Disappointment versus being hurt
Doug Marman
I've been thinking about what some people call being hurt by someone else,
and it occurs to me that quite often they really have no right to claim
that. What they really mean is that they feel disappointed and want to blame
it on someone else.
The most common example, of course, is with marriage and relationships. The
classic case is when the man cheats on his wife, the wife finds out about
it, and it all ends up in divorce. The woman, or so the old story goes,
often claims that she was hurt by her husband because he cheated on her.
Now, we can agree that she felt hurt. But that doesn't mean that he hurt
her. We also know that she was probably highly disappointed because of what
he did. She probably also felt incredibly sad about all the time and effort,
care and love she put into the relationship and that it would be ruined
because of her husband fooling around. For her, of course, it was ruined,
and for her, of course, he was the cause. But this still doesn't mean that
he hurt her.
Let me switch the story around to show what I mean. In the last year I've
heard of three or four cases where men I knew had their wives cheat on them.
In two of the cases, the wives ended up leaving them and leaving their
children behind. In one case, the wife had been cheating on and off for
years, unbeknownst to the husband. In all of these cases, the men seem like
great guys, and this seems to be supported by even the parents of the women,
who reject their own daughters' actions and came to the support of the men
and their children.
Here's the catch. Not in one case did the men claim that their wife hurt
them. They were obviously deeply disappointed and they clearly felt hurt and
very sad at the loss of what they thought was a good relationship. But,
accepting the pain and disappointment, they moved on with their life.
So, the first fact is that when it comes to relationships, they only work
when both parties want to be committed to it. It only takes one to decide
they want to leave for the relationship to end. But it takes both to make it
keep working.
The second fact is that while it might seem unfair that the other person can
just suddenly decide to leave, since this can hurt, disappoint and create a
great deal of sadness, the real fact is that it is really much more unfair
if the other person does not have the complete freedom to leave when they
feel they should. Yes, we want all people in relationships to care about the
other person enough not to want to see them suffer, but this also means that
people also need to be allowed to leave when they are suffering if they
stay. In other words, without both people wanting the relationship what kind
of relationship is it anyway?
The result is that when relationships break up that there will be pain,
suffering, disappointment and sadness for both parties - and yet this is
just what comes with the ending of relationships (unless by chance both
parties just happen to both want to leave at the same exact time.)
This doesn't mean that one person is hurting the other. It only means that
the ending of relationships hurt.
So, the question I have is: Does what I say here make sense, or is there a
flaw in what I've said?
Doug.
Brian Fletcher
Hi Doug,
I dont know if you have ever looked at numerology, but not only does is
confirm what you are saying, it demonstrates the 'pre disposition' of each
party, and the likely stages the relationship will move through.
The core is, of course, the journey to recognising the difference between
being cause and being effect.
I'm sure we are both aware of "some" of the subject matter we could bring up
in this regard, and the reasons we wouldn't.!!!
The detractors still "go off' at the little things ;-)
Isn't it wonderful to meet some who have graduated from their "effect"
stage.
I have two daughters 15 and 13 who were "taken from me" 12 years ago.
I knew the principles very well, but hadnt been actually "in the deep end"
Now that's what I call an "initiation".;-)
I love chatting to them about how they can really benefit from observing the
behavior patterns of our generation, and get a huge buzz when they let me
know that they are starting to understand.
I know of very few who I would describe as spiritually alert, who havnt been
through similar circumstances.
The last stage prior to "being soul" is to hold onto the last of the
illusions.No wonder it is referred to as "the dark night" .....
I can almost already see some of the responses from our erstwhile
"knockers" hehehehehe...
Brian
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:J0i7a.249356$SD6.12973@sccrnsc03...
Michael Basso
at some level. When that aspect has gone awry or is missing, then the person
may feel that they themselves are hurt by someone else.
There may be deep underlying "programs" that are are incomplete, such as
those described in psychodynamic or Gestalt constructs and then there are
traumatic memories that may kick in by facilitating pain or painful emotion
so that the organism may avoid a reoccurance of what is going on. It is my
opinion that aspects fo the so called "kal" force have been postulated based
on these and other mechanisms that have caused humans great misery (and
mystery) for a long, long, time !!
Therefor the significant other may just be perceived as a part of oneself
!!!
Maverick
You write:
I've been thinking about what some people call being hurt by
someone else, and it occurs to me that quite often they really
have no right to claim that. What they really mean is that they feel disappointed and want to blame it on someone else.
My reply:
The act of being hurt as a result of some supposed injury others
have inflicted on us, is a personal interpretation. The same act
may cause some to feel hurt, while others merely shrug it off.
Therefore, feeling hurt is largely a subjective expierience.
If you cheat on your wife and she says she is "feeling" hurt then
I think she has every right to feel that way. Just as you may or
may not share in her feeling with guilt feelings of your own.
In the end we all create our own personal space and our feelings
are our own problem. I do not think there is any right or wrong way
to handle situations where two people in a relationship have a falling
out and one or both develop "hurt" feelings. However, I do think
that we should strive to minimize our own hurt feelings and show
some sensitivity to the hurt we cause in others.
When I was dating I would always work out how each party could
end the relationship minimizing any potential for hurt feelings.
Sometimes it worked. Sometimes not. Some can only lash out
when they feel they have been betrayed. Others realize that the
situation is just not right and that both parties would benefit by
ending the relationship. I think a lot depends on how honest you
are with the other person right from the beginning. Honesty and
deception - that 's one of many great human dilemmas. Unfortunately,
none of us can be as honest as we would like others to be,
because there is simply too much good that comes out of being
dishonest. However, the downside is that we hurt one another,
c'est la vie,...
Anyway, as to your question. I think that disappointment
versus being hurt is a distinction without a difference. When
people are disappointed they can say rightly that they are being
"hurt". In that sense we all experience little "hurts" all the time. It's
what we call "living"...
Maverick
Joe
I don't know. I just wonder...
Imagine if someone considered leaving a committed romantic/sexual
relationship, but were told by the judge:
"Sorry, but you signed on to your partner for eternity. Therefore
your marriage cannot be annulled, even though you discovered your
partner grossly misrepresented himself to you before and after your
marriage. If you try to leave this relationship, your life will fall
apart, you will suffer untold hardships, and even after you die you'll
be consigned to the astral hells. That's your fate until that day you
see the error of your ways and return to your partner. He didn't hurt
you; you just don't understand the Law of Complete Freedom. I see for
the defense and assess a yearly fine of $130."
M
Ever considered emotional therapy Doug? You seem to be totally stuck
in your head. I mean, to split hairs over feelings? hurt=pain,
pain=hurt, whether the pain of disappointment, disillusion, or
betrayal.
I suppose you have manufactured some scenario in your mind that this
mental masturabation of yours somehow relates to the lies and deceit
of eckankar. Well, your a good soldier Doug. Soldier On. M.
bendouglass
I would hope that you don't take the below *philosophy of hurt* and
extended it beyond the examples you gave! For example I can see a
fanatical Eckist type RUNNING with your philosophy of hurt and putting
that interpretation on areas where it doesn't belong. Example: An
uncle molesting his niece over weeks or months and other family
members telling the child her HURT is only a subjective
interpretation. I really think you need to add something to your
statement to prevent the fanatics of going to far - which does happen
- even in Eckankar.
chao
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<J0i7a.249356$SD6.12973@sccrnsc03>...
Siva Ri
emotional sense, such as when we say they "make" us angry, or "cause"
of any number of emotions in us, we ourselves are the real creators of
our emotions. All of Wayne Dyers books, beginning with his first, Your
Erroneous Zones (1975), promotes this view very well with many
examples. Dyer's point is well taken - our society then (in the
Seventies) and even more today, promotes the idea that other people
pull our emotional strings, or that the weather pulls our strings, or
the way society is structured pulls our strings, or whatever.
>
I think this is easily proved in the example of unfaithfullness. If
the spouses cheating actually was the cause of pain, then the pain
would have come the minute the spouse started cheating, NOT when the
spouses partner found out about it. Obviously it is our reaction to
the news of the cheating, and not the cheating itself, that causes the
pain.
>
As for whether the word disappointment is better that the word pain, I
think is a minor semantical distinction. Whether we characterize our
reaction as disappointment or as pain, in either case we ourselves
create it.
> Doug.
Beatrice
I have to say... the curious responses seem to echo the nature of the
writers than any real response to what you write, Doug...
Which is OK, of course. Indeed, this, in essence, is the basis of what you
write. How many can see that the experience they have is their own, and
though we may experience an effect of someones actions... the experience is
our own.
What I feel you are really speaking of here is recognising control issues.
People play out subtle an not so subtle control threads to make sure
relationshipos and external connections to the world stay with certain
comfort zones.
Thus, when someone refutes that thread of control, the person feels it
beuing cut and says "I have bneen hurt by your actions". On the other hand,
when somone simply has Love for another, they give freedom to act. If the
person uses that freedom in a way that is hurtful, the person certainly
feels the loss... but the blame of "You hurt me" is not levelled.
What we really see is an ownership issue versus a freedom issue. I am free
to act in whatever way I choose, but if I have love and wisdom, I will
choose a path that offers all freedom, and which tends towards non-injury.
Simply put... If we really loves another, we allow their colours to shine.
If we then find out we don't like these "true" colours, we have the option
of leaving. If this were the basis of all our actions, life would be a lot
simpler.
Love
Michael
>
>
Doug Marman
"Maverick" <mave...@pleasant.com> wrote in message
news:Mzo7a.617$945....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
DOUG RESPONDS:
Yes, I suppose. But I wasn't meaning to just say feeling hurt, like it was
an adjective, but actually being hurt, like a verb - to hurt.
This difference becomes clearer when someone actually hurts another person,
just as Ben points out. That's what hurting someone is really like.
I guess what you're pointing out is that people may mix up feeling hurt with
being hurt by someone else. Since the same word can be used in both cases it
makes it all the more difficult for some people to see the difference.
Thanks for your response.
Doug.
Doug Marman
"bendouglass" <hereti...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7a390cd4.0302...@posting.google.com...
> Doug,
>
> I would hope that you don't take the below *philosophy of hurt* and
> extended it beyond the examples you gave! For example I can see a
> fanatical Eckist type RUNNING with your philosophy of hurt and putting
> that interpretation on areas where it doesn't belong. Example: An
> uncle molesting his niece over weeks or months and other family
> members telling the child her HURT is only a subjective
> interpretation. I really think you need to add something to your
> statement to prevent the fanatics of going to far - which does happen
> - even in Eckankar.
>
> chao
DOUG RESPONDS:
Ben, you are actually getting at exactly the point I was trying to make.
There is really a BIG difference between someone being hurt by another
person and someone just feeling hurt and blaming it on another person.
When people mix the two up it actual devalues the cases where abuse really
takes place. The key difference is that in one case a person is actually
HURTING the other person, because they are intruding on their space,
physically hurting them or forcing themselves on the other person.
You are absolutely right that just like some people mix up feeling hurt with
being hurt by someone else, because they want to blame someone - in the same
way some mix the two up to excuse their abusive behavior.
Now, I wonder what the connection is between these two types of behaviors
that both mix up the two?
Thanks.
Doug.
Doug Marman
"Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0a906c9.03022...@posting.google.com...
DOUG RESPONDS:
I like your proof that the feeling of being hurt occurs when they learn of
the cheating, not when the cheating actually occurs. That makes it pretty
clear. When someone is actually being hurt for real by someone else, that
hurt happens when they are hurt. That should also help distinguish the cases
that Ben was talking about, since in cases of sexual abuse the hurt
obviously happens at the time of abuse, not at some later time.
As for the word disappointment versus hurt, like I said to Maverick, I was
trying to use the term hurt as the verb. But I think you're right that the
word isn't really the issue I was trying to get at, but that there is a big
difference between the two that get mixed up for many people.
If we take the case one more step it gets even more interesting. For
example, what if the woman who feels she was hurt by her husband because he
cheated on her - what if she feels justified in hitting across the head with
a frying pan, or decides to intentionally take him to the cleaners through a
lawsuit, because she feels he hurt her. Isn't she in fact hurting him? Isn't
this different than what happened to her? Yet, how often do we hear
something like "he had it coming to him", or "he asked for it"?
Doug.
Doug Marman
"Brian Fletcher" <bri...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:3e5dfd4d$0$24...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
DOUG RESPONDS:
There really is a big difference being in a relationship with those who
experience their pain or disappointment without having to make it someone
else's fault. It does somehow seem like a strange dividing line that some
people simply can't see and yet others have crossed and gone beyond.
It is a strange mixing of boundaries and once people become lost in their
boundaries they seem to feel abuse is a proper response to feeling hurt.
Thanks.
Doug.
Doug Marman
"Michael Basso" <mb1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b3l420$qlh$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> People often use others to fill aspects of their own being that are
missing
> at some level. When that aspect has gone awry or is missing, then the
person
> may feel that they themselves are hurt by someone else.
>
> There may be deep underlying "programs" that are are incomplete, such as
> those described in psychodynamic or Gestalt constructs and then there are
> traumatic memories that may kick in by facilitating pain or painful
emotion
> so that the organism may avoid a reoccurance of what is going on. It is my
> opinion that aspects fo the so called "kal" force have been postulated
based
> on these and other mechanisms that have caused humans great misery (and
> mystery) for a long, long, time !!
>
> Therefor the significant other may just be perceived as a part of oneself
> !!!
DOUG RESPONDS:
I agree that KAL or the devil gets the blame quite often in cases like this.
In fact, the whole idea of evil that some people see in others seems to fall
in this same case. It is really a FEELING of evil that is within themselves,
but they can't stop seeing it in another.
It gets worse when they start imagining that they know what the other person
is thinking and then see evil in everything that other person does.
I guess we come here to work out our own personal issues by projecting them
onto our friends and enemies. It really is nice of us to do that for each
other. <G>
Doug.
Doug Marman
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ef6e483.03022...@posting.google.com...
DOUG RESPONDS:
Well, if the person is actually being forced, or they are being fined
against their will - I think that would really mean they were being harmed.
However, if they were just being told that you will never be happy with
anyone else like you were with me - well that just doesn't sound abusive to
me. It sounds more like wishful thinking.
So, according to your example, it comes down to freedom of choice, like
Michael was saying.
For example, in the case that Ben raises, the child really doesn't have a
choice. They are forced. That is what we really mean when we say someone
hurt someone else.
Doug.
Doug Marman
"Beatrice" <waf...@rubarb.com> wrote in message
news:H_w7a.57017$jM5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
DOUG RESPONDS:
Yes, I think taking responsibility for our own feelings and the whole
difference between owning another person versus granting them freedom is
part of what makes it so easy to mix these things up.
