Free download of "Confessions" and "The Path Of The Masters"
Free download of "Confessions Of A Godseeker" You can download a free digital copy of Ford Johnson's book here. On the left side of the page, click on PDF, then click on the floppy icon on the upper left and save it to your computer. http://www.archive.org/details/ConfessionsOfAGodSeeker
Free download of "The Path Of The Masters" You can download a free digital copy of Julian Johnson's book here. On the left side of the page, click on PDF, then click on the floppy icon on the upper left and save it to your computer. http://www.archive.org/details/ThePathOfTheMasters
That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left unturned.
However, for the new person,(HELLOOooo is there actually *even one new person* here? :-) before being influenced by the biased detractors, it might be better to actually find out what Eckankar really offers and teaches. Free Books https://www.eckankar.org/FreeBook/index.html#download Buy a book http://www.eckbooks.org/
> That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid > detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left unturned.
> However, for the new person,(HELLOOooo is there actually *even one new > person* here? :-) before being influenced by the biased detractors, it might > be better to actually find out what Eckankar really offers and teaches. > Free Bookshttps://www.eckankar.org/FreeBook/index.html#download > Buy a bookhttp://www.eckbooks.org/
I suppose rarely do new people read here, but one never knows, in case A.R.E. does come up if someone does a search, it's always good to have some references back to Eckankar's website here, or even to Marman's 'Dialogue in the Age of Criticism' site for answers to the critics claims.
> That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid > detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left unturned.
> However, for the new person,(HELLOOooo is there actually *even one new > person* here? :-) before being influenced by the biased detractors, it might > be better to actually find out what Eckankar really offers and teaches. > Free Bookshttps://www.eckankar.org/FreeBook/index.html#download > Buy a bookhttp://www.eckbooks.org/
"That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left unturned."
For the new person, lets recap what stones were unturned.
Quote:
"If Harold was trying to convince ECKists, as David suggests, that Paul's words never came from the writings of others, then why would Harold have talked about the five stages following the death of an ideal? Why would he have spoken about the need to accept that Paul was not a god? Why would he have called Paul a master compiler? Why would Harold say that he would have to do something about the sources of Paul's writings someday?"
The Harold referred to in that paragraph was the one who took over Eckankar leadership in 1981. This is the current Living Eck Master. Harold Klemp gave a series of talks during the 1980's after he looked over the files of Paul Twitchell, the person who founded Eckankar in 1965.
Quote:
"Even David recently admitted that plagiarism of itself was no longer the issue, in his mind. David thinks the real issue, now, is over the fact that readers thought they were reading Paul's words, or sometimes the words of Rebazar Tarzs such as in The Far Country, yet these turned out in some cases to be the words of Julian Johnson, or some other writer, instead."
Rebazar Tarzs was the Eck Master portrayed in The Far Country. Most of the words in that book have his words in quotation marks. So, yes. It was one of the stones turned over that revealed some of the words in Paul's books came not from Eck Masters, not from Paul Twitchell, but they came from books by others. Thus, plagiarism. Some of the members of Eckankar still cannot stomach this information without a form of "divine discontent" as a result. That is. if ever they were told of this information in the first place. (Doug says it a little differently than Harold because, IMO, Harold Klemp & Eckankar don't come right out and say that it was not Rebazar Tarzs or Paul Twitchell in some places, but it was the writings of Julian J. and other writers. Harold once talked about some "Astral Library" where writers sometimes go to get their materials. However, The Far Country illustrates the words coming from Rebazar Tarzs and not from an Astral Library.
I'm giving the links so a reader can look further for the context. For example, these next quotes address a similar point about material in The Far Country.
"In other words, Paul cast the material in the form of a dialogue with an ECK Master because, quite simply, he felt it was a better way of portraying the truths he was trying to share...
"I think this is all that Paul cared about. I think that was his intention, and it was certainly his choice to make as an author and creative writer."
