audience. His kriya teachings were simplified too. He set up his own church in 1935, with its own monastic order too, perhaps inviting many of the troubles he spoke and wrote against in earlier years: His early messages under the inspiration of his guru Sri Yukteswar are different: they are yoga-psychologically oriented, focussing on Self and universality. After many years he had his own registered church and monastic order, and the focus of his output turned to God and exhortations to meditate. SRF has gone on to serve the guru without discerning between the eary and late Yogananda in the SRF Lessons, a mishmash of guru sayings and poems. There has been a need to se the guru as a main source and master of many adaptations that possibly do not serve followers full well. Accordingly, present cult members can get are belittled and some get confused.
Now, it may be better to do good than to function like stool pigeons (anonymous informers, some of them greatly questionable). And hicks in a wider sense may not be a result of seeing clearly, but a result of understanding their bonds - having deep, unresolved conflicts around loyalty and devotion and leader submission.

The Walnut Ex Monastics and Moanastics

This looming board is run by the Walnut Committee, devoted to Yogananda, also called "Sir Alf" by us for the fun of it. The "Walnut" moderator has a risky, little devil as his emblem. She/he is probably a former SRF monastic that is assisted by several other ex monks or ex nuns or both. Now, if assertiveness is a goal, another emblem could work far better.
Around 2001 one third of the monastics of SRF left the fellowship, many with deep problems. Such a large monastic exodus is quite rare, especially in Lutheran, reformed churches. (They do not have monastics, that is why. :))
The SRF Walnut

is intended to help those who have been involved closely with Self Realization Fellowship share their experiences and discuss the issues that often result. For most it is shocking when they get a close look at the reality of what the organization is like and it brings their loyalty to SRF and Yogananda into question . . . How can we stay involved and help the organization become what it can and should be? Should we stay involved or just develop a personal relationship with Yogananda that does not involve SRF? How can we see the problems and still remain loyal and serve? Come help us. [A]

That is what the Walnut writes herself/himself.

Helpful Suggestions

Below are some helping-friend suggestions, and a saying, "Advice, when most needed, is least heeded. [Ap 9]" By the way, this site stands for "Give advice to all, but be security for none. [Ap 9]". Buddha advices to proffer help to all for the sake of those who may benefit - which are few in the tavern. The gospel teaches that those most likely to benefit consider the messages deeply (in their hearts) and at least think before they talk. It is not for the sake of monkeys we have strummed up a certain reservation set and a solid disclaimer to align the text with. At any rate, now for the pieces of advice:

1. The walnut is no native of California. Nor is the walrus.

2. The topics of shocks and loyalty tend to evoke hard feelings and reactions, because the Walnut board allows critique of Yogananda's fellowship and church, but not of himself, the one who started it and furnished the starting-points for its inconsistent guru teachings and practices. This guru established the monastic order in it too. Those who expect monastics with their "thick walls ideals" to excel in innovations, might be in the claws of illusions. Do not expect a bat to come out in the bright light of day either. Many strong "devotee" topics tend to be hidden behind walls and in the dark, so that the fellowship may thrive further. One should expect that and be happy outside idiotic shells an walls.
In salient and effective and constructive critique one is instructed to "aim at the top-dogs" if they are found. Critique that reaches only half-way and barely that, goes "a bit" amiss. But the Walnut committee may not ever feel free enough to direct justified criticism at Yogananda and those whose emissary he said he was. They are responsible for the teachings too, it has to be asserted. To ascertain how far Yogananda is responsible for guru teachings is a topic the Walnut shyes away from by deleting postings about it. It has often happened in the past, as a part of the at times ugly policy of that board.