But I was thinking it shouldn't be that difficult to really tell the
difference between someone just feeling pain, hurt or disappointment, and
actually being hurt by another person. I like Siva Ri's way of
distinguishing. Real hurt comes at the moment of being hurt. Our hurt
feelings, however, come as the idea sinks home of something we feel we have
lost.
I do enjoy all the angles everyone has approached this from.
Doug.
arelurker
Doug Marman wrote:
>
> "bendouglass" <hereti...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:7a390cd4.0302...@posting.google.com...
> > Doug,
> >
> > I would hope that you don't take the below *philosophy of hurt* and
> > extended it beyond the examples you gave! For example I can see a
> > fanatical Eckist type RUNNING with your philosophy of hurt and putting
> > that interpretation on areas where it doesn't belong. Example: An
> > uncle molesting his niece over weeks or months and other family
> > members telling the child her HURT is only a subjective
> > interpretation. I really think you need to add something to your
> > statement to prevent the fanatics of going to far - which does happen
> > - even in Eckankar.
> >
> > chao
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Ben, you are actually getting at exactly the point I was trying to make.
> There is really a BIG difference between someone being hurt by another
> person and someone just feeling hurt and blaming it on another person.
>
> When people mix the two up it actual devalues the cases where abuse really
> takes place. The key difference is that in one case a person is actually
> HURTING the other person, because they are intruding on their space,
> physically hurting them or forcing themselves on the other person.
So is a spiritual teacher who garners the trust of his students and
breaches such trust by lying, it that forcing themselves on the other
person and constitute hurt?
I think a better analogy to the eckankar situation is the con artist and
the mark.
The con artist lies to the mark for material and emotional gain. Con
artist just love the excitement of putting one over on others.
Twitchell (and Harold by extension) lies to others for material and
emotional gain. They just love fashioning themselves as these high
consciousness individuals to compensate for the smallness.
The mark believes the lies of the con artist because their emotional
greed takes over. They fall for the "it sounds to good to be true"
proposition because they have some part of themselves that is lacking
and wants to compensate for that by imagining all the wonders that will
happen when what the con artist is selling comes true.
Eckists believe the lies of Paul because their spiritual greed takes
over. They fall for Paul's absolutistic and black and white rhetoric and
outright lies because they have a lack within themselves. They want to
compensate for this lack by imagining themselves being aligned with the
highest consciousness IN THE WORLD and all the other trashy spiritual
stuff Paul sold.
When a Mark finds out they have been conned, it is natural to blame the
con artist for misleading them. Many will not look at their own greed
and how that played a role. They will say the con artist hurt them badly
for gaining their confidence and breaching their trust. IN my opinion,
they are partially right. It is hurtful on the part of the con artist to
lie and mislead for material gain so the con artist has culpability.
However, the Mark has culpability too for it was their own greed that
allow the con artist to hurt them. So for the mark to say the con artist
hurt them and to deny their part is partially correct and further sets
themselves up to be conned again by someone else. For the con artist (or
his apologist) to suggest that they Mark is exclusively responsible for
his/her hurt because hurt is a matter of interpretation on the part of
the Mark and to support the notion that the con artist did not hurt the
mark, is partially correct and amounts to adding insult to injury.
The comparisons to eckankar and paul are obvious so I won't expound to
much here.
The question boils down to: Does lying to students in the way Paul lied
to student constitute hurting them? Is that invasive? Is that getting
into people's space? Given the circumstances I'd say yes. Why? People
can only be responsible for their decisions and interpretations and
emotions when it is based upon the truth. When it is based upon lies
they are fed, then some of the students responsibility is taken from
them by the liar, Paul.
Is the student who realizes this who blames Paul for feeling hurt and
betrayed right to express such say Paul hurt them? Partially. Yes they
are right in saying Paul's lying hurt them, but if they do so in a
manner in which they take no responsibility for their gullibility in
believing, then they are partially right and are misusing the language.
Where the Doug's marriage analogy fails in reflecting some of the finer
aspects of the eckankar situation is where people leave eckankar and
come to terms with their own responsibility for feeling hurt and
delineate Paul or Harold's responsibility.... and go on to warn others
how they have been, and are being, lied to. And in the course of such
warnings, they explain how Paul hurt people with his lying and how
students set themselves up to be hurt by having something inside that
wants to believe such bullshit, then this is accurate use of language in
my opinion. Warning others about the hurtful lying of Paul doesn't mean
the person has not moved on and all the other junk Doug tries to portray
in his analogy.
People who warn others about the con in the neighborhood are doing the
civic duty, a public service whether they have come to terms with their
own part in the con or not.
A misuse of language is to use perceptional mechanics and semantics to
keep the con from sharing responsibility by semantically making them
exempt from hurting people which is what I percieve Doug is doing.
In order for your apologetics to work Doug, you have to convince people
that conning or lying to students is not hurting people. Good luck with
that argument.
Or, you have to convince others that Paul did not lie. Thus your trashy
book, which, to me is a con on top of a con.
You started this thread promising the subject matter would be
controversial....well, it is. Not because you have shed any new light on
the subject of how people's interpretations cause hurt emotions and how
they are responsible, yadda, yadda... but the controversy is to see the
lengths you go to make hurtful lying on the part of Paul and Harold
okay.
Now that is controversial....because it is sick.
Lurk
Joe
The example I gave didn't feature someone "just being told they will
never be happy with anyone else" -- it featured someone being told
that if they leave the relationship for any reason, their lives will
fall apart, they will suffer "untold hardships," and they will go to
hell, perhaps for eons, until they surrender to the person they left.
>
> For example, in the case that Ben raises, the child really doesn't have a
> choice. They are forced. That is what we really mean when we say someone
> hurt someone else.
We?
cher
Oh my...... is this the worst thing that's ever happened to you, joe?
Perhaps you simply have no real life experiences with which to measure
these sorts of things? People with no viable priorities sure do have a
difficult time with reality issues.
Ken
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > Well, if the person is actually being forced, or they are being fined
> > against their will - I think that would really mean they were being harmed.
> >
> > However, if they were just being told that you will never be happy with
> > anyone else like you were with me - well that just doesn't sound abusive to
> > me. It sounds more like wishful thinking.
> >
> > So, according to your example, it comes down to freedom of choice, like
> > Michael was saying.
>
> The example I gave didn't feature someone "just being told they will
> never be happy with anyone else" -- it featured someone being told
> that if they leave the relationship for any reason, their lives will
> fall apart, they will suffer "untold hardships," and they will go to
> hell, perhaps for eons, until they surrender to the person they left.
That's pretty much the same thing, isn't it?
Sharon2000
> I thought I'd start a new thread. Hopefully it is controversial as well.
>
> I've been thinking about what some people call being hurt by someone
> else, and it occurs to me that quite often they really have no right to
> claim that. What they really mean is that they feel disappointed and want
> to blame it on someone else.
>
What the F*** are you talking about here?
> The most common example, of course, is with marriage and relationships.
> The classic case is when the man cheats on his wife, the wife finds out
> about it, and it all ends up in divorce. The woman, or so the old story
> goes, often claims that she was hurt by her husband because he cheated on
> her.
>
Hmmmmm...I get it. The *faithful* partner in a marriage is supposed to
jump for joy when they get rid of the philandering spouse. I agree! <ggg>
Where do Maybury's Laws fit in here, Doug?
> Now, we can agree that she felt hurt. But that doesn't mean that he hurt
> her. We also know that she was probably highly disappointed because of
> what he did. She probably also felt incredibly sad about all the time and
> effort, care and love she put into the relationship and that it would be
> ruined because of her husband fooling around. For her, of course, it was
> ruined, and for her, of course, he was the cause. But this still doesn't
> mean that he hurt her.
>
You're an asshole, Doug. Really.
But...I agree sort of. Since Harold made it quite clear that their divorce
was because #1 wasn't able to deal with his masterly power flows, I'm sure
his wife was very happy that he was screwing his secretary even *before*
the divorce.
And how about Doug Kunin? There's another one who was getting a little on
the side before the divorce, from Klemp's "personal assistant" or whatever
title she had.
> Let me switch the story around to show what I mean. In the last year I've
> heard of three or four cases where men I knew had their wives cheat on
> them. In two of the cases, the wives ended up leaving them and leaving
> their children behind. In one case, the wife had been cheating on and off
> for years, unbeknownst to the husband. In all of these cases, the men
> seem like great guys, and this seems to be supported by even the parents
> of the women, who reject their own daughters' actions and came to the
> support of the men and their children.
>
Yeah, some of my best friends over the years have been men whose wives left
them, and had been screwing around. I don't think a female who deserts her
children deserves to be called a "woman" or even a "mother". Would you
believe, I even know of one example where after the wife took off to go
hunting magic crystals in the Arizona desert with her new-age-guru-type
lover, leaving her husband with 1.5 & 5 yr. olds, had the balls to ask if
she & loverboy could move back in & be one happy family!! Puh-leeze!!!
> Here's the catch. Not in one case did the men claim that their wife hurt
> them. They were obviously deeply disappointed and they clearly felt hurt
> and very sad at the loss of what they thought was a good relationship.
> But, accepting the pain and disappointment, they moved on with their
> life.
>
Fer crissakes, Doug, you know damn well that men don't talk about their
feelings the way women do. It's sort of like asking for directions.
They'll talk about it to close friends who they trust, though. The men who
don't talk to *you* about their hurt are the ones who've cried on my
shoulder.
> So, the first fact is that when it comes to relationships, they only work
> when both parties want to be committed to it. It only takes one to decide
> they want to leave for the relationship to end. But it takes both to make
> it keep working.
>
Maybury's laws, Doug. Sorry, but even *before* I joined the cult - in
fact, it was when I was 19 and faced with a typical married boss that I had
the sense to realize hey, if a guy has a marriage problem it's best to stay
away from it...FAR away from it...let them work it out between themselves &
divorce or whatever, and when the guy's been free for awhile (like a year),
then see what happens. If they cheat on Wife #1, it's very likely they'll
cheat on Wife #2. Women can be just as "piggy" as men, but my personal
feeling is that if I were married, I wouldn't want my husband screwing
around, therefore, I respect my "sisters" and their "property rights" or
whatever, and don't screw anyone's husband. Well, maybe there were one or
two sleazy one-or-two-nighters with married men but it was with "serial
philanderers" and there was none of that "relationship" bullshit, and it
was before AIDS. <ggg>
So...I guess with the Klemps and Kunins ... gee, who didn't want it to
"work" anymore? Was it the husbands who didn't want to work at it anymore,
or the wives? Were Klemp & Kunin justified in breaking their vows &
getting a little at the office?
And gee...what about Nathan? <giggle>
> The second fact is that while it might seem unfair that the other person
> can just suddenly decide to leave, since this can hurt, disappoint and
> create a great deal of sadness, the real fact is that it is really much
> more unfair if the other person does not have the complete freedom to
> leave when they feel they should. Yes, we want all people in
> relationships to care about the other person enough not to want to see
> them suffer, but this also means that people also need to be allowed to
> leave when they are suffering if they stay. In other words, without both
> people wanting the relationship what kind of relationship is it anyway?
>
And...what about the children? Why don't parents at least consider the
needs of the innocent children, and put aside their personal desires & work
out a nice friendly agreement and at least give their kids what they
deserve, a good family life with both parents focused on something other
than their own selfish personal desires and raging hormones? What about
self-discipline and self-control?
What about Maybury's Laws, and their marriage vows?
> The result is that when relationships break up that there will be pain,
> suffering, disappointment and sadness for both parties - and yet this is
> just what comes with the ending of relationships (unless by chance both
> parties just happen to both want to leave at the same exact time.)
>
> This doesn't mean that one person is hurting the other. It only means
> that the ending of relationships hurt.
>
> So, the question I have is: Does what I say here make sense, or is there
> a flaw in what I've said?
>
Now, I (and many others) see quite clearly what you're trying to do, but
believe me, this is not at all relevant to your phony deceptive cult and
the issues involved in why people leave. You just don't get it.
However, I find it amusing that you're equating marital infidelity with
Twitch's original con job, and Klemp's trying to cover it up & rationalize
the whole thing for his own personal gain.
Why don't you expound a little on why Maybury's Laws don't apply to the
marital relationship, especially with "Living ECK Masters" and "High
Initiates"?
Sharon
--
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ECKANKAR, SEE:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/links
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/files
Sam
Dr. Phil addressed this issue from both the man's and woman's perspective
last week.
My view is that cheating on a committed partner of marriage is dead wrong,
PERIOD.
If you have a concience, you just don't do it, PERIOD.
If I were married with children, I wouldn't dream of doing anything to
jeapordize my wife and kids.
Sam
Sharon2000 wrote in message <20030228181810.277$2...@newsreader.com>...
cher
Sam
cher wrote in message <3E600A3A...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Have you ever been married?
>
No. She's still out there looking for me.
Joe
If an eckist is saying so, then yes, I suppose it is to some folks, isn't it?
M
> "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > The most common example, of course, is with marriage and relationships.
> > The classic case is when the man cheats on his wife, the wife finds out
> > about it, and it all ends up in divorce. The woman, or so the old story
> > goes, often claims that she was hurt by her husband because he cheated on
> > her.
> >
>
> Hmmmmm...I get it. The *faithful* partner in a marriage is supposed to
> jump for joy when they get rid of the philandering spouse. I agree! <ggg>
>
> Where do Maybury's Laws fit in here, Doug?
>
>
>
>
> > Now, we can agree that she felt hurt. But that doesn't mean that he hurt
> > her. We also know that she was probably highly disappointed because of
> > what he did. She probably also felt incredibly sad about all the time and
> > effort, care and love she put into the relationship and that it would be
> > ruined because of her husband fooling around. For her, of course, it was
> > ruined, and for her, of course, he was the cause. But this still doesn't
> > mean that he hurt her.
> >
>
> You're an asshole, Doug. Really.
No, REALLY! Good god, is this guy married? Shall we get his wife's
opinion of this newage splitting of hairs over disappointment and
hurt? What's he going to say next, "stick & stones will hurt my bones,
but words will never hurt me?" This guys an emotional retard. Does he
not know the statistics of suicide and homicide behind acts like
infidelity? Untold harm. Untold HURT.
>
> But...I agree sort of. Since Harold made it quite clear that their divorce
> was because #1 wasn't able to deal with his masterly power flows, I'm sure
> his wife was very happy that he was screwing his secretary even *before*
> the divorce.
>
> And how about Doug Kunin? There's another one who was getting a little on
> the side before the divorce, from Klemp's "personal assistant" or whatever
> title she had.
No big surprise. It's traditional behavior with eckankar leaders.