Many "stones" were unturned not first by Eckankar & then shared with the public, but by Prof. David Lane, his books and research (which included travels to India and correspondence with friends, family & people who the founder of Eckankar, Paul Twitchell, worked for & / or studied with.) It was over a period of years and the subsequent books, talks and dialogues by and between members and non-members of Eckankar that a lot of the material "hidden under" so many stones finally saw the light of day for any great length of time. For example, there is no "covering up" much of this information now. It is out in the open for all to see. But then some who do see it for the first time could easily encounter the stages after death of an ideal. Some of which include anger and denial. Like "Say it isn't so." "Tell me it's not true that words by Rebazar Tarzs in The Far Country were not by Rebazar Tarzs, were not by Paul Twitchell, but were in fact plagiarized, or copied from book(s) by other writers."
For the new readers coming upon this topic for the first time I think it fair to say this was a big part of what took several people by surprise. That parts of the Eck works, the writings and history, were not all literally true. This is the kind of thing that could cause "death of an ideal" for members of any religion. To learn that what so many have taken for the literal truth actually has a different context. Like legend or myth. Like plagiarism, or the writings of other authors taken and copied (and in some cases partly changed). Like pseudo, or man-made re- ligion and history.
IMO, the greater issue about why people leave religion rests with having found out things that were not made evidently clear in the beginning. In short, people refuse to be a part of any organization, religion, spiritual path where the literalism devours all elements of dogma and spits it out as all the same. All the fictions and literary inventions are what people refuse to endorse as literally true. Instead they want to research, ask questions and clarify the context of fiction from fact. Such individuals, however, are not always welcomed with open arms by religious fundamentalists and fanatics who can't see past their tradition-bound blinders. The reason people would rather first know and give out the actual truth is (IMO) sometimes because they want to share their ex- perience with others. Much of what comes to members of religion from books and writings is what did not orig- inate with them. They were not the writer / compiler & privy to where the information / story / history actually came from. After people learn these truths, however, it is natural that is what they would share. The reason they leave a path / organization (IMO) is when others pressure them not to share it. And when others insist that some people need myths, legends, fictions, or pseudo man-made elements of history and religion.
>> That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid >> detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left >> unturned.
>> However, for the new person,(HELLOOooo is there actually *even one >> new >> person* here? :-) before being influenced by the biased detractors, >> it might >> be better to actually find out what Eckankar really offers and >> teaches. >> Free Bookshttps://www.eckankar.org/FreeBook/index.html#download >> Buy a bookhttp://www.eckbooks.org/
> I suppose rarely do new people read here, but one never knows, in case > A.R.E. does come up if someone does a search, it's always good to have > some references back to Eckankar's website here, or even to Marman's > 'Dialogue in the Age of Criticism' site for answers to the critics > claims.
That said, I can't remember the last time someone has posted here saying, "Hi, I'm new to Eckankar." Nor has anyone answered my request to write me privately. The only newbie here is Jonathan.
I have found a tool that gives me a rough idea of how many unique readers there are. It's just about the number of posters we regularly see posting here... 8 or so. As I check it over a longer period of time I'll have more accurate info.
>> That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid >> detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left >> unturned.
>> However, for the new person,(HELLOOooo is there actually *even one >> new >> person* here? :-) before being influenced by the biased detractors, >> it might >> be better to actually find out what Eckankar really offers and >> teaches. >> Free Books https://www.eckankar.org/FreeBook/index.html#download >> Buy a book http://www.eckbooks.org/
> "That answers all the assertions and questions > of the critics, avid detractors and apostates. Truly, > no stone of theirs was left unturned."
> For the new person, lets recap what stones were > unturned.
Why do you repeatedly send seekers backwards down a path to the past of things that were, rather than towards the Inner Master and Light and Sound in the Now? Do you imagine that helps the mission of the Mahanta? Do you ever consider that you could be distracting them from their spiritual advancement? Is it possible they will be turned away from Eckankar because of you presenting negative perspectives about Eckankar? If you do these things consciously and intentionally, then that's fine. Your choice.
> "If Harold was trying to convince ECKists, as David > suggests, that Paul's words never came from the > writings of others, then why would Harold have talked > about the five stages following the death of an ideal? > Why would he have spoken about the need to accept > that Paul was not a god? Why would he have called > Paul a master compiler? Why would Harold say that > he would have to do something about the sources of > Paul's writings someday?"