3. The wish to help SRF (Self-Realization Fellowship) was strongly pronounced on the Walnut right after the exodus of monastics. Posting after posting tried to solve the problems of SRF nuns for them, but these problem spottings and possible solutions may not have been read at all by those who needed them the most - perhaps or perhaps not. Proverbs to wake up by:

Advice, when most needed, is least heeded [Ap 9].
Advice is something the wise don't need and the fools won't take [Ap 9].
He who gives advice for nothing could be a bigger fool than he who takes it [cf. Ap 10].
Fools need advice most, but wise men only are the better for it [Ap 10].
Take your own advice, you'll be too busy to bore others with it [Ap 10].
Advising is easier than helping [Ap 11].

4. To remain loyal to Yogananda and serve him or his cause is the final focus of the Walnut board. Minding the many who have stopped posting on the board, let it be suggested that helping yourself is helping the world if you are part of the world - The Church has a similar notion. Another proverb to highlight the point: "Charity begins at home but should not end there [Ap 92]." One more saying to assist here:

You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person will not be found: You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe deserve your love and affection. [Buddha]

Yogananda teaches the world is pretence, so the sensible counsel of Buddha and the Church does not apply to Yogananda's teachings, regrettably.

The posting activity on the board was up to 1 posting daily (early 2006). A posting did not have to be relevant, to the point, interesting, or fair to appear on the board.
There are now over 14 000 postings after phantasmagoric (bizarre), spasmodic (fitful) censorship. As one poster mentioned, some may stand up and claim they were made insane by the SRF methods and teachings. If that happens, the SRF teachings and methods may become public material as court evidence.

5. An infantile "me a faithful devotee" practice stands in astounding contrast to one of the guru's guidelines: to criticize him as a great friend's help, believe it or not. And that could be the fifth entry of the list. However, we do not press the point, for, after all, cultists need to relax and not dally in defences, so as to gain more genuine confidence. That is the psychoanalytic principle in action here. Humour could help to, but outcomes are much uncertain, due to the structures or grips of neuroses or budding character disturbances "at play". The piece of advice: "Take heart and relax. These are among essential benefits of good kriya yoga as well."

Board Designs, A Few Points

One of the reasons why the huge "Walnut" discussion board became unwieldy or burdensome to many seems to be the many long strings with changes of topics.

Simple Rules

To combat such distress, you may: Sum up some of the strings - I suggested on the Walnut that 5-10 postings might very well be summed up now and then as a help to focus on the main issues on a thread.
Divide threads with over 40-50 postings. Most Walnut threads are not that long. The very long postings get tougher to survey and study for many reasons. The longer the string, the more loss of interest at the end of it?
When there is a change of subject, new thread may be made.
Now and then one could need a wider carpet (i.e., topic groups) for the treads.
Catering to such matters at least once a week will hopefully do well.

"I study the Walnut" - Nutcracker

From a Thread

The Walnut once got a letter, saying,

I am living in Southern India. I saw your website. Are you the devotee of Yogananda? Why did you keep websites of scandals about the master. We could not believe. It is shocking. We worry that the scandal should not spoil the reputation of the Great Master.

The Walnut spoke of his/her reply to the Indian:

I replied to this person:
"To answer your questions...
1) Most here are long term devotees of Yogananda's.
2) We are not keeping a website of scandals about our Master. The scandals are about the organization he started which is seriously off track. Because of our love of Master we are attempting to prevent SRF from harming more of his loving devotees. Most who come in contact with the core of SRF leave Master. We think that is a crime.
Since you are so far away, I am sure this all looks terrible. I am sincerely sorry for any offense. I can assure you that most of what I read here is true. The stupid scandal about Master fathering a child is an unfortunate addition most of us think is wrong. That scandal, however, is hardly the brunt of what this website is about. (Still, people are free to discuss on the website what ever they want to)
I suggest you not read the website. You are protected from his organization, being so far away, and therefore also can't be part of any solution. Your prayers for his organization can and will help."
Do any of you care to answer this person also? If so include a message in this thread.