While Paul was servicing the Cult Cutie Anya, his wife Gail was
'breaking in' the new LEM, Darwin. I guess anybody capable of
repackaging someone else's work and selling it with his name on it is
certainly capable of screwing someone else's wife. How about you Doug?
Any woman ever fuck around on you? Did it hurt or were you 'just'
disappointed? M
cher
>
> cher wrote in message <3E600A3A...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >Have you ever been married?
> >
>
> No. She's still out there looking for me.
Won't she be pleased when she finds you! <smile>
cheryl......
cher
So tell me.... you two still carrying a grudge because the pumpkin
didn't stop for you? The shoe didn't fit? The mice ran away? <grin>
cher
a Steinbeck novel. <shudder>
Sharon2000 wrote:
> The men who
> don't talk to *you* about their hurt are the ones who've cried on my
> shoulder.
>
> Sharon
Sharon2000
> FWIW:
> Dr. Phil addressed this issue from both the man's and woman's perspective
> last week.
> My view is that cheating on a committed partner of marriage is dead
> wrong, PERIOD.
>
> If you have a concience, you just don't do it, PERIOD.
>
> If I were married with children, I wouldn't dream of doing anything to
> jeapordize my wife and kids.
>
> Sam
Hey, Sam, I think you're a pitiful excuse for a human being at times, and
just very goddam horny & desperate and that's perhaps what's led you to
being such a pitiful eckbutt-kissing suck-up, but the following joke
reminded me of you and your upbringing, and I just *loved* it!!
>>Subject: The Duck Hunter
>>
>>
>>
>> A big city lawyer went duck hunting in rural Saskatchewan. He shot
>>And
>> dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other
>>side of a
>> fence. As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer
>>drove up
>> on his tractor and asked him what he was doing.
>> The litigator responded,
>> "I shot a duck and it fell in this field, and
>> now I'm going to retrieve it."
>> The old farmer replied,
>> "This is my property, and you are not coming over here."
>> The indignant lawyer said,
>> "I am one of the best trial Attorneys in Canada and, if you don't
>>let
>> me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything you own.
>> The old farmer smiled and said,
>> "Apparently, you don't know how we settle disputes in
>>Saskatchewan. We settle small disagreements like this with the
>> Saskatchewan Three Kick Rule."
>> The lawyer asked,
>> "What is the Saskatchewan Three Kick Rule?"
>> The Farmer replied,
>> "Well, because the dispute occurs on my land, first I
>> kick you three times and then you kick me three times and
>> so on back and forth until someone gives up."
>> The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and
>> decided that he could easily take the old codger.
>> He agreed to abide by the local custom.
>> The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked
>> up to the attorney.
>> His first kick planted the toe of his heavy steel toed work boot
>>into
>> the lawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees.
>> His second kick to the midriff sent the lawyer's last meal
>> gushing from his mouth.
>> The lawyer was on all fours when the farmer's third kick to his
>>rear end
>> sent him face-first into a fresh cowpie.
>>
>> The lawyer summoned every bit of his will
>> and managed to get to his feet.
>> Wiping his face with the arm of his jacket, he said,
>> "Okay, you old coot. Now it's my turn."
>>
>> The old farmer smiled and said,
>> "Naw, I give up. You can have the duck."
<giggle>
Sam, I'd like to share one little bit of wisdom with which I raised my son,
and also tried to indoctrinate his horny little pubescent friends with -
"That's why God gave you a hand." Sorry to insult you, but my impression
of you is that you're the kind of guy that some money-grubbing worthless
piece of shit bimbo is likely to latch onto...so perhaps you should thank
"Whatever" that you're still single, horny & frustrated.
My father died in September, good riddance, he was a *nasty* s.o.b. and
there are times when here on earth, the stupid new-agey "beliefs" about
"souls" being "good" or whatever are total irrelevant bullshit, but the man
*did* make damn good sauerkraut - the only sauerkraut my system could
tolerate. I'll miss the sauerkraut.
So, Sam, is there a real "you"? Or are "you" the product of whoever you
happen to be reading or watching on TV at the moment? I don't think
you've said it lately, but if you posted "The Main Thing" one more time I
think I would have puked!! Get real, fer crissakes!!!!
Sam
Sharon2000 wrote in message <20030228231511.571$3...@newsreader.com>...
>
>So, Sam, is there a real "you"?
Yes, of course there is, Sharon.
I AM Sam.
What else do need to know?
Love
Sam
Sam
WELL, WELL, WELL....
Look into the mirror, Sharon.
Sam
cher wrote in message <3E6025D6...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Sam wrote:
>>
>> cher wrote in message <3E600A3A...@worldnet.att.net>...
>> >Have you ever been married?
>> >
>>
>> No. She's still out there looking for me.
>
>Won't she be pleased when she finds you! <smile>
>
>cheryl......
Oh Yeah!
cher
Sharon2000 wrote:
> My father died in September, good riddance, he was a *nasty* s.o.b. and
> there are times when here on earth, the stupid new-agey "beliefs" about
> "souls" being "good" or whatever are total irrelevant bullshit, but the man
> *did* make damn good sauerkraut - the only sauerkraut my system could
> tolerate. I'll miss the sauerkraut.
> Sharon
Al Radzik
It's gotta be a typo!
Alf
PS: Yeah, that WAS good sauerkraut, honeybuns! Remember that June night under the
stars we ate by candlelight next to the rushing river leading to Bushkill? We we
eating pierogis, potato pancakes and your Dad's sauerkraut? It was like a scene
from "Tom Jones" as we lustily ravaged the food and exchanged looks of love and
endearment. Me in my teal blue Speedos and you dressed as Baby Schnooks with a
pair of handcuffs dangling from your sash. Oh what a night!!
The buttered yak tea was splendid too.
We gazed into each others eyes and just as we were about to embrace, an owl off
in the distance went...HUUUUU!!!
(or was it HOOOOOOO?)
Sam
Al Radzik wrote in message <3E615762...@rcn.com>...
>No, it can't be!!! A trace of compassion from cher??
>It's gotta be a typo!
>
>Alf
>
I have taken on everybody here. You're next.
Here's what I want you to answer for me:
When you cut your arm, does it bleed?
LOVE
SAM
Al Radzik
When you shit, does it stink?
Alfie
Sam wrote:
> Al Radzik wrote in message <3E615762...@rcn.com>...
> >No, it can't be!!! A trace of compassion from cher??
> >It's gotta be a typo!
> >
> >Alf
> >
> Hi Alfie:
> I have taken on everybody here. You're next.
I lke this. Take me on?<GG>
Really now, what could you possibly do...beat the crap out of me with
your empty words?? Call my mother?
You're one of these fools who believe in Eckahcah. It's been debunked.
You just haven't found out yet.
Now take the leisure suit off and engage that brain of yours for once.
In the end, All your newage babble is just another way for you pick up
some pussy like Steve Brown.
Over and out
cher
>
> Of course Sam.
> When you shit, does it stink?
>
> Alfie
>
> Sam wrote:
>
> > Al Radzik wrote in message <3E615762...@rcn.com>...
> > >No, it can't be!!! A trace of compassion from cher??
> > >It's gotta be a typo!
> > >
> > >Alf
> > >
> > Hi Alfie:
> > I have taken on everybody here. You're next.
>
> I lke this. Take me on?<GG>
> Really now, what could you possibly do...beat the crap out of me with
> your empty words?? Call my mother?
> You're one of these fools who believe in Eckahcah. It's been debunked.
> You just haven't found out yet.
> Now take the leisure suit off and engage that brain of yours for once.
> In the end, All your newage babble is just another way for you pick up
> some pussy like Steve Brown.
> Over and out
Gee.... and all you can pick up is sharon. <grin> Go fig... hey? <lol>
Doug Marman
"Sam" <S...@churchofa.r.e.net> wrote in message
news:DWS7a.6450$Wy1....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> FWIW:
> Dr. Phil addressed this issue from both the man's and woman's perspective
> last week.
> My view is that cheating on a committed partner of marriage is dead wrong,
> PERIOD.
>
> If you have a concience, you just don't do it, PERIOD.
>
> If I were married with children, I wouldn't dream of doing anything to
> jeapordize my wife and kids.
>
> Sam
DOUG RESPONDS:
Sam, I think this is pretty much an easy thing to agree with. Obviously I
wasn't trying to address this with my post. But since you bring this up, I
think it does raise an interesting question.
In some cultures having affairs outside of marriage is not considered dead
wrong. I think in our culture it is very hard to accept that this could be
true. We really don't like to accept that this concept is a cultural one.
However, even in our culture, I think there are cases where both men and
women cheat for reasons even they don't understand. If we take the case of a
man, for example, who was married to a relative of mine. Everyone in my
family roundly attacked him when he asked for a divorce and it later turned
out that he had been having affairs for years. However, when I spoke to him
about it, he admitted that he felt as if he was suffocating and it was only
the affairs that allowed him to keep the marriage going as long as he did.
He finally realized he needed to leave the relationship, as much as he cared
for his wife and liked having a family with his children.
When I come down to it, I think what is most important in all of these
things is that we are Conscious about what we are choosing and why. To be
unknowing effect of subconscious drives is like a crime against Soul, and
they will almost always end in trouble, since we aren't really choosing at
all.
We are of course made up of animal instincts and desires, but we can at
least be conscious of these and choose consciously.
The problem I have with comments like Dr. Phil's is that it never gets to
the real issue, but stops at good and bad based on cultural issues. This,
too, is often an unconscious defense mechanism, rather than learning to be
conscious and choose consciously.
Doug.
Sam
Doug Marman wrote in message ...
In the interview with Dr. Phil, one man admitted that while he was cheating
on his wife, he never really thought about what the consequences of his
action would be. So I think consideration of the consequences for all
concerned is what the issue is about.
So perhaps in this instance it was a matter of becoming more mature. I'm
certainly no expert on this, so I'm merely going by my gut instincts about
relationships and what I might do if I were in a frustrating marriage. I
feel my conscience simply wouldn't allow myself to cheat on my partner. I
realize though that my view is based on the model of marriage of my parents,
and others may not share those ideals.
Sam
M
Are you cheating on your wife? Are you taking a page out of the
Paul/Darwin/Harold book of Marriage and Family?
What you write is so narcisistic and self-indulgent it makes me sick.
Did your "relative" ever consider being honest with himself? How about
him and his partner seeking outside help instead of living a lie? Why
is it so many eckists feel perfectly comfortable living a lie?? What
is that??? What if I "choose consciously" to wring somebody's neck.
Would that be enlightend beyond silly cultural ideas about good and
bad too? And let's not even talk about the effect on the kids. They're
just "choices" afterall. M.
Doug Marman
From Siva Ri's great observation, we can help distinguish the pain caused by
a person's own internalized feelings and real hurt caused by others. It's
easy for these to be confused, but as Siva Ri pointed out, if it is really
being caused by another person, then the pain should be felt at the moment
it is done, not after the thought of it sinks in. What is really nice about
Siva Ri's approach is that it does not depend upon intentions, which are
almost always impossible to determine, but is based on what hurt is caused
by others and what is internalized.
Also, from Ben we learned that abusers can try to mix up the difference
between real hurt caused by others and internalized pain. They can use this
to justify that the pain caused by their abuse is not really caused by them.
So, it is important for us to be able to distinguish the difference.
To these two principles, I would like to add the one I just mentioned in my
post responding to Sam: That it is important for us to be conscious of what
is affecting us and where it is coming from. By taking responsibility for
our choices, we return to ourselves our ability to consciously choose our
attitudes and what we say or do. Therefore, it is important for us to see
the difference between pain caused by our own internal reactions and real
hurt caused by others.
Now, based on these three principles, I'd like to take a closer look at
Lurk's recent response to my post:
> LURK WROTE:
> So is a spiritual teacher who garners the trust of his students and
> breaches such trust by lying, it that forcing themselves on the other
> person and constitute hurt?
DOUG RESPONDS:
We can easily answer this by using Siva Ri's test. When did this feeling of
hurt occur? Is it at the moment when the teacher says something, or later
when the person comes to believe their trust has been breached?
This is a great test, since it doesn't matter whether what was said was
actually a lie or not (which is a good thing since there is quite a bit of
disagreement over this) and it doesn't matter what the intention was (since
there is even more disagreement over this).
If we take the cases raised against Paul, for example, we find that all of
what Paul said or wrote happened long before any "pain" was felt by those
who claim they were hurt by Paul. In fact, in pretty much all the cases I've
heard of, Paul wrote or said them before these people were even studying his
teachings. Therefore they clearly did not feel their pain at the moment Paul
did or said what now bothers them.
This shows, as Siva Ri pointed out, that the pain did not come from what
Paul said or wrote, but from the internal reactions of people and how they
chose to take it.
> LURK CONTINUED:
> I think a better analogy to the eckankar situation is the con artist and
> the mark.
>
> The con artist lies to the mark for material and emotional gain. Con
> artist just love the excitement of putting one over on others.
>
> Twitchell (and Harold by extension) lies to others for material and
> emotional gain. They just love fashioning themselves as these high
> consciousness individuals to compensate for the smallness.
>
> The mark believes the lies of the con artist because their emotional
> greed takes over. They fall for the "it sounds to good to be true"
> proposition because they have some part of themselves that is lacking
> and wants to compensate for that by imagining all the wonders that will
> happen when what the con artist is selling comes true.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Going back to Siva Ri's principle, the actual harm caused when someone is
conned is the actual money stolen. That's the part that is missing from this
example by Lurk. There is no money stolen by Paul or Harold. The rest of
Lurk's story is just an example of how people can mix up real harm caused by
others and the feelings of pain we feel within ourselves.
This, of course, doesn't mean that these feelings of pain are not real. We
all know what these feel like, but it is not the feeling of being conned
that justifies us calling it a con. It must actually mean harm caused by
actually stealing, which happens at the moment of the theft.
It is obvious that people who do not believe in religion make claims like
this one, that all religion is a rip off and a con. That's obviously the
same mistake being made here, since there is no theft in religion (in
general) but what they are talking about is the feelings that a person can
feel when they realize that they believed in something that they now no
longer believe in. If they choose to do so, they can blame those who led
them into believing in religion in the first place, as if it was someone
else's choice rather than their own to choose.
Going back to the third principle, above, there is actually harm that we do
to our own Soul when we talking ourselves into believing that what we
believe is caused by someone else. It is our choice and we should always be
choosing it consciously. Then, if we change our mind, we should also change
it consciously. We make our own choices and we live with our choices, and to
try blaming others for the results of our choices means we have not yet
taken responsibility for our own choices.