> The Harold referred to in that paragraph was the one > who took over Eckankar leadership in 1981. This is > the current Living Eck Master. Harold Klemp gave a > series of talks during the 1980's after he looked over > the files of Paul Twitchell, the person who founded > Eckankar in 1965.
> Quote:
> "Even David recently admitted that plagiarism of itself > was no longer the issue, in his mind. David thinks the > real issue, now, is over the fact that readers thought > they were reading Paul's words, or sometimes the words > of Rebazar Tarzs such as in The Far Country, yet these > turned out in some cases to be the words of Julian > Johnson, or some other writer, instead."
> So, yes. It was one of the > stones turned over that revealed some of the words in > Paul's books came not from Eck Masters, not from > Paul Twitchell, but they came from books by others. > Thus, plagiarism. Some of the members of Eckankar > still cannot stomach this information without a form > of "divine discontent" as a result. That is. if ever they > were told of this information in the first place. (Doug > says it a little differently than Harold because, IMO, > Harold Klemp & Eckankar don't come right out and > say that it was not Rebazar Tarzs or Paul Twitchell > in some places, but it was the writings of Julian J. > and other writers. Harold once talked about some > "Astral Library" where writers sometimes go to get > their materials. However, The Far Country illustrates > the words coming from Rebazar Tarzs and not from > an Astral Library.
> I'm giving the links so a reader can look further for the > context. For example, these next quotes address a > similar point about material in The Far Country.
> "In other words, Paul cast the material in the form of > a dialogue with an ECK Master because, quite simply, > he felt it was a better way of portraying the truths he > was trying to share...
> "I think this is all that Paul cared about. I think that > was his intention, and it was certainly his choice to > make as an author and creative writer."
> Many "stones" were unturned not first by Eckankar & > then shared with the public, but by Prof. David Lane, > his books and research (which included travels to India > and correspondence with friends, family & people who > the founder of Eckankar, Paul Twitchell, worked for & > / or studied with.) It was over a period of years and the > subsequent books, talks and dialogues by and between > members and non-members of Eckankar that a lot of > the material "hidden under"
To me that is a misleading characterization. Just because someone doesn't find it necessary to hang out and call attention to all their dirty laundry doesn't mean that are hiding it. National Inquirer types revel in perceived wrong doings. It distracts them from the truth. It keeps them coming back to the rag as a source of truth.
Answer this: Do you think that knowing that a small portion of what Paul wrote was written first by someone else, helps or hinders the spiritual seeker towards Self-Realization?
To me it appears that your "stones" are stumbling blocks. I find it a disservice to throw them in the path of a seeker. If they go down that path themself, that's another entirely different thing. I certainly choose not to discourage people from gaining the higher states of consciousness by throwing my stones. Others find that part of their path. Many have and continue to parade through this newsgroup, imagining they are doing good by proselytizing against the imperfects all religions suffer from.
> so many stones finally saw > the light of day for any great length of time. For example, > there is no "covering up" much of this information now. > It is out in the open for all to see. But then some who do > see it for the first time could easily encounter the stages > after death of an ideal. Some of which include anger and > denial. Like "Say it isn't so." "Tell me it's not true that > words by Rebazar Tarzs in The Far Country were not by > Rebazar Tarzs, were not by Paul Twitchell, but were in > fact plagiarized, or copied from book(s) by other writers."
> For the new readers coming upon this topic for the first > time I think it fair to say this was a big part of what took > several people by surprise.
The shock was the way it was presented by David Lane and accepted by his followers. Most all of his conclusions, allusions and facts where rocks that had nothing under them. They were biased, inaccurate and sometimes completely false.
> That parts of the Eck works, > the writings and history, were not all literally true. This is > the kind of thing that could cause "death of an ideal" for > members of any religion. To learn that what so many > have taken for the literal truth actually has a different > context. Like legend or myth. Like plagiarism, or the > writings of other authors taken and copied (and in some > cases partly changed). Like pseudo, or man-made re- > ligion and history.
> IMO, the greater issue about why people leave religion > rests with having found out things that were not made > evidently clear in the beginning.