He got this contribution from the Voice (me): "A reply can have many strains. I came to think of these:

"Why did you keep websites of scandals about the master."
It finds favour with the godhead, that is the simplest answer I see fit. It is far, far better in the long run to try for that than just be assuming things are right and next brand a bit on top of that again. I refer to "a blind-eyed way of writing or behaving" here.
"We could not believe. It is shocking. We worry that the scandal should not spoil the reputation of the Great Master."
To this: Very human reactions are told of. But they are hardly good enough. It is human to "guard one's face" to save the reputation, but what may be sacrificed thereby is candour, real sincerity from inside and out. And if nasty truths can be told, perhaps they should, so as to "nourish" badly treated and infirm people. It has to be considered.

Further, Nagarjuna says according to one source, "An astronomer . . . doth not divine that in his own household his own womenfolk, being at variance, are misbehaving" [suggested: he should know it] - From Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines, edited by W.Y. Evans-Wenx, page 62.
That note goes along with the Walnut words, "We are attempting to prevent SRF from harming more of his loving devotees. Most who come in contact with the core of SRF leave Master."
One should know what is going on, at least when what is going in is highly important. And maybe "Companionship with the wise and truthful must be preferred to companionship with those who are sovereignty-stuck" and "thus loaded" as well.
- Edited at: 18 June 2002 9:38:50.

"Striking down those liberals"

UNKNOWN to some present-day Yogananda devotees, he hailed Fascism, dictatorship, Mussolini and a form of socialism when he was about forty and no juveline rebel with dimples. The SRF's spin-off "group" that is posting on the "Walnut", could share one or more of these fascist attitudes with that forty-year old guru:

Striking down those liberals: The Walnut committee has regrettably struck down "liberals" on the board. Fascists did similar things - but much more violently. There are degrees of many things - for example, the way farmers handle pigs may resemble how Nazis handled humans in concentration camps, except the pigs get well fed . . . the main point: Some features are shared to some degree, and there is no denying of that.
Irrational activities in a squeeze: Some of the doings of fascists of Italy seemed irrational to some, some of the Walnut doings seem irrational too. Why delete informative postings that talk of William the Conqueror because William is put in an unflattering, well documented light? Maybe because Yogananda claimed he had been William the conqueror (and William Shakespeare) formerly.
Religious roots too: Some variants of fascism (there are many forms and modes) and the cult-duce aggrandizement of the Walnut may have religious roots. It has happened that the Walnut has struck down "awful liberals" by autocratic practices called deleting and banning. But what could be the real reason? The Yogananda who said bravo to dictatorship, for example?
Benefitting much from frustrations: What fascism derived benefits from historically, were large frustrations. And then again, many posting guys on the Walnut have become frustrated with SRF, the Walnut too, and some also with Yogananda, after some time -

The point: Frustrations are to be reckoned with. In some cases they can be dealt with. How to is a full study for some.
[This article was first furnished on 15 February, 2004, and abridged two years later.

Fascism and Erroneous Hailing - Common Streaks

FASCISM, authoritarian cults, and their spin-offs may have some characteristics in common. Now there are many sort and degrees of fascism, and no universally accepted definition. But characteristics may be spoken of anyway. That's what books say, including the Encyclopaedia Britannica (s.v. "fascism").

Motto in common: The Leader is always right

Fascism in Italy had it thus: "The Duce is always right (Il Duce ha sempre ragione)". The American Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF) has nearly followed suit: has declared they find no fault with Yogananda's guidelines and that his wisdom flawless. Neither is true. He talks thoroughly against himself on important subjects, overdoes praise, and makes blunders. Being bombastic or a culprit is not all that makes a guru all-knowing.
An ex monastic and follower of Yogananda started the Walnut discussion board some years ago, and made it clear that:

Critique of Yogananda was not welcome there, but would be deleted. Those who posted such "liberalist stuff", risked getting banned. Some were.
Sulks who denigrate others than the guru-boss in questions, seem to get much space or support. Former SRF monastics are allowed to express regrets and dire disappointed over and over.
The Walnut Board moderator has deleted many quite OK messages - and may praise remaining, non-important scraps: We don't sympathise with this practice or the Walnut's editing part in spreading rumours. It is very bad.
It seems the WC (Walnut Committee) has come a long way from ideals that Yogananda set up for newspapers: Most could be applied to discussion boards: [LINK]
By bullying away mature enough contributors by banning and so on, certain democratic issues are at stake. But since the board seems to work as a cult aftermath, morbid practices and shewbread might be halfway expected. And it may be hopeless to go for and expect that the cultural level of the large society is fully welcomed there.
Putting lids or limits on full freedom, the Walnut denies the privilege of getting valuable information about Yogananda and other culprits. It has indeed happened.