> LURK CONTINUES:
> Eckists believe the lies of Paul because their spiritual greed takes
> over. They fall for Paul's absolutistic and black and white rhetoric and
> outright lies because they have a lack within themselves. They want to
> compensate for this lack by imagining themselves being aligned with the
> highest consciousness IN THE WORLD and all the other trashy spiritual
> stuff Paul sold.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Obviously, Lurk is just spouting what he would like to believe, and is
obviously not representing how ECKists feel about it. He is suggesting that
they do not know the real reason why they believe in Paul's teaching, but he
does know.
Back to principle number three, it is clear that we should know. It is
important to know our real reasons, because if we don't how can we make
conscious choices?
But of course this also means that we must decide for ourselves what our
reasons are, not the pronoucements of Lurk. So, this is merely a baseless
and meaningless remark by Lurk, since only each person can speak for
themselves what their reasons are. This is a part of what it means to
consciously know and to consciously choose.
> LURK CONTINUED:
> When a Mark finds out they have been conned, it is natural to blame the
> con artist for misleading them. Many will not look at their own greed
> and how that played a role. They will say the con artist hurt them badly
> for gaining their confidence and breaching their trust. IN my opinion,
> they are partially right. It is hurtful on the part of the con artist to
> lie and mislead for material gain so the con artist has culpability.
> However, the Mark has culpability too for it was their own greed that
> allow the con artist to hurt them. So for the mark to say the con artist
> hurt them and to deny their part is partially correct and further sets
> themselves up to be conned again by someone else. For the con artist (or
> his apologist) to suggest that they Mark is exclusively responsible for
> his/her hurt because hurt is a matter of interpretation on the part of
> the Mark and to support the notion that the con artist did not hurt the
> mark, is partially correct and amounts to adding insult to injury.
>
> The comparisons to eckankar and paul are obvious so I won't expound to
> much here.
DOUG RESPONDS:
The problem, once again, with Lurk's analogy is that he is talking only
about the internalized pain and internalized hurt of being conned. There
really is no theft or crime with religion or what Paul or Harold have
written or said. If so, we could use Siva Ri's test and we would see that
the harm was actually caused at the moment of the theft. Since Paul died
before the dissenters even began studying his teachings, it is clear that no
harm was done at the moment of what Paul wrote or taught. Therefore, there
was no harm caused by what he said.
Where pain comes in is when we choose to believe something and then feel
disappointment when what we believed no longer seems true. It is the same
with relationships: We feel pain when the relationship breaks up - no matter
what may have caused it, there will still be pain due to the loss. This is a
very real feeling and one that we all try to avoid causing others to go
through, but we cannot control what others will experience.
This whole issue becomes even more obvious when I think back to the reasons
that the dissenters on ARE have shared for leaving ECKANKAR. Of all the
people who have shared, I can only think of one who did so because he felt
lied to about plagiarism or the other so-called lies. He truly seemed
sincerely upset by his feeling of broken trust. He also admitted that
through his own childhood where he suffered real pain at the hands of his
parents and how this also led to feelings of lost trust. So, it was clear
that for him the feeling of lost trust brought back for him memories of real
pain and suffering caused by real abuse. This is what made it so difficult
for him to go through this feeling again.
However, this also shows us, once again, how important it is for us to be
conscious of our choices and conscious of what is influencing us or
affecting us. Yet, while I've only heard of this one case, I've heard of
dozens where people claim they are upset after they decide to leave and then
find out about Paul's plagiarism or other so-called lies that get thrown
around. The pain they feel is clearly something going on within themselves.
Many even knew about the plagiarism before they left, but now feel that it
was because they were being "conned" that they didn't realize what it really
meant. This is all internalized pain, and not pain caused by Paul or Harold.
This is why ECKists don't agree with the "con" analogy, since they still do
believe in Paul or Harold's teaching. Therefore, for them, they don't see
any intent to con or any theft or crime. This just shows us further that it
is not harm caused by Paul or Harold.
> LURK CONTINUED:
> The question boils down to: Does lying to students in the way Paul lied
> to student constitute hurting them? Is that invasive? Is that getting
> into people's space? Given the circumstances I'd say yes. Why? People
> can only be responsible for their decisions and interpretations and
> emotions when it is based upon the truth. When it is based upon lies
> they are fed, then some of the students responsibility is taken from
> them by the liar, Paul.
>
> Is the student who realizes this who blames Paul for feeling hurt and
> betrayed right to express such say Paul hurt them? Partially. Yes they
> are right in saying Paul's lying hurt them, but if they do so in a
> manner in which they take no responsibility for their gullibility in
> believing, then they are partially right and are misusing the language.
DOUG RESPONDS:
It is nice of Lurk to say that part of the responsibility belongs to the
student, but in fact their choice to believe is all their responsbility.
This is even clearer when we see that Paul and Harold have both made it
clear that no one should become an initiate in ECKANKAR without first
studying for two years.
Why?
So that the student knows what they are getting into and is sure this is
what they want to do. This is to give them time so that they can make a
conscious choice. That's the whole basis of the teaching. If you aren't
making conscious choices, then you are bringing harm to your own self.
It is quite obvious to me, and most ECKists, that Paul taught out of his
care for students, not because he wanted to swindle them. This whole concept
of Paul intentionally trying to defraud others is bogus, as far as I'm
concerned. There simply is nothing to even come close to proving it. It is
all based on internalized hurt.
But thankfully with Siva Ri's test, we no longer have to even worry about
intentions or even whether they were lies. All that matters to determine who
is the cause of the harm is to look at when the actually harm is felt. Since
these students who feel hurt by Paul feel this way long after he died, how
could he have caused them harm? In fact, it was their own unconscious
choices that cause harm, as well as feelings of disappointment, and feelings
of loss when they no longer believe what they believed for many years.
> LURK WROTE:
> Where the Doug's marriage analogy fails in reflecting some of the finer
> aspects of the eckankar situation is where people leave eckankar and
> come to terms with their own responsibility for feeling hurt and
> delineate Paul or Harold's responsibility.... and go on to warn others
> how they have been, and are being, lied to. And in the course of such
> warnings, they explain how Paul hurt people with his lying and how
> students set themselves up to be hurt by having something inside that
> wants to believe such bullshit, then this is accurate use of language in
> my opinion. Warning others about the hurtful lying of Paul doesn't mean
> the person has not moved on and all the other junk Doug tries to portray
> in his analogy.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Lurk couldn't be more wrong on this point if he tried. What Lurk is
describing is exactly what often happens in cases of failed relationships.
It is common to see one party acting as if the other party harmed them, how
they turned out to be far from what they thought they were, which means they
were lied to. And of course feeling anger and feeling hurt they then feel
justified in telling others about how bad their ex-partner was.
In fact, if we study this closely we see that this falls squarely onto Ben's
principle - that abusers will mix up the cause of harm to justify their own
abusive behavior. So, we hear rapists claiming that the woman was asking for
it by wearing a dress or putting make-up on. They justify in their own minds
that they did not really cause them harm, when they clearly did.
When a ex turns on their previous partner like this, it is clearly abusive,
unless of course they were literally abused. Not just feeling pain for a
failed relationship, but real harm caused at the moment it was done.
We have no case for real harm caused by Paul or Harold, because all these
people complaining were students for many years before deciding to leave.
After they decide to leave, they feel the pain. This shows that this is an
internal matter, and one that is their own responsibility. We all must take
responsibility for our feelings of hurt when a relationship falls apart. It
is the same situation here.
> LURK CONTINUED:
> People who warn others about the con in the neighborhood are doing the
> civic duty, a public service whether they have come to terms with their
> own part in the con or not.
>
> A misuse of language is to use perceptional mechanics and semantics to
> keep the con from sharing responsibility by semantically making them
> exempt from hurting people which is what I percieve Doug is doing.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Lurk's example only works when there was a real con or real abuse - not just
internalized feelings of pain or hurt.
However, if we want to take Lurk's case and make it even more obvious - we
know that some people have been sent to prison when they were innocent. DNA
tests have been proving the innocence of people on death row. What if
someone is wrongly accused, and then treated like criminals even after
released from prison. How will the people feel when they find out that they
were innocent? Will they apologize? Will they accept the harm they caused to
the other person? Or will they continue to imagine they are really guilty to
avoid the realization that they are now the abuser?
The problem I'm getting at is that when no real abuse or con has occurred
that Lurk's suggestion is clearly and obviously a form of justified abuse in
itself. To label someone a criminal when no crime has been proven is against
everything we call justice in this country. This is exactly whey we say a
person is innocent until proven guilty. Neither Paul or Harold have been
proven guilty of any crime. Not even close. Yet Lurk wants to hang up
posters and floud ARE with posts treating them like they were criminals.
I say this borders on abuse, but it certainly does show us that we need to
clear of our own conscious choices and to become conscious of what really is
affecting us and why.
> LURK CONTINUED:
> In order for your apologetics to work Doug, you have to convince people
> that conning or lying to students is not hurting people. Good luck with
> that argument.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I think that was just shown above. However, I think before I would have to
prove such a thing, Lurk would have to prove that harm was actually felt at
the time of the so-called crime. Since Paul died before he even started
studying Paul's teachings, I'd say Lurk hasn't got a chance to prove his
point.
Never mind the fact that Lurk has not proven that there was no intent to con
or intent to defraud anyone.
Well, that should stir up the discussion a little. <G>
Doug.
arelurker
What a leap that is.
But it does. The point at which Twitchell lied to people is the point
where Paul encroached upon a students ability to make an informed
decision and broke the trust he demanded of them and they gave. Thus the
student makes a decision on poor information. The act of abusing one's
trust is hurtful action. People like Twitchell abuse themselves by lying
to themselves and naturally extend this hurt to others. At the point
Twitchell chose to lie to his students is the point where he chose to
extend his self dishonesty to others. This is hurtful action. That it
took student many years to find this out and there is a lot of time in
between the hurtful act and the hurtful response on the part of the
student doesn't mean we can't say Twictchell was hurtful towards his
students. Yes the student is responsible for their emotional response
upon finding out about Twictchell's hurtful actions. They can go numb
and rationalize, they can feel betrayed and hurt, they can feel hurt and
conjure up all the other emotional times in their life they felt betrayed
and hurt, or perhaps they are in a position where have little sense of
themselves with no personal boundaries. Someone lying to them does not
bother them because they do not know how to feel hurt about someone
transgressing boundaries that do not exist, and therefore do not stand up
for themselves; their dependency skews their perceptions and allows them
to be a doormat. Another possible response is they could feel intense
hurt and forgive the hurtful actions of Paul...(of course this is hard
to do when the current master perpetuates Paul's hurtful actions).
Just as the wife makes decision on poor information when the husband
boinks another. The person who cheats is breaking an agreement the two
had and is not telling the other. At the point this happens, the person
being cheated on is not given information about the new status of her
husband breaking such an agreement and goes about life doing all the
thing she would normally do based upon the monogamous commitment. The
act of breaking the marriage agreement is hurtful action. That the hurt
is not experienced by the person immediately because they don't know
about, or there is many years delay doesn't meant the hurtful act is not
a hurtful act. The wife is responsible for her emotions reaction when
this hurtful act is revealed to her. She could go numb and rationalize
it. She could feel hurt and betrayed (an appropriate response to hurtful
and betraying actions on the part of her husband). She could be a person
with little sense of personal boundaries and actually stay in the
relationship and become a doormat and choose her dependency over
asserting herself (happens all the time).
In each of these samples there were hurtful actions perpetrated, time
lapsed and then a person feels hurt from the hurtful actions. The fact
that time has lapsed does not mean we can't associate the hurt a person
feels with the hurtful actions of Twitchell or the cheating husband. I
think your point is that we tend to feel hurt from some interpretation we
have, blame others, and try to rid ourselves of the hurt by changing the
perceived source. However, semantically taking responsibility for our
interpretations and subsequent feelings doesn't mean that we have to
pretend like hurtful actions are not hurtful actions.
>
> > LURK CONTINUED:
> > I think a better analogy to the eckankar situation is the con artist and
> > the mark.
> >
> > The con artist lies to the mark for material and emotional gain. Con
> > artist just love the excitement of putting one over on others.
> >
> > Twitchell (and Harold by extension) lies to others for material and
> > emotional gain. They just love fashioning themselves as these high
> > consciousness individuals to compensate for the smallness.
> >
> > The mark believes the lies of the con artist because their emotional
> > greed takes over. They fall for the "it sounds to good to be true"
> > proposition because they have some part of themselves that is lacking
> > and wants to compensate for that by imagining all the wonders that will
> > happen when what the con artist is selling comes true.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Going back to Siva Ri's principle, the actual harm caused when someone is
> conned is the actual money stolen.
No, the actual harm occurred when the con artist lie to the mark. That
there was a delay in the mark finding out about it and the mark feeling
hurt and betrayed doesn't mean the con artist's actions were not
hurtful. At the point the con artist lie to the person, this is the
point the person was prevented from making an informed choice. That is
hurtful action. The consequence of the hurtful action on the part of the
con was the mark loses money or whatever. When that occurs and the mark
realizes the hurtful action taken against them, they he/she feels hurt.
That's the part that is missing from this
> example by Lurk. There is no money stolen by Paul or Harold.
There was definitely money given to Paul and Harold under false
pretenses. Exchange of money or exchange of time are consequences of
being lied to. The hurtful action is being lied to, so let's not try to
change the subject to money. That is only a consequence of the lying.
The rest of
> Lurk's story is just an example of how people can mix up real harm caused by
> others and the feelings of pain we feel within ourselves.
I don't deny that often people will throw in all the times they felt
betrayed into the emotional mixed when feeling betrayed by Paul or
Harold, but that in and of itself, that doesn't not mean the hurt they
feel is not warranted because there was not hurtful actions on the part
of these two masters. It means that people do what people do and
associate past pain with present pain. It doesn't mean people are mixing
up real harm from harm in the past. In fact, I would guess, if eckist
care to go deeper, they would see that the betrayal and hurt they feel
from the hurtful actions of someone like Paul and Harold are a lifelong
pattern of being abused by authorities. When you grow up being subtle
abused by authorities in your life, you tend to gravitate to org and
circumstances that reproduce and reinforce the same pattern.
>
> This, of course, doesn't mean that these feelings of pain are not real. We
> all know what these feel like, but it is not the feeling of being conned
> that justifies us calling it a con.
Yeah it has to be based upon something factual. There are plenty of
facts that Paul lied and misled his students. This is hurtful action and
not in the imagination or the misinterpretation of the student.
I agree that the particular interpretation and emotion a person
experiences is not proof that there is hurtful actions. And having
interpretations and emotions certainly doesn't mean it is all in the
imagination or it is a wrong interpretation. That's why facts are
important.
Do con artist lie to Marks? Yes!
Did Paul lie to students? Yes!
It must actually mean harm caused by
> actually stealing, which happens at the moment of the theft.