Things are never clear in duality, in the beginning or in the end. If one doesn't get over that, they will remain there in a state of consciousness.
> In short, people refuse > to be a part of any organization, religion, spiritual path > where the literalism devours all elements of dogma and > spits it out as all the same. All the fictions and literary > inventions are what people refuse to endorse as literally > true.
IOW, if it's not perfect, they quit? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? Which actually is a good thing for some. It stops those that can not go beyond the superficial. It separates the wheat from the chaff. But preaching a stony path that promotes that? What does that earn for such a preacher?
> Instead they want to research, ask questions and > clarify the context of fiction from fact. Such individuals, > however, are not always welcomed with open arms by > religious fundamentalists and fanatics who can't see > past their tradition-bound blinders. The reason people > would rather first know and give out the actual truth is > (IMO) sometimes because they want to share their ex- > perience with others. Much of what comes to members > of religion from books and writings is what did not orig- > inate with them. They were not the writer / compiler & > privy to where the information / story / history actually > came from. After people learn these truths, however, > it is natural that is what they would share.
Can't you speak for yourself? This is _your_ bag of stones to bear and bare. Most humans do focus on the worlds of illusion. Most don't even know anything else. The teachings of Eckankar, the inner master, point to more. Yet still some just aren't ready to go there and have a need to convince others to stay with them. This is one of the biggest turning points in spiritual growth. To go, or stay with the mind's limitations.
> The reason > they leave a path / organization (IMO) is when others > pressure them not to share it. And when others insist > that some people need myths, legends, fictions, or > pseudo man-made elements of history and religion.
So when are you leaving the path Richard? It appears
...
So what is it about ECKANKAR that sets it apart from your average, orthodox, run-of-the-mill religion?
Well, one of them is the presence TODAY of the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master. He gives Soul (you) the means of experiencing the Light and Sound of God (actual Light and actual Sound), the means by which God communicates with us.
A chela of ECK, intent on ending his days with the highest state of consciousness possible, lets nothing distract him from true reality. With his attention fixed on the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master he sees the detractors and naysayers for what they are: willing or unwitting agents of the Kal.
> So what is it about ECKANKAR that sets it apart from your average, > orthodox, run-of-the-mill religion?
> Well, one of them is the presence TODAY of the Mahanta, the Living ECK > Master. He gives Soul (you) the means of experiencing the Light and > Sound of God (actual Light and actual Sound), the means by which God > communicates with us.
> A chela of ECK, intent on ending his days with the highest state of > consciousness possible, lets nothing distract him from true reality. > With his attention fixed on the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master he sees > the detractors and naysayers for what they are: willing or unwitting > agents of the Kal.
> >> That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid > >> detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left > >> unturned.
> >> However, for the new person,(HELLOOooo is there actually *even one > >> new > >> person* here? :-) before being influenced by the biased detractors, > >> it might > >> be better to actually find out what Eckankar really offers and > >> teaches. > >> Free Bookshttps://www.eckankar.org/FreeBook/index.html#download > >> Buy a bookhttp://www.eckbooks.org/
> > "That answers all the assertions and questions > > of the critics, avid detractors and apostates. Truly, > > no stone of theirs was left unturned."
> > For the new person, lets recap what stones were > > unturned.
> Why do you repeatedly send seekers backwards down a path to the past of > things that were, rather than towards the Inner Master and Light and Sound > in the Now? Do you imagine that helps the mission of the Mahanta? Do you > ever consider that you could be distracting them from their spiritual > advancement? Is it possible they will be turned away from Eckankar because > of you presenting negative perspectives about Eckankar? If you do these > things consciously and intentionally, then that's fine. Your choice.
> > Quote:
> > "If Harold was trying to convince ECKists, as David > > suggests, that Paul's words never came from the > > writings of others, then why would Harold have talked > > about the five stages following the death of an ideal? > > Why would he have spoken about the need to accept > > that Paul was not a god? Why would he have called > > Paul a master compiler? Why would Harold say that > > he would have to do something about the sources of > > Paul's writings someday?"
> > The Harold referred to in that paragraph was the one > > who took over Eckankar leadership in 1981. This is > > the current Living Eck Master. Harold Klemp gave a > > series of talks during the 1980's after he looked over > > the files of Paul Twitchell, the person who founded > > Eckankar in 1965.