"Like a Strolling One"

The Jaffa orange may taste good even without a label on it. An orange without label may taste good, even if it is poisoned by pesticides and whatever. So be extra careful with anonymous postings. They can do more harm than good. There is that little risk.

Most of those who post on the occultism-preoccupied boards studied, are anonymous. I gathered about ten thousand postings in August 2004. In most cases it hardly matters to know the exact details of postings as time goes by, but in such as qualitative research these ground data may make a big difference later on. So I took the trouble to save and keep them in case these data too could be helpful or needed.
The material presented here will not be as broad and fit for deep and broad analyses as originally thought of. But there is plenty to study from many angles or perspectives all the same - maybe too much, once the limitations and possibilities of postings are understood and handled.

Me and my sect past:

"I enrolled in a great hurry."

Once upon a time you dressed so fine
in your prime, didn't you?
Like a strolling one?

In spring 1970 I enrolled as a member of SRF in a great hurry and soon sensed I missed my good luck there, and had better get out of that disconcerting "family" of home life repressions.
After some additional years of battling with the issues I sent SRF the needed letters that made them show their true colours, hoist their real flag, so to speak. They denied that anything could be wrong with their Master teachings. The SRF claim was that "his guidelines are infallible and his wisdom flawless". The letter has been notarised by me. Its salient parts are online here.

Literature

SECTION

First Page

E-MAIL

Ak: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Man's Eternal Quest. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1975.
Ay: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Autobiography of a Yogi. 1st ed. New York: Theosophical, 1946. Online. [oaks.nvg.org/pv6bk12.html]
Ebu: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD. London: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2006.
Goa: Nikhilananda, swami, tr. The Gospel of Ramakrishna. Abridged ed. New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1974.
Pa: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Autobiography of a Yogi. 11th ed. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1971.
Rap: Gupta, Mahendranath. The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1942.
Say: Yogananda, Paramahansa. Sayings of Yogananda. Los Angeles: Self-Realization Fellowship, 1958.

NOTE 1: Initiation in kriya yoga establishes a bond that is said to be stronger than that between husband and wives in a harem. Another thing is that in devotionalist yoga, bhakti yoga, one of the cultivated stances between a worshipper and his chosen one is that of a wife toward her husband.
"The believers in a Personal God . . . enjoy Him through many different attitudes [bhavas]: the serene attitude, the attitude of a servant, a friend, a mother, a husband, or a lover," says Ramakrishna. [Goa 254]. Some go far in it.
Ramakrishna further divulges three kinds of bhakti, or love of God: The better one makes no outward dispay and "loves privacy". Another sort makes a display of his devotion before others. A third sort is marked by the boisterousness of highway robbers, and by shouts as if by mad people. [Rap 494]

CLICK on 'Literature' for the references of about 2000 works.
ANNOTATIONS: Code letters (acronyms and initial words) in square brackets in the text refer to works. Click on 'Literature' to see examples. Page references are put right after code letters. And the abbreviation cf. means "compare". [MORE].
SITE SEARCH: The 'Search' link gives access to dictionaries and more.
REFER: Prefer the standard 'location address' on top of the page(s).
PILOTING: Note the clickable text links on top of the page. [MORE]
DISCLAIMER: Two disclaimers intertwine: [A] [B]
© 2002–2006, Tormod Kinnes. All rights reserved — Revised in August 2006.