>
> It is obvious that people who do not believe in religion make claims like
> this one, that all religion is a rip off and a con. That's obviously the
> same mistake being made here, since there is no theft in religion (in
> general) but what they are talking about is the feelings that a person can
> feel when they realize that they believed in something that they now no
> longer believe in. If they choose to do so, they can blame those who led
> them into believing in religion in the first place, as if it was someone
> else's choice rather than their own to choose.
You're getting off on a rationalization tangent.
>
> Going back to the third principle, above, there is actually harm that we do
> to our own Soul when we talking ourselves into believing that what we
> believe is caused by someone else.
Depends on the context and circumstance. (You're looking at this stuff
very black and white Doug.) There are times when people do not take
responsibility for their interpretations, emotional reactions and
blame others for such. This is hurtful to the person who engages in this
extreme scheme. Or they project their hurt on others who are not really
engaged in any kind of hurtful actions.
There are times when a person takes on the responsibility of another
person's hurtful actions by holding the extreme belief that they are
totally responsibly for how they feel and it doesn't matter what others
do, that it is incumbent upon them to make inner adjustments to hurtful
actions that occur. This is an extreme view and amounts to self blaming.
I think you are selling this self blaming here because it relieves Paul
and Harold from being accountable and responsible for their hurtful
actions. I find that deplorable.
It is our choice and we should always be
> choosing it consciously. Then, if we change our mind, we should also change
> it consciously. We make our own choices and we live with our choices, and to
> try blaming others for the results of our choices means we have not yet
> taken responsibility for our own choices.
We can choose to be responsible for our hurt feelings and then chose to
point out how the con artist are in the neighborhood to warn others from
being scammed. Warning others about the con artist is not blaming them
necessarily. A person can warn in a blaming manner or can warn in a
detached manner where the emotional charge has been released.
Part of taking that responsibility can include standing up and
confronting the person who perpetrated the
hurtful actions. Paul's gone, so people can stand up to his legacy.
Harold is still here, so people can stand up and make their views be
known that Harold's hurtful actions are unacceptable and he needs to
stop perpetrating the con.
We always get to this mental rut of yours where you define people
calling Paul's hurtful actions hurtful as automatically blaming them.
You semantic tricks know no bounds.
Again, people could be blaming them. That is a natural response to being
duped. Maybe after hurt settles down the person will see how their own
greed made them vulnerable to the con artist and take responsibility for
their part, not Paul's part. Again, taking responsibility doesn't mean
shutting up about it. Warning others about their greed (if it's too good
to sound true...) and the con artist is very much an act of taking responsibility.
>
> > LURK CONTINUES:
> > Eckists believe the lies of Paul because their spiritual greed takes
> > over. They fall for Paul's absolutistic and black and white rhetoric and
> > outright lies because they have a lack within themselves. They want to
> > compensate for this lack by imagining themselves being aligned with the
> > highest consciousness IN THE WORLD and all the other trashy spiritual
> > stuff Paul sold.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Obviously, Lurk is just spouting what he would like to believe, and is
> obviously not representing how ECKists feel about it.
This is what I have observed over the years.
He is suggesting that
> they do not know the real reason why they believe in Paul's teaching, but he
> does know.
>
> Back to principle number three, it is clear that we should know. It is
> important to know our real reasons, because if we don't how can we make
> conscious choices?
>
> But of course this also means that we must decide for ourselves what our
> reasons are, not the pronoucements of Lurk. So, this is merely a baseless
> and meaningless remark by Lurk, since only each person can speak for
> themselves what their reasons are. This is a part of what it means to
> consciously know and to consciously choose.
The nature of being conned is that the con artist using the momentum and
greed of their mark to perpetrate the con. And since it is proven fact
that Paul lied (conned people), it is safe to conclude that he had
enough in his con to evoke the spiritual greed in his students. The
analogy fits like a glove.
>
> > LURK CONTINUED:
> > When a Mark finds out they have been conned, it is natural to blame the
> > con artist for misleading them. Many will not look at their own greed
> > and how that played a role. They will say the con artist hurt them badly
> > for gaining their confidence and breaching their trust. IN my opinion,
> > they are partially right. It is hurtful on the part of the con artist to
> > lie and mislead for material gain so the con artist has culpability.
> > However, the Mark has culpability too for it was their own greed that
> > allow the con artist to hurt them. So for the mark to say the con artist
> > hurt them and to deny their part is partially correct and further sets
> > themselves up to be conned again by someone else. For the con artist (or
> > his apologist) to suggest that they Mark is exclusively responsible for
> > his/her hurt because hurt is a matter of interpretation on the part of
> > the Mark and to support the notion that the con artist did not hurt the
> > mark, is partially correct and amounts to adding insult to injury.
> >
> > The comparisons to eckankar and paul are obvious so I won't expound to
> > much here.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> The problem, once again, with Lurk's analogy is that he is talking only
> about the internalized pain and internalized hurt of being conned. There
> really is no theft or crime with religion or what Paul or Harold have
> written or said.
Framing it as theft again, which is only a consequence of the hurtful
action. Not only theft of money, but theft of soul. The issue is Paul
lying and betraying the trust of the student. That is the hurtful
action. The student can not make informed decisions because their
decisions are based upon false information provided by the con artist
Paul. The same is true for the mark in a con...the mark can not make an
informed decision because they are being misled. That is hurtful action
on the part of the con artist. The consequence is loss of something. I
would argue the loss in eckankar is more sever than money and therefore
more despicable than the con artist who takes a person's money.
If so, we could use Siva Ri's test and we would see that
> the harm was actually caused at the moment of the theft. Since Paul died
> before the dissenters even began studying his teachings, it is clear that no
> harm was done at the moment of what Paul wrote or taught. Therefore, there
> was no harm caused by what he said.
So the con artist that sells a lady land in Florida, who doesn't realized
she has been scammed until 15 years later when she attempt to cash it
in, is not hurting her? Again, you are trying to define hurtful actions
based upon the time someone feels hurt. What an absurd viewpoint you are
expressing here. I think any rational human being wouldn't think twice
that the con artist who sells a person land that does not exist is
hurting the mark.
You have a taking defending Paul to absurd lengths here Doug. I find it
particularly disappointing that you use valid and useful notions about
interpretations, creating emotions, responsibility, and blaming and
twist them to try to attempt to make Paul's lying okay. As I said in the
last response, this is YOU perpetrating a conceptual con on top of
Paul's con.
>
> Where pain comes in is when we choose to believe something and then feel
> disappointment when what we believed no longer seems true. It is the same
> with relationships: We feel pain when the relationship breaks up - no matter
> what may have caused it, there will still be pain due to the loss. This is a
> very real feeling and one that we all try to avoid causing others to go
> through, but we cannot control what others will experience.
>
> This whole issue becomes even more obvious when I think back to the reasons
> that the dissenters on ARE have shared for leaving ECKANKAR. Of all the
> people who have shared, I can only think of one who did so because he felt
> lied to about plagiarism or the other so-called lies. He truly seemed
> sincerely upset by his feeling of broken trust. He also admitted that
> through his own childhood where he suffered real pain at the hands of his
> parents and how this also led to feelings of lost trust. So, it was clear
> that for him the feeling of lost trust brought back for him memories of real
> pain and suffering caused by real abuse. This is what made it so difficult
> for him to go through this feeling again.
>
> However, this also shows us, once again, how important it is for us to be
> conscious of our choices and conscious of what is influencing us or
> affecting us Yet, while I've only heard of this one case, I've heard of
> dozens where people claim they are upset after they decide to leave and then
> find out about Paul's plagiarism or other so-called lies that get thrown
> around. The pain they feel is clearly something going on within themselves.
> Many even knew about the plagiarism before they left, but now feel that it
> was because they were being "conned" that they didn't realize what it really
> meant. This is all internalized pain, and not pain caused by Paul or Harold.
>
> This is why ECKists don't agree with the "con" analogy, since they still do
> believe in Paul or Harold's teaching. Therefore, for them, they don't see
> any intent to con or any theft or crime.
Exactly. They still believe they have valuable swamp land they've been
sold.
> This just shows us further that it
> is not harm caused by Paul or Harold.
What? That many eckists have not realized they've been Lied to (conned)
is proof that Paul or Harold have not harmed them. Oh puhlease, you have
got to be kidding.
The harmful actions of Paul and Harold have occurred. Paul's self
dishonesty has shaped and been infused into the structure and dogma of
eckankar. The effects are many. And when eckists do realize they're
holding onto spiritual swamp land, they will feel hurt.
Some may leave and combine all the hurt they have felt in their life and
project it onto Paul or Harold. Such combining and projecting does not
mean that hurtful actions have not occurred!
Some eckists will be hurt and talk to an HI and be inculcated with
rationalizations to ward off hurt feelings and they keep their
unboundaried self sucking on Harji's tit.
Some eckists will feel guilty about feeling hurt and feeling anger
towards Paul or Harold and blame themselves because they have been
brainwashed with extreme "create your own reality," and you "cause your
feelings" viewpoints. Thanks to unbalanced guys like you Doug.....and
Harold. This is your contribution to the world?
Some may work through the hurt feelings of being betrayed and have to
deal with whether they can support an org that is built upon lies. I
guess a portion of those will rationalize and stay for their emotional
investment and dependency. Another portion will leave based upon moral
grounds of not wanting to support an org that is so heavily into
misleading people.
And perhaps there are other options I'm not thinking about here....
>
> > LURK CONTINUED:
> > The question boils down to: Does lying to students in the way Paul lied
> > to student constitute hurting them? Is that invasive? Is that getting
> > into people's space? Given the circumstances I'd say yes. Why? People
> > can only be responsible for their decisions and interpretations and
> > emotions when it is based upon the truth. When it is based upon lies
> > they are fed, then some of the students responsibility is taken from
> > them by the liar, Paul.
> >
> > Is the student who realizes this who blames Paul for feeling hurt and
> > betrayed right to express such say Paul hurt them? Partially. Yes they
> > are right in saying Paul's lying hurt them, but if they do so in a
> > manner in which they take no responsibility for their gullibility in
> > believing, then they are partially right and are misusing the language.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> It is nice of Lurk to say that part of the responsibility belongs to the
> student, but in fact their choice to believe is all their responsbility.
This is your extreme responsibility viewpoint that attempts to keep Paul
and Harold from being responsible for hurtful actions on their part. It
is hurtful to lie to students! The student is responsible for their
emotional reactions. It is not abnegating responsibility to call Paul's
and Harold's actions hurtful.
> This is even clearer when we see that Paul and Harold have both made it
> clear that no one should become an initiate in ECKANKAR without first
> studying for two years.
How does that make the lying not lying? It doesn't. Eckankar misleads
people two years, four years, eight years.....
>
> Why?
>
> So that the student knows what they are getting into and is sure this is
> what they want to do. This is to give them time so that they can make a
> conscious choice. That's the whole basis of the teaching. If you aren't
> making conscious choices, then you are bringing harm to your own self.
>
> It is quite obvious to me, and most ECKists, that Paul taught out of his
> care for students, not because he wanted to swindle them. This whole concept
> of Paul intentionally trying to defraud others is bogus, as far as I'm
> concerned. There simply is nothing to even come close to proving it. It is
> all based on internalized hurt.
You would like to think so.
I think there was a part of Paul that care the way he knew how. Liars
and con artist are known to be charismatic and very likable people. They
use this quality in their cons. They gain people's confidence. They're
called confidence men. So I wouldn't confuse a con's caring for others
as an indication they were not liars and hurtful to people. That's
simply you hang up.
Paul's own self dishonesty got extended into his creation. Some of his
dishonesty could have been unconscious on his part, other lies are
pretty blatant and clearly are in the category of purposefully
misleading people.
You see, the trouble with people like Paul is they get by in life by
lying and getting away with it. This is how they empower themselves in a
world where they feel disempowered. They do so much lying, they don't
even think of it as lying. It becomes so routine as an adaptive strategy
to feeling small.
The best you can say is Paul's intentions were mixed.
>
> But thankfully with Siva Ri's test, we no longer have to even worry about
> intentions or even whether they were lies. All that matters to determine who
> is the cause of the harm is to look at when the actually harm is felt.
Boy your jumping on this big time. You might want to ask yourself why?
Since
> these students who feel hurt by Paul feel this way long after he died, how
> could he have caused them harm? In fact, it was their own unconscious
> choices that cause harm, as well as feelings of disappointment, and feelings
> of loss when they no longer believe what they believed for many years.
See all my comments above. You're simply repeating yourself.
>
> > LURK WROTE:
> > Where the Doug's marriage analogy fails in reflecting some of the finer
> > aspects of the eckankar situation is where people leave eckankar and
> > come to terms with their own responsibility for feeling hurt and
> > delineate Paul or Harold's responsibility.... and go on to warn others
> > how they have been, and are being, lied to. And in the course of such
> > warnings, they explain how Paul hurt people with his lying and how
> > students set themselves up to be hurt by having something inside that
> > wants to believe such bullshit, then this is accurate use of language in
> > my opinion. Warning others about the hurtful lying of Paul doesn't mean
> > the person has not moved on and all the other junk Doug tries to portray
> > in his analogy.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Lurk couldn't be more wrong on this point if he tried. What Lurk is
> describing is exactly what often happens in cases of failed relationships.
> It is common to see one party acting as if the other party harmed them, how
> they turned out to be far from what they thought they were, which means they
> were lied to. And of course feeling anger and feeling hurt they then feel
> justified in telling others about how bad their ex-partner was.
I don't dispute this happens in relationships, marital or guru/student.
I agree this happens. But you're holding this up and saying this proves
there was not hurtful actions.
>
> In fact, if we study this closely we see that this falls squarely onto Ben's
> principle - that abusers will mix up the cause of harm to justify their own
> abusive behavior. So, we hear rapists claiming that the woman was asking for
> it by wearing a dress or putting make-up on. They justify in their own minds
> that they did not really cause them harm, when they clearly did.
>
> When a ex turns on their previous partner like this, it is clearly abusive,
> unless of course they were literally abused.
Paul lying to people is literally abusing them They are not given the
opportunity to make a useful decision because their decision is based
upon false information. Just as the women investing her life savings in
the swamp land is not given the opportunity to make an informed decision
based upon the lying of the con artist. You know, the con artist will go
to great lengths to builds themselves up as a great real estate
developer. Might even show the person photos and brochure copy they
plagiarized from other land developers who actually sell their own land.
Not just feeling pain for a
> failed relationship, but real harm caused at the moment it was done.
>
> We have no case for real harm caused by Paul or Harold, because all these
> people complaining were students for many years before deciding to leave.