> > Quote:
> > "Even David recently admitted that plagiarism of itself > > was no longer the issue, in his mind. David thinks the > > real issue, now, is over the fact that readers thought > > they were reading Paul's words, or sometimes the words > > of Rebazar Tarzs such as in The Far Country, yet these > > turned out in some cases to be the words of Julian > > Johnson, or some other writer, instead."
> > Rebazar Tarzs was the Eck Master portrayed in The > > Far Country. Most of the words in that book have his > > words in quotation marks.
> And most all of them are not anyone else's...
> > So, yes. It was one of the > > stones turned over that revealed some of the words in > > Paul's books came not from Eck Masters, not from > > Paul Twitchell, but they came from books by others. > > Thus, plagiarism. Some of the members of Eckankar > > still cannot stomach this information without a form > > of "divine discontent" as a result. That is. if ever they > > were told of this information in the first place. (Doug > > says it a little differently than Harold because, IMO, > > Harold Klemp & Eckankar don't come right out and > > say that it was not Rebazar Tarzs or Paul Twitchell > > in some places, but it was the writings of Julian J. > > and other writers. Harold once talked about some > > "Astral Library" where writers sometimes go to get > > their materials. However, The Far Country illustrates > > the words coming from Rebazar Tarzs and not from > > an Astral Library.
> > I'm giving the links so a reader can look further for the > > context. For example, these next quotes address a > > similar point about material in The Far Country.
> > "In other words, Paul cast the material in the form of > > a dialogue with an ECK Master because, quite simply, > > he felt it was a better way of portraying the truths he > > was trying to share...
> > "I think this is all that Paul cared about. I think that > > was his intention, and it was certainly his choice to > > make as an author and creative writer."
> > Many "stones" were unturned not first by Eckankar & > > then shared with the public, but by Prof. David Lane, > > his books and research (which included travels to India > > and correspondence with friends, family & people who > > the founder of Eckankar, Paul Twitchell, worked for & > > / or studied with.) It was over a period of years and the > > subsequent books, talks and dialogues by and between > > members and non-members of Eckankar that a lot of > > the material "hidden under"
> To me that is a misleading characterization. Just because someone doesn't > find it necessary to hang out and call attention to all their dirty laundry > doesn't mean that are hiding it. National Inquirer types revel in perceived > wrong doings. It distracts them from the truth. It keeps them coming back to > the rag as a source of truth.
> Answer this: Do you think that knowing that a small portion of what Paul > wrote was written first by someone else, helps or hinders the spiritual > seeker towards Self-Realization?
> To me it appears that your "stones" are stumbling blocks. I find it a > disservice to throw them in the path of a seeker. If they go down that path > themself, that's another entirely different thing. I certainly choose not to > discourage people from gaining the higher states of consciousness by > throwing my stones. Others find that part of their path. Many have and > continue to parade through this newsgroup, imagining they are doing good by > proselytizing against the imperfects all religions suffer from.
> > so many stones finally saw > > the light of day for any great length of time. For example, > > there is no "covering up" much of this information now. > > It is out in the open for all to see. But then some who do > > see it for the first time could easily encounter the stages > > after death of an ideal. Some of which include anger and > > denial. Like "Say it isn't so." "Tell me it's not true that > > words by Rebazar Tarzs in The Far Country were not by > > Rebazar Tarzs, were not by Paul Twitchell, but were in > > fact plagiarized, or copied from book(s) by other writers."
> > For the new readers coming upon this topic for the first > > time I think it fair to say this was a big part of what took > > several people by surprise.
> The shock was the way it was presented by David Lane and accepted by his > followers. Most all of his conclusions, allusions and facts where rocks that > had nothing under them. They were biased, inaccurate and sometimes > completely false.
> > That parts of the Eck works, > > the writings and history, were not all literally true. This is > > the kind of thing that could cause "death of an ideal" for > > members of any religion. To learn that what so many > > have taken for the literal truth actually has a different > > context. Like legend or myth. Like plagiarism, or the > > writings of other authors taken and copied (and in some > > cases partly changed). Like pseudo, or man-made re- > > ligion and history.