> After they decide to leave, they feel the pain. This shows that this is an
> internal matter, and one that is their own responsibility. We all must take
> responsibility for our feelings of hurt when a relationship falls apart. It
> is the same situation here.
See my comments earlier about your extreme responsibility viewpoint.
>
> > LURK CONTINUED:
> > People who warn others about the con in the neighborhood are doing the
> > civic duty, a public service whether they have come to terms with their
> > own part in the con or not.
> >
> > A misuse of language is to use perceptional mechanics and semantics to
> > keep the con from sharing responsibility by semantically making them
> > exempt from hurting people which is what I percieve Doug is doing.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> Lurk's example only works when there was a real con or real abuse - not just
> internalized feelings of pain or hurt.
Yep. Did Paul Lie? Yep.
>
> However, if we want to take Lurk's case and make it even more obvious - we
> know that some people have been sent to prison when they were innocent. DNA
> tests have been proving the innocence of people on death row. What if
> someone is wrongly accused, and then treated like criminals even after
> released from prison. How will the people feel when they find out that they
> were innocent? Will they apologize? Will they accept the harm they caused to
> the other person? Or will they continue to imagine they are really guilty to
> avoid the realization that they are now the abuser?
Did Paul lie? Yep.
>
> The problem I'm getting at is that when no real abuse or con has occurred
> that Lurk's suggestion is clearly and obviously a form of justified abuse in
> itself. To label someone a criminal when no crime has been proven is against
> everything we call justice in this country. This is exactly whey we say a
> person is innocent until proven guilty. Neither Paul or Harold have been
> proven guilty of any crime. Not even close. Yet Lurk wants to hang up
> posters and floud ARE with posts treating them like they were criminals.
Keep dancing...it is kind of funny.
Did Paul lie? Yep.
Does Doug see the lying as abuse. No. That is your perfect right. And it
is my perfect right to inform any person who comes by here that Paul
lied, Harold covered it up, and Doug doesn't see lying as abuse. If they
want to join (or stay) in eckankar based upon that, more power to them.
It is just like people who warn others of the con have a choice not to
listen to the advise and get involved in a con.
I mentioned this here a long time ago: There were some con men who read
in the paper that a lady got out of some money. So they go over and tell
her they are a con recover service and that they can get her money back.
Of course they needed a large advance to pay for their expenses to get
her money back....
This is what your interest here reminds me of...the con conning the
people who have already been conned.
>
> I say this borders on abuse, but it certainly does show us that we need to
> clear of our own conscious choices and to become conscious of what really is
> affecting us and why.
>
> > LURK CONTINUED:
> > In order for your apologetics to work Doug, you have to convince people
> > that conning or lying to students is not hurting people. Good luck with
> > that argument.
>
> DOUG RESPONDS:
> I think that was just shown above. However, I think before I would have to
> prove such a thing, Lurk would have to prove that harm was actually felt at
> the time of the so-called crime. Since Paul died before he even started
> studying Paul's teachings, I'd say Lurk hasn't got a chance to prove his
> point.
Did Paul lie? Yep.
Is lying to people and abusing their trust hurtful action? Yep.
Does it matter that time passes? Nope.
Is there a statute of limitations on hurtful actions that suddenly
doesn't make the actions hurtful? I went on the inner for this one and
God said no.
>
> Never mind the fact that Lurk has not proven that there was no intent to con
> or intent to defraud anyone.
So if the husband says he did not intend to hurt his wife when he boffed
another women and broke the agreement and betrayed her trust, that means
his action were not hurtful? I hardly think so.
So if the con artist's intention was not to hurt the mark, that makes
his hurtful action alright? Duh.
So if Paul's intention was not to hurt people with his lying that means
his hurtful action are not hurtful?
I tell you, Doug, you sure do come up with some whopper rationalizations.
>
> Well, that should stir up the discussion a little. <G>
Here's your homework. Go to the video store and rent a movie called
"House of Cards." The italian actor Joe Montainge (sp?) is in it. It is
about some con men who con a psychologist.
This will give you a more realistic feel of what we are dealing with
when it comes to Paul and eckankar.
Lurk
cher
Throughout the writings of ECK it is said that not everyone is cut out
for this path. I'd say you're a poster child for that sentiment, M. This
sort of black and white hysteria has become a hallmark of your writing.
It's obvious from what you posted that you didn't comprehend what Doug
was saying. Instead of asking for him to clarify something you
immediately attack him for the most aggregious of motives. I won't even
bother asking if you've had experience with a multinational company.
<sigh> Cultural differences are what they are... not there for us to
argue with, but rather keep in social context and perspective. The world
is a much larger place than you apparently seem to realize.
Doug Marman
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3E6388C7...@charter.net...
DOUG RESPONDS:
Lurk, if you really want to explore this, I'd be glad to. However, most of
your comments are simply made up of your assertions, as if that was all that
was needed to determine the truth of these matters.
Unfortunately, there are a lot more subtleties and issues involved, which is
why they so easily get mixed up. If you aren't interested in exploring the
issue and looking at its different aspects, then there isn't much purpose in
this discussion. If you are interested in really studying this issue, then I
suggest we both explain why we think things should be taken a certain way,
rather than just stating that they should be.
For example, you wrote: <<The point at which Twitchell lied to people is
the point where Paul encroached upon a students ability to make an informed
decision and broke the trust he demanded of them and they gave.>>
Let's get specific. What lie are you talking about that encroached on a
students ability to make an informed decision?
Does this mean that if a teacher gives out what they think is best, and the
student does not know how to use that information that this is hurtful
action by the teacher? Who decides when a teacher should or shouldn't have
said something? Isn't that their decision to make? And if they make it to
their best ability, then how could it be called hurtful action?
Are you suggesting that Paul intentionally lied to take advantage of the
students? If so, where is your proof?
Or is the reason you are claiming it is hurtful action because you believe
it is wrong information? Well, obviously that wouldn't be saying anything at
all except that you disagree, yet making it sound like Paul has committed
some kind of crime by teaching what he believed.
How could Paul be breaking a trust at the point where he lied, when most of
the students complaining about it today didn't even start studying his
teachings until after he died? Are suggesting that Paul broke a trust with
people before they even had a trust in him?
Whose responsibility is it to make an informed decision? Whose
responsibility is it to make sure they are properly informed so that they
can make an informed decision?
In other words, in that one sentence you made a statement with no
explanation at all, and all of the above questions follow because of that.
Here's how I see what you are talking about: You are talking about the pain
associated with relationships. In this case it is the relationship of a
teacher and a student. We feel pain when we feel let down or disappointed.
We can feel pain when we feel a trust is broken or if we feel we were
intentionally lied to. We feel pain when a relationship that existed for a
long time falls apart.
These are pains that are the results of relationships. However, these pains
do not indicate that we were harmed by the other person. This is not the
same kind of harm caused by someone abusing another person or stealing from
them.
It is easy to show the difference, as Siva Ri pointed out. For example, we
can feel pain when we feel we are intentionally lied to - but if it turns
out we were wrong, that it was not a lie or it was not intentional - then it
becomes clear that our pain was completely within ourselves. This doesn't
happen when someone abuses us or steals from us. The harm is real. The stuff
is still stolen from us whether it was intentional or not. Therefore it is
easy to show real harm, but it is not always easy to show the causes of the
kinds of pains we find through relationships.
It sounds to me like you are trying to treat them the same. Do you really
think they are the same?
As far as I can see, there is no way any teacher could ever teach that would
satisfy all students. There will always be students who feel they were not
taught correctly, or were misled or made their own errors in decisions based
on what they thought the teacher meant, but ended up being wrong. There will
always be students who are disappointed or feel what the teacher is teaching
is wrong. These students, based on what I hear you saying, should claim that
the teacher was hurtful to them. I say that is pure and simple a lack of
responsibility on the part of the student. Yet there will always be students
like this.
If some harm has really been done, then it should be clear and obvious, like
the case of real theft or real abuse. The rest is the very complicated
issues of relationship pain. I think the whole discussion about relationship
pain is an interesting one, and the pains are very real, but they should not
be treated in the same vein as real abuse and real harm.
Rather than responding to the rest of your post, I'd like to hear your
response to this, since this seems to be where we are differing.
If you would like me to explain my points or my position further, let me
know.
Doug.
Beddar Tsellz
Some of this sounds like the worst of the "New Age" to me. I
appreciate all the efforts to parse pain, but if we're walking down
that path, let me parse it a little more:
When a person causes physical damage to our body, it generally hurts.
Why does it hurt? It hurts because a specific structure in our body,
the nervous system, is designed to create unpleasant sensations under
certain conditions. What are those conditions? Simply put, the
conditions causing pain are any effect that threatens to disrupt or
does disrupt the integrity of the body. The body is made up of cells
and structures that communicate in millions of ways to make the body
function as a whole. The nervous system tells us when that integrity
is threatened.
We understand physical pain so well because it is easy to see when
someone affects our body and we immediately feel pain. The cause and
effect is obvious. At the emotional level, the situation is slightly
more subtle, and admittedly, it does require a deeper look. However, I
think with just a couple of distinctions, it is not so hard to
understand.
Although humans (and westerners in particular) often like to think of
themselves as separate entities, we are in fact all very much
connected (just as the ecosystem is interconnected). What others do
can affect us at an emotional level. Although we can't see our
emotional selves with our eyes, our lives on an emotional level are
just as real as our physical lives, only the interconnections are even
more immediate.
To be very clear, let's look at our physical lives for a moment. If an
auto mechanic fixes our car, he does so with the expectation that we
are going to pay him. If we don't pay him, it does hurt him. It hurts
his life, his ability to pay his bills (fulfill his obligation to
others), and to feed his family, etc. This is a form of harm as much
as bodily harm. This is why Harold so often talks about doing all we
say we will do. Contracts and agreements are the metaphor for the
lines of interconnection that make societies function.
On an emotional level, it's the same thing. We build our lives within
a framework of agreements and understandings with others, especially
those who we love. Just as the body feels pain when its integrity is
threatened, so does our emotional life. In a marriage, a very deep
level of intimacy is possible precisely because of the very great
trust between the partners. In our culture, most people enter marriage
with an understanding of fidelity. In other cultures (and for some in
this culture), the understanding may be different. But here,
especially based on the Christian roots and vows used in marriage,
along with the cultural norms, there is generally an understanding of
fidelity.
The concept is no different for a team of basketball players. When
they go out on the court, they expect their team mates to do their
best for the team. If one member throws the game for whatever reason,
the players are hurt. This is not just some problem they have with
attachment, and they don't need to go read books on attitude
adjustment. They have based some part of their lives on this
understanding between team mates. If they knew one of the team mates
would deliberately lose the game for them, they would put their energy
elsewhere. Their lives have been "hurt" by the deceptive player.
The "hurt" that a person experiences when a trust is betrayed is both
real and understandable. It is not a "problem" that they have. Healing
requires that they re-organize their lives and relationships. This is
what good psychologists help people do. The illusion overpromoted in
much of the new age literature is that none of these feelings are
important - all we have to do is free ourselves from them. They do
have a good point in some respects: We have to learn to free ourselves
from clinging to feelings of hurt. Such clinging is a "problem" or a
kind of illness and it creates and prolongs much pain. Some of the new
age teachings might help these cases, at least to open the person to
the possibility. But my experience is that really digging to the root
of deeply held emotional issues like this takes dedicated work. Read
Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstacy, the Laundry" for this general
idea.
We live our lives in networks of relationships, and Harold has done a
great service by pointing people to the idea that we must do all we
say we will do. Our agreements are invisible connections that provide
the means for life to operate at the relationship and community level.
Having an awareness of Soul doesn't isolate us from this truth. The
"Mr. Spock" ideal from Star Trek isn't real life (even the show itself
continually made that point). The experience of emotional pain is
often a signal, just like the nervous system sensation of pain,
telling us that the integrity of the network we live in has broken.
This network is constructed through agreements and trust.
One last point of this subject. A person who has truly refined their
awareness is in a position to heal more quickly from emotional harm. A
person in a deep state of equanimity can make changes far more easily
when lines of relationship change. But, in my opinion, normal life is
very much built on our agreements, both contractual (as in business)
and relational. Marriage and friendship are some of the most important
and intensive examples. Hurting when trust in a relationship is broken
is normal, is real and *is* to some extent caused by the person
breaking the trust. We all know that life if far too complicated to
isolate causes in simple terms, but the ideal we work for is clear: Do
all that we say we will do.
Working towards freedom from crystallized emotional patterns and
unconscious expectations is a helpful teaching. Taking it to the
extreme of assuming little or no responsibility for our relationships
and agreements is new age pablum. As Sam Gamgee said in The Fellowship
of the Ring, "I made a promise, Mr. Frodo, and I aims to keep it!" Mr.
Tolkien gives us some good lessons in relationship.
Beddar Tsellz
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<J0C8a.334667$Ec4.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Siva Ri
setting up a loophole as a way to deflect criticisms against Paul.
Thank you for not disappointing me. I wish to make a point here
though, since you seem to think my thoughts on self-created "pain"
support your Twitchell loophole. Yes, we do create our own responses
to situations, and are responsible for our own feelings. Does it
follow then that the person we are reacting to is free from any
complicity? I think not. Knowing other people have buttons, we can
easily push them. We can easily exploit them. We can abuse their
trust, their gullibility, their emotional tenderness, or whatever. If
Twitchell lies to me, and I get angry, then I am responsible for the
anger, but Twitchell is still a liar exploiting my trust. My anger
does not rise up out of nowhere. It rises up from an external
stimulus. You yourself are constantly saying we should be nice to
others. Why, if other people are responsible for their own emotional
reactions to our criticism? See how you want to have it both ways?
Bottom line - no body is an island, not physically and not
emotionally. Our emotional reactions to external events are interwoven
with those external events. So Twitchell may not "cause" my emotional
reaction in the sense that I stir up my own emotions. But that in no
way lets him off the hook.
>
"Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<J0C8a.334667$Ec4.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
@aloha.net Rich
This for the most part has been an interesting discussion. There is
one aspect that hasn't been covered though. Tolerance to hurt. This
varies widely depending on the individual. Someone involved in war,
sports or their day to day job can be physically hurt quite badly and
shrug it off, or never even notice it. Others can belabor a black &
blue for days. We see this in children too. One will take a terrible
fall that must have hurt, and simply get up and keep playing, while
another will lay on the ground and cry for a long time. Since the
very same physical blow can perceived in distinct ways, what's the
difference? Are their pain sensors different? Is it a matter of
character? Does it depend on what they think?? How relative is it to
spiritual growth?
Same applies emotionally. Some are offended, outraged, feel betrayed
and suffer for years, while others carry on their merry way. Is the
way of 'hurt' any less real than the merry way of others? Of course
not. So what's the difference? Can thinking about hurt exacerbate it?