> > IMO, the greater issue about why people leave religion > > rests with having found out things that were not made > > evidently clear in the beginning.
> Things are never clear in duality, in the beginning or in the end. If one > doesn't get over that, they will remain there in a state of consciousness.
> > In short, people refuse > > to be a part of any organization, religion, spiritual path > > where the literalism devours all elements of dogma and > > spits it out as all the same. All the fictions and literary > > inventions are what people refuse to endorse as literally > > true.
> IOW, if it's not perfect, they quit? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? > Which actually is a good thing for some. It stops those that can not go > beyond the superficial. It separates the wheat from the chaff. But preaching > a stony path that promotes that? What does that earn for such a preacher?
> > Instead they want to research, ask questions and > > clarify the context of fiction from fact. Such individuals, > > however, are not always welcomed with open arms by > > religious fundamentalists and fanatics who can't see > > past their tradition-bound blinders. The reason people > > would rather first know and give out the actual truth is > > (IMO) sometimes because they want to share their ex- > > perience with others. Much of what comes to members > > of religion from books and writings is what did not orig- > > inate with them. They were not the writer / compiler & > > privy to where the information / story / history actually > > came from. After people learn these truths, however, > > it is natural that is what they would share.
> Can't you speak for yourself? This is _your_ bag of stones to bear and bare. > Most humans do focus on the worlds of illusion. Most don't even know > anything else. The teachings of Eckankar, the inner master, point to more. > Yet still some just aren't ready to go there and have a need to convince
Jasmyn wrote: > Rich, we're all different and need to go about it in our own way, of > course. But you seem in essence to be saying the same thing I believe > in, the simple truth is Eckankar is the path of personal experiences, > not the path of faith based on outer writings.
> The first page of The Tiger's Fang is this:
> "Man does not know real freedom. His dogmas are set and imposed upon > him from the outside; his religious beliefs become frozen over the > centuries. His religions do not come from within, anymore. They > belong to an outside world" > --Niranjan: The Tiger's Fang
> What this means to me is that Paul was trying to tell us we aren't to > look at the outside religious beliefs or writings mainly for our > spiritual truth, but always look to the inner, and indeed Paul gave us > the techniques and all the help we could ever ask for to be able to > find these things for ourself--by our own experiences.
There is a learning curve, and as you say, everyone is different. For me the books, discourses, classes, seminars, meeting the masters, the techinques, all helped set up a framework I could use to discern my own experiences. They opened my mind.
> The bag of stones analogy you gave is a good one. Imo, it's just an > added burden to try to force the outer writings into ones own personal > structural design.
Yet I think we all do this, especially initially. The writings are so varied, offer so many ways to look at things, derive from so many sources, and even are sometimes contradictory, that we can pick and choose what suits us based on our past. My point is that picking the negative perceptions(stones), focusing and holding tight to them, is being "frozen". It hinders spiritual growth with a burden of baggage Paul said we need to leave behind. IME burdening others with our stones makes our load even greater. We are each responsible for what we create. The plight of Atlas comes to mind.
Even when we do look to the inner, if we are looking for say, the Tiger's Fang experiences Paul had, it's still a stone structure of Paul's writings. The sooner we let go of the mental concepts, the sooner the Light and Sound becomes our guide. Therein one can "know real freedom".
> Paul did it the way he could in what little time he > had in order to present it in a way that we could understand. He gives > us hints in a couple of his Introduction and Foreword pages about how > we should take the words in his books, his purpose was to impart what > he could about the great truths through language in order to help us > to have our own inner experiences.
These kind of dramatic experiences are what some people need to move beyond belief. It's always inspiring to hear them. However, even the path of personal experience does not always lead to spiritual liberation in this lifetime. My bird has to eat stones every day just so he can digest his food to survive.
On Sep 12, 6:29 am, Jonathan Johns <jonathanjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Free download of "Confessions" and "The Path Of The Masters"
> Free download of "Confessions Of A Godseeker" > You can download a free digital copy of Ford Johnson's book here. On > the left side of the page, click on PDF, then click on the floppy icon > on the upper left and save it to your computer.http://www.archive.org/details/ConfessionsOfAGodSeeker
> Free download of "The Path Of The Masters" > You can download a free digital copy of Julian Johnson's book here. On > the left side of the page, click on PDF, then click on the floppy icon > on the upper left and save it to your computer.http://www.archive.org/details/ThePathOfTheMasters
Jonathan -- thanks for the free resources! It was nice to see they have books in Kindle format, too.
On Sep 13, 3:35 pm, "Rich?" <R...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> I have found a tool that gives me a rough idea of how many unique readers > there are. It's just about the number of posters we regularly see posting > here... 8 or so. As I check it over a longer period of time I'll have more > accurate info.
> Rich~~~~~~~~Sailing the Cosmic Sea~~~~~- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Rich, I assert that the number of unique readers is even less than that. In example, you're kind of unique. Some of the others -- hmm-- not so much. lol!
> >> That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid > >> detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left > >> unturned.
> >> However, for the new person,(HELLOOooo is there actually *even one > >> new > >> person* here? :-) before being influenced by the biased detractors, > >> it might > >> be better to actually find out what Eckankar really offers and > >> teaches. > >> Free Bookshttps://www.eckankar.org/FreeBook/index.html#download > >> Buy a bookhttp://www.eckbooks.org/
> > I suppose rarely do new people read here, but one never knows, in case > > A.R.E. does come up if someone does a search, it's always good to have > > some references back to Eckankar's website here, or even to Marman's > > 'Dialogue in the Age of Criticism' site for answers to the critics > > claims.
> That said, I can't remember the last time someone has posted here saying, > "Hi, I'm new to Eckankar." Nor has anyone answered my request to write me > privately. The only newbie here is Jonathan.
> I have found a tool that gives me a rough idea of how many unique readers > there are. It's just about the number of posters we regularly see posting > here... 8 or so. As I check it over a longer period of time I'll have more > accurate info.
> Rich~~~~~~~~Sailing the Cosmic Sea~~~~~
Are you counting those persons who post under more than one alias as more than one? First of all you have to find out who is posting under two or more names / accounts in order to determine an accurate number.
godzilla wrote: > On Sep 13, 3:35 pm, "Rich?" <R...@nowhere.net> wrote: >> I have found a tool that gives me a rough idea of how many unique >> readers there are. It's just about the number of posters we >> regularly see posting here... 8 or so. As I check it over a longer >> period of time I'll have more accurate info.
>> Rich~~~~~~~~Sailing the Cosmic Sea~~~~~- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Hey Rich, I assert that the number of unique readers is even less than > that. In example, you're kind of unique. Some of the others -- hmm-- > not so much. lol!
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
- Douglas Adams
It still holds true that man is most uniquely human when he turns obstacles into opportunities.
>>>> That answers all the assertions and questions of the critics, avid >>>> detractors and apostates. Truly, no stone of theirs was left >>>> unturned.
>>>> However, for the new person,(HELLOOooo is there actually *even one >>>> new >>>> person* here? :-) before being influenced by the biased detractors, >>>> it might >>>> be better to actually find out what Eckankar really offers and >>>> teaches. >>>> Free Bookshttps://www.eckankar.org/FreeBook/index.html#download >>>> Buy a bookhttp://www.eckbooks.org/
>>> I suppose rarely do new people read here, but one never knows, in >>> case A.R.E. does come up if someone does a search, it's always good >>> to have some references back to Eckankar's website here, or even to >>> Marman's 'Dialogue in the Age of Criticism' site for answers to the >>> critics claims.
>> That said, I can't remember the last time someone has posted here >> saying, "Hi, I'm new to Eckankar." Nor has anyone answered my >> request to write me >> privately. The only newbie here is Jonathan.
>> I have found a tool that gives me a rough idea of how many unique >> readers >> there are. It's just about the number of posters we regularly see >> posting >> here... 8 or so. As I check it over a longer period of time I'll >> have more >> accurate info.
>> Rich~~~~~~~~Sailing the Cosmic Sea~~~~~
> Are you counting those persons who post under > more than one alias as more than one?