Some who read Paul's words long after he was dead are devastated,
usually long after they first read his words when they subsequently
read other words. Some who knew him personally have learned to shrug
it off as new information that gives them a broader understanding.
How big a part does anger, or Love play? How big a part does
insecurity play?
What I am getting at is that the reality of 'hurt' is _not_ equally
universal. Some have no tolerance to pain and the spectrum runs to the
other extreme. Also that can vary in the individual in physical,
emotional and thought aspects. It is very complex and those that
broadstroke are projecting a limited view. At what levels is freedom
of choice a factor? At what levels can the individual change their
perception of hurt?
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arelurker
Like I said in the first post: your choices are to either make the lying
not hurtful action on the part of Paul or to simply make the lying not
lying. It seems you're going for the second option this round, eh?
>
> Unfortunately, there are a lot more subtleties and issues involved, which is
> why they so easily get mixed up. If you aren't interested in exploring the
> issue and looking at its different aspects, then there isn't much purpose in
> this discussion.
You will noticed that I have outlined more viewpoints and dimensions to
the problem of one person betraying the other than you have. You're
position is that the person that betrays another is not hurting the
person. Nothing subtle about that! Pretty monomaniacal if you ask me.
If you are interested in really studying this issue, then I
> suggest we both explain why we think things should be taken a certain way,
> rather than just stating that they should be.
>
> For example, you wrote: <<The point at which Twitchell lied to people is
> the point where Paul encroached upon a students ability to make an informed
> decision and broke the trust he demanded of them and they gave.>>
>
> Let's get specific. What lie are you talking about that encroached on a
> students ability to make an informed decision?
How about that book "In My Soul I'm Free." This was used by eckankar to
promote eckankar and get people interested in eckankar for many many
years. The particular lies in this book are documented in the archives
if you want to go have a looksee.
A student seeking to find out information about eckankar wouldn't
imagine that Paul, who builds himself up as having attained some kind of
high consciousness, would lie to them via Steiger in his official autobiography.
>
> Does this mean that if a teacher gives out what they think is best, and the
> student does not know how to use that information that this is hurtful
> action by the teacher?
No it means when Paul lies it is not good for the student because they
can not make an informed decision.
Who decides when a teacher should or shouldn't have
> said something?
I think the village should step in when the teacher is like Paul and
lies to his students.
Isn't that their decision to make? And if they make it to
> their best ability, then how could it be called hurtful action?
If the best Paul can do is lie to his students maybe he should have
found another occupation than that of a champion of truth.
>
> Are you suggesting that Paul intentionally lied to take advantage of the
> students? If so, where is your proof?
I'm saying Paul lied and it has been documented. That's enough, eh?
>
> Or is the reason you are claiming it is hurtful action because you believe
> it is wrong information?
When Paul lied, it was giving out wrong information and it was hurtful action.
Well, obviously that wouldn't be saying anything at
> all except that you disagree, yet making it sound like Paul has committed
> some kind of crime by teaching what he believed.
I believe my main point was Paul lied and that this is hurtful action.
>
> How could Paul be breaking a trust at the point where he lied, when most of
> the students complaining about it today didn't even start studying his
> teachings until after he died? Are suggesting that Paul broke a trust with
> people before they even had a trust in him?
There is an unspoken covenant in the student teacher relationship that
the student be able to trust the teacher and the teacher expects the
student to trust them. The whole relationship is based on trust. Lying
breaks that trust. Breaking trust is hurtful action. I feel like I'm
lecturing a 8th grader here.
>
> Whose responsibility is it to make an informed decision? Whose
> responsibility is it to make sure they are properly informed so that they
> can make an informed decision?
The student is responsible for making an informed decision. The teacher
is responsible for allowing the student to make and informed decision.
Lying to students is taking away their power to make an informed
decision. Also, it would be unreasonable to expect a student to
anticipate Paul telling blatant lies about himself.
>
> In other words, in that one sentence you made a statement with no
> explanation at all, and all of the above questions follow because of that.
All this tells us is you are a complexifyer.
It is really simple: Paul lied and lying is hurtful action.
>
> Here's how I see what you are talking about: You are talking about the pain
> associated with relationships. In this case it is the relationship of a
> teacher and a student. We feel pain when we feel let down or disappointed.
> We can feel pain when we feel a trust is broken or if we feel we were
> intentionally lied to. We feel pain when a relationship that existed for a
> long time falls apart.
>
> These are pains that are the results of relationships. However, these pains
> do not indicate that we were harmed by the other person.
If this hurt was cause by the other's hurtful actions, then it does
indicate the person was harmed by another person. Paul lying is hurtful
action and when eckists find this out they are harmed by it.
This is not the
> same kind of harm caused by someone abusing another person or stealing from
> them.
>
> It is easy to show the difference, as Siva Ri pointed out. For example, we
> can feel pain when we feel we are intentionally lied to - but if it turns
> out we were wrong, that it was not a lie or it was not intentional - then it
> becomes clear that our pain was completely within ourselves.
I stated in my responses to you that students have the capacity to
misinterpret, to project their own unrelated hurt on a teacher. I agreed
and considered these viewpoint. That does not mean that people
misinterpreted when they realize Paul lied and they feel hurt from such
hurtful action.
You have admitted Paul lied here...except you called it stretching the
truth because you couldn't bare the thought of you idol being a liar.
This doesn't
> happen when someone abuses us or steals from us. The harm is real.
Earth to Doug. When Paul lies to student this is hurtful action and it
is real harm.
The stuff
> is still st olen from us whether it was intentional or not. Therefore it is
> easy to show real harm, but it is not always easy to show the causes of the
> kinds of pains we find through relationships.
>
> It sounds to me like you are trying to treat them the same. Do you really
> think they are the same?
You sound desperate.
>
> As far as I can see, there is no way any teacher could ever teach that would
> satisfy all students. There will always be students who feel they were not
> taught correctly, or were misled or made their own errors in decisions based
> on what they thought the teacher meant, but ended up being wrong. There will
> always be students who are disappointed or feel what the teacher is teaching
> is wrong. These students, based on what I hear you saying, should claim that
> the teacher was hurtful to them. I say that is pure and simple a lack of
> responsibility on the part of the student. Yet there will always be students
> like this.
I did not comment on Paul's style of teaching I commented on Paul's
lying.
>
> If some harm has really been done, then it should be clear and obvious, like
> the case of real theft or real abuse.
Lying to people in the position Paul put himself in is hurtful action
and it is obvious.
The rest is the very complicated
> issues of relationship pain. I think the whole discussion about relationship
> pain is an interesting one, and the pains are very real, but they should not
> be treated in the same vein as real abuse and real harm.
>
> Rather than responding to the rest of your post, I'd like to hear your
> response to this, since this seems to be where we are differing.
I responded, so go ahead and respond to the rest of the post if you can.
I make some pretty good arguments though, and I wouldn't be surprised if
you try to find a way out of responding.
Lurk
> > > conscious choics?
e
Beddar Tsellz
These are good insights - another perspective to look at emotional
hurt. As you point out, the subject is very complex and not very
amenable to quick answers. My general sense is that the points you
raise fit to some degree with the picture I was trying to paint about
our relationship networks. The tricky part is that there are both
internal and external components to relationships. Internally, our
relationships fit into a story we tell ourselves about life, our part
in it, and what we can expect. There is some rather exquisite and
mystical process going on all the time in which we balance these two.
You could call it life.
Much of how we feel when something happens depends on our internal
story. But I think the situation turns tragic when someone tries to
rely completely on changes in this story to fend off all hurts. They
lose touch with reality, in the extreme, they become sociopaths. Our
external lives do matter. Little children, though they may not make a
big fuss at the time, are deeply injured and damaged by sexual abuse.
Why? Because the lines of trust that make up the world they live in
are broken. The damage may not show up for years, but it is still
there. On the other hand, a child who falls down and skins his knee
may think nothing of it or even be intrigued by the novelty of it. The
pain of the body hasn't in any way shaken their world.
As adults, it is important to learn to deal with changes in
relationship. Sometimes spouses hurt us, sometimes friends do. Health
means that we can adapt to the change - heal our relationships or find
new friends or mates if there is just no way to repair. But again, to
push the pain off with some truly contorted idea of detachment is, in
my opinion, another deep kind of sickness. That sickness is an
isolation from life, a refusal to really be alive because we fear pain
too much. Life is going to hurt sometimes. It's good to do our
internal work so we can deal with hurt and changes better, adjust,
heal, and grow. But to not acknowledge the structure of our emotional
lives for the sake of having everything "nice" is to descend into
mushy thinking and half living. I heard someone do this a while back
in a meeting and I felt like breaking into a chorus of, "Everything is
beautiful, in its own way ..." While there is truth to this, we can't
even get to that truth without living, which sometimes entails
hurting. How many people ever lived without experiencing pain?
Avoiding it is a good idea, denying it creates cycles of grief.
Trust is essential to relationships of love and friendship. Breaking
of trust typically causes pain. That's really the only point I want to
make. How people react to Paul Twitchell depends on what they thought
their relationship was with him, how they constructed their internal
story, and how they heal if that relationship was altered. Personally,
I'm not so interested in that as I am in not promoting bizarre
disfigurations of truth for the sake of arguments.
Thanks for your thoughts,
BT
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message news:<b411o...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
cher
<snip>
> As adults, it is important to learn to deal with changes in
> relationship. Sometimes spouses hurt us, sometimes friends do. Health
Well.... sometimes people do things that are hurtful. How we internalize
these things depends on the individual.
> means that we can adapt to the change - heal our relationships or find
> new friends or mates if there is just no way to repair. But again, to
Health or adaptation? I'd say curiosity is what leads people through
these steps. Health is seldom a motivator... but curiosity leads people
through many a tight space.
> push the pain off with some truly contorted idea of detachment is, in
> my opinion, another deep kind of sickness. That sickness is an
Why base ones ideas about detachment on the sentiments of the naive?
See... it's the idea that detachment denies pain that causes you to see
it as sickness. Now why would you believe that detachment is some form
of social mask? Define detachment in terms other than those of the
idealism of the naive and see what you come up with.
> isolation from life, a refusal to really be alive because we fear pain
> too much. Life is going to hurt sometimes. It's good to do our
> internal work so we can deal with hurt and changes better, adjust,
No one denies this is the way it goes for the majority of beings on this
planet. The problem comes into play when one anticipates this formula of
behavior in others as a measure of their well being. What if they are
familiar with a thing already? What if they have already done a great
deal of work on a given crisis and reach a point where they are more
aware of what is going on? What would they appear to look like to others
at that moment? Are they going through these things to win critical
acclaim for their performance or are they vested in their own life?
See.... we don't always get a parts list with each person we meet.
Sometimes we don't even see a fraction of their experiences.
There is a balancing point between pain and pleasure that gives one a
whole new dimension on detachment. The lesson is in attachment.
> heal, and grow. But to not acknowledge the structure of our emotional
> lives for the sake of having everything "nice" is to descend into
> mushy thinking and half living. I heard someone do this a while back
Why acknowledge what may not be necessary to that person at that
particular moment in their expanding awareness? Is this your need? What
about who they are? Maybe they have done most of the work earlier in
this life time? What if you don't know what they have gone through years
before, much less lifetimes before? Does that make them wrong, or does
it mean that you are seeking a given behavior in order to feel safe
within your comfort zone?
Do we measure an entire culture of beings based on the naive? We chose
our ideals and the live up to that measure, essentially. The difference
is, some of us chose via first hand experiences and others are short on
the experience aspect. Everyone you meet is a work in progress! Even the
naive will catch up given life is what it is.
> in a meeting and I felt like breaking into a chorus of, "Everything is
> beautiful, in its own way ..." While there is truth to this, we can't
Now is this about the naive person you referrenced or is this about your
expectations? There is a wide variety of beings on this planet. They
don't all fit one mold. So how does that change ones viewpoint when
dealing with a smurf? <smile>
> even get to that truth without living, which sometimes entails
> hurting. How many people ever lived without experiencing pain?
Well once you answer this question for yourself, you might realize you
are seeing more of the truth of those you deal with than you realized.
> Avoiding it is a good idea, denying it creates cycles of grief.
Grief is a cycle, denial is a piece of it. By understanding the cycle
the pieces fall into place. Avoidance is also one of those buzz words
of society. How does one avoid such things? Experience and choices. And
what does experience bring? Answers and tools. Essentially, nothing is
really linear. :-) At least from my experiences this has been true.
People love to spiral off.... don't they? <smile>
<snip>
@aloha.net Rich
"Beddar Tsellz" wrote:
> Hi Rich,
Aloha Beddar,
> These are good insights - another perspective to look at emotional
> hurt. As you point out, the subject is very complex and not very
> amenable to quick answers. My general sense is that the points you
> raise fit to some degree with the picture I was trying to paint
about
> our relationship networks. The tricky part is that there are both
> internal and external components to relationships. Internally, our
> relationships fit into a story we tell ourselves about life, our
part
> in it, and what we can expect. There is some rather exquisite and
> mystical process going on all the time in which we balance these
two.
> You could call it life.
>
> Much of how we feel when something happens depends on our internal
> story. But I think the situation turns tragic when someone tries to
> rely completely on changes in this story to fend off all hurts. They
> lose touch with reality, in the extreme, they become sociopaths. Our
> external lives do matter.
I agree. It all matters. Often people create an unrealistic story as
a defense mechanism to buffer pain, but if they _never_ release that
denial, then it is extreme.
> Little children, though they may not make a
> big fuss at the time, are deeply injured and damaged by sexual
abuse.
> Why? Because the lines of trust that make up the world they live in
> are broken. The damage may not show up for years, but it is still
> there. On the other hand, a child who falls down and skins his knee
> may think nothing of it or even be intrigued by the novelty of it.
The
> pain of the body hasn't in any way shaken their world.
What I was suggesting was that this can be true with emotions too.
When I had the worst relationship breakup of my life I found myself
examining the 'novelity' of the exponentially intense hurt with
curious attitude. It didn't relieve the numbing pain from the broken
trust, but was an acceptance of a new experience. Although my world
was shaken by the change I had no bitterness or anger, only a sense of
great loss to deal with. Over several months the hurt fell off at the
inverse square, never to quite go away, but allowing my world to
reorganize in a healthy way.
> As adults, it is important to learn to deal with changes in
> relationship. Sometimes spouses hurt us, sometimes friends do.
Health
> means that we can adapt to the change - heal our relationships or
find
> new friends or mates if there is just no way to repair. But again,
to
> push the pain off with some truly contorted idea of detachment is,
in
> my opinion, another deep kind of sickness. That sickness is an
> isolation from life, a refusal to really be alive because we fear
pain
> too much.
I don't see that a real detachment. It seems more like extreme denial.
Detachment as I understand it would be to accept the hurt as it is,
while continuing to fearlessly go on and be fully alive.
> Life is going to hurt sometimes. It's good to do our
> internal work so we can deal with hurt and changes better, adjust,
> heal, and grow. But to not acknowledge the structure of our
emotional
> lives for the sake of having everything "nice" is to descend into
> mushy thinking and half living. I heard someone do this a while back
> in a meeting and I felt like breaking into a chorus of, "Everything
is
> beautiful, in its own way ..." While there is truth to this, we
can't
> even get to that truth without living, which sometimes entails
> hurting. How many people ever lived without experiencing pain?
> Avoiding it is a good idea, denying it creates cycles of grief.
I agree. My point was that people have varying tolerance to hurt. By
tolerance I wasn't meaning thick skinned denial but perhaps a stronger
sense of security in that they do not get knocked down by hurt as much
as others might. I'm not saying that's better but maybe in that
"exquisite and mystical process" they may have already done the
internal work and it's a lesson they have already learned. Could be
they are working at the other end of a spectrum in learning how _not_
to hurt.<g>
> Trust is essential to relationships of love and friendship. Breaking
> of trust typically causes pain. That's really the only point I want
to
> make. How people react to Paul Twitchell depends on what they
thought
> their relationship was with him, how they constructed their internal
> story, and how they heal if that relationship was altered.
Personally,
> I'm not so interested in that as I am in not promoting bizarre
> disfigurations of truth for the sake of arguments.
I'm with you on that.
Thanks for your perspective.
Tom Leafeater
> the students complaining about it today didn't even start studying his
> teachings until after he died? Are suggesting that Paul broke a trust with
> people before they even had a trust in him?
Doug Marmon
Since this debate has been covered quite well already by various responses
here, I thought I would provide a view from a very different direction only
partially touched on so far. I may ramble a bit, for I am writing this out
quite spontaneously, and have no idea how this will take shape at the moment.
First, reality transcends space and time, so it doesn't matter when Twitchell
lied. He bequeathed his lies to others, who continued with the sham. People are
often affected by the actions of others long after the originators are gone.
This doesn't excuse the actions. Twitchell's lies continue on even today, and
there are those who are being bamboozled by the lies even now. Some of us even
helped propagate those lies, and now feel responsible for our actions, thus we
speak out to mitigate whatever disillusionment we were part of creating.
As for me, I was there when Twitchell was alive, and he lied to me directly. I
see no difference between this and a person who was deceived at a later date,
for what matters is that there was actual delivery of the lie to the
individual, not the time of origin. There is no separation when time is omitted
from the equation. Time is relative, therefore, there is no separation between
action and effect. They are inseparable. They are one. But in the temporal
view, there is always a seeming lapse of time between cause and effect, however
minute. One follows the other.
As to the notion that emotional pain, which occurs only at time of delivery of
information, is therefore self induced - because of the lack of onset at actual
time of the act of the abuse: Doug is relying on the illusion of space to
defend his assertion. Many people have awareness of events that are happening
elsewhere. If all is here and now, there is no separation. People sometimes
know something is amiss in a relationship, but have no reliable confirmation.
Their senses are telling them something is wrong, but the other person in the
relationship is lying to them about what is happening, so they begin to
distrust their intuition. Upon actual physical confirmation, the realization is
completed.
Besides, both physical and emotional pain does occur at the time of delivery of
the abuse. One's body feels pain when it receives delivery of a physical blow,
whereas one's emotions feel pain when struck with the force of sensory input
(such as words, ideas, information). Emotions are far more easily manipulated
than physical matter. This why only insensitive, callous, uncaring individuals
would intentionally abuse another with actions or words which are known to
cause intense pain and suffering, without a very good reason. Hence the old
test question before performing an action - is it true, is it necessary, is it
kind? No matter what culture people are part of, they always know what is a
hurtful act, and what is not, within a given social context. Aware,
compassionate individuals, having knowledge that the social mores of their
culture put a high regard on fidelity, would not knowingly enter into a
relationship with an intention to dishonor the trust, since they would know
this would likely cause great pain. Of course, there are times when, despite
the best of intentions, people have to break such trusts. In such a case, one
must look at the intent. Did the person willfully deceive another by luring
them into a trust which was undeserved? One can avoid causing pain to others by
living with integrity and goodwill to others. Just as we know that the human
body is physically vulnerable to harm, we also know that human emotions are
vulnerable to injury. A person who knowingly takes a course of action that
causes harm to either body or mind of another is at least partly responsible
for the pain that is felt by another. We all know what emotions are, and that
people can feel great suffering due to their feelings. Those who excuse
unethical behavior by viewing the people they abuse as causing their own pain
should be avoided, for they are demonstrating a high disregard for others. I
have heard so many in Eckankar utter the words, "Its their karma. I am not
responsible for hurting them! They are learning detachment!" This justification
has been used to wave aside all manner of unethical conduct. I am amazed that
this flawed logic has surfaced again in Doug's post.
In Taoist philosphy, Qi is a very real energetic force, and is affected by
various events, whether physical, emotional, or mental. When trust is broken,
the subtle intangible Qi brought into form by that trust is broken. This can
cause a temporary imbalance in an individual, which affects the nervous system,
causing pain. This is a well-established concept in the ancient art and science
of Chinese medicine, which in the West has been termed the "mind-body
connection." Emotions are affected by Qi, and the body is affected by emotions,
and of course, this works conversely as well. Mind and body are seen as one,
with no real separation. Thus, disease may be caused by intense emotions,
especially when held for a long period of time.
This is why it is so important (for some, at least) to be in a relationship
based on real trust. Without it, there is the feeling of deception and
manipulation which may creep in, sounding an alarm. It is not that a romantic
affair (or other forms of infidelity, depending on the type of relationship) is
occurring that really hurts, it is the very real energetic break in trust,
which could be viewed as a rupture of an energetic field surrounding the
partnership. When it is broken, pain may occur until the energetic field is
restored, such as by restoration of the original bond of trust, or to a new
arrangement which reestablishes balance in the individual (such as separation,
and a new life). The pain serves as a warning that an imbalance has occurred,
and therefore has an essential function. It is not a flaw to feel emotional
pain.
This concept extends to one's environment. The ambience of a room, for example
(which is thought to have energetic qualities) affects one on many levels.
Likewise, the deceitful nature of another has its own effect when such a person
harbors ill will. A sensitive person can feel these energies, in my opinion.
Thus, it may be somewhat axiomatic that the stronger the trust and loyalty the
student places in the Master, the greater the energetic field which is formed
from the intensity of Qi that is generated. So when the trust is broken, the
greater the potential imbalance from the sudden rupture in the energetic field.
Some may be affected more intensely than others due to individual circumstances
and constitutions. As the separation becomes complete and begins to heal, the
individual's energetic field is restored, and balance resumes. For me, the
deception was only gradually realized, thus I was spared any great disrupture
of my spiritual connection with Eckankar. I was grateful to have seen the farce
for what it was, so as to resume the course of my life without the diversion
into Twitchell's callous use of me as his dutiful pawn (I actually gave this
guy money when I was very young, during times when I was short on food in my
cupboard!).
In light of these considerations, those who wantonly break trusts which are
established with others should be avoided, for they have no respect for the
sanctity of the bonds of trust which are formed (whether consciously or not).
Which leads us to Twitchell and his successors, and the assortment of
apologists which have followed in his wake: Are these folks giving respect to
the sanctity of trustful relationships formed?
Leafeater
Joe
Great post Tom.
I too contributed $$ to bolster the toney lifestyle of the LEM when I
was very young, barely ekeing out a living, but giving my yearly
donation to the org #1 priority. This was before the days of
"suggested donation," not that "suggested donation" really means
anything anyway when a Godmen "suggests" the price his students ought
to pay.
'I "suggest" you pay this amount, so I can be Godman and makea living
off of you!' We bought that line! Isn't life interesting?
A man tells the world he's a "Godman," tells his gullible chelas
they'll go to hell and have their lives fall apart if they leave him
(which includes his org) "for any reason," lies about his life story,
lies about the sources of his divine revelations and communications
(i.e. plagiarizes), and to top it off, lives very nicely off this
spiritual business, heedless that his Great Work contibutes nothing to
society but wounding some, and making others into liars to defend a
spiritual mission based on deception in every way, at every level.
Whoa! Reb just appeared in my room just now! I take it all back!
Joe
>
> Here's your homework. Go to the video store and rent a movie called
> "House of Cards." The italian actor Joe Montainge (sp?) is in it. It is
> about some con men who con a psychologist.
>
> This will give you a more realistic feel of what we are dealing with
> when it comes to Paul and eckankar.
>
> Lurk
Thanks for the tip, Lurk. It's fascinating to me how and why cons
cons, so i'll be looking for that movie in the vid store.
---
Attn: New eckankar critics:
Before engaging in debate with eckists of a.r.e., please avail
yourself of this list of recommended books. You will find them
useful:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809244063/kamurj0b/103-9681224-2176636
M
> A man tells the world he's a "Godman," tells his gullible chelas
> they'll go to hell and have their lives fall apart if they leave him
> (which includes his org) "for any reason," lies about his life story,
> lies about the sources of his divine revelations and communications
> (i.e. plagiarizes), and to top it off, lives very nicely off this
> spiritual business, heedless that his Great Work contibutes nothing to
> society but wounding some, and making others into liars to defend a
> spiritual mission based on deception in every way, at every level.
>
>
>
> Whoa! Reb just appeared in my room just now! I take it all back!
Is he still wearing that horrid purple robe? Anyway....we all know
broken bones can hurt. But there are other kinds of hurt too.
Emotional deception can hurt as much or more than physical abuse. A
point totally lost on Mr. Marmon. Deception and lies leave marks on
the inside. Kids are especially vulnerable to emotional neglect and
hurt. When they are lied to they never feel safe. They never learn to
trust. Even sadder, they become 'comfortable' with deception and seek
it out in adult relationships and, yes, in organizational
relationships too. I wonder how many eckists are so used to lying and
deception that they feel worse when it's not present than when it is.
M.
Tom Leafeater
Oh, the one in #23? Just brought him in a couple of hours ago. Thought he was
catatonic at first, but he's just really one depressed dude.
Well, looks like this one's mine. I was handed the case file when I got back
from lunch.
Good luck, you'll need it.
Why do you say that?
Well, for one thing, be belongs to some kind of new age religion. He's some
kind of priest, according to his neighbor. Seems to be in denial of his
emotions.
A depressed priest?
Yep.
*******(3 weeks later)*******
Okay, friend, want to talk about what's going on? I'm here to help.
I have no problems. I'm just going through a karmic burnoff.
Okay. So what's the karma you're burning off?
Well, I got married yesterday, and two days later, my wife had sex with a guy
she works with.
Yes?
Yes, but I forgive her and I'm grateful to her for the lesson.
Really?
Yes.
That's…remarkable.
Not really. It's the least I could do. This is a great learning experience.
So…how did you find out about this?
She was so open with me. She came home and told me all the details.
What details?
She told me how this happened, and how her relationship began, and the type of
foreplay she gave him.
You're kidding.
No, I wanted her to be honest. I wanted her to trust me. She told me everything
in great detail.
That must have hurt for you to, shall we say, have your nose rubbed in it.
Well, not exactly. You see, I am detached about such things.
Detached?
Yes. I have my emotions under control. Have you ever heard of Eckankar?
Well, I don't think so…
I'm a high initiate in Eckankar. That means I've transcended the lower worlds.
I've transcended the emotional and mental planes of duality and attachment. I
received the fifth initiation only a few weeks before I got married. This is
only a test. I know I am detached, or he wouldn't have given me the initiation.
Who's he?
He? Oh, he the Living Eck Master, the Mahanta, Sri Harold Klemp. He gave me the
initiation.
So you felt nothing when your wife of only two days came home and told you in
intimate detail about the sex she had with a fellow employee?
I'm detached. I feel grateful. I forgive her.
So what brought you here?
My neighbor.
What did your neighbor do?
He called you guys when he noticed I hadn't left my house for days. He thought
something was wrong, but I was only soul traveling.
So what else happened?
About what?
What else happened with you and your wife?
Well, she says she's in love with him. She was in love with him all along, but
she was confused, so she didn't tell me about him.
In love? But you two just married?
Yes. She's leaving me to be with him.
Now, that must hurt!
No, I feel as if a lot of changes are occurring, but it's meant to be. I
thanked her for the opportunity for change.
So what else is going on?
Well, she said she wanted the house, and she was worried I would not cooperate,
but I reassured her of my love and gratitude, and that I would give her the
house. No problem.
What??? You've only been married two days when this happened.
That's okay. I'm a channel for Eck. Its meant to be.
Anything else happen?
Well, she's pregnant.
You've got to be joking!
No, she is pregnant, and she wants alimony, and I think that's fair.
Alimony? After two days of marriage? How much did she ask for?
2,000 per month. I can cut my expenses. The Eck will take care of me.
So you feel no pain, no hurt?
No. I take full responsibility for my emotions, and have released any anger.
So you feel absolutely nothing? You know, it would be perfectly understandable
to most people if you had some human feelings about this.
I do feel a little disappointed…
Disappointed?
Yes, there is a difference!
@aloha.net Rich
"Tom Leafeater" <tomlea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030306023314...@mb-fd.aol.com...
>
> Not really. It's the least I could do. This is a great learning
experience.
>
>
> She was so open with me. She came home and told me all the details.
>
> What details?
>
> She told me how this happened, and how her relationship began, and
the type of
> foreplay she gave him.
>
> You're kidding.
>
> No, I wanted her to be honest. I wanted her to trust me. She told me
everything
> in great detail.
>
> That must have hurt for you to, shall we say, have your nose rubbed
in it.
>
> Well, not exactly. You see, I am detached about such things.
>
> Detached?
>
> Yes. I have my emotions under control. Have you ever heard of
Eckankar?
>
>
> Disappointed?
>
> Yes, there is a difference!
I love this kind of stuff. It tickled my funny bone. It gives such a
clear picture of how the detractors misconceived how to live their
lives while Eckists, and contrastingly shows how different that is
from the Eckists who post here, and Eckists in general.
Thanks again Leaf,;-) for showing everyone how you went wrong. It's
informative for Eckists to see the stumbling blocks that tripped those
that have gone before them. That's what you say you are here for, and
it's in posts like this that you excel. Someone could search the
archives and write a book based on your experiences of how not to be
successful in Eckankar... or better yet, a great comedy.
arelurker
being hurt" and proposed via analogy, and then directly in subsequent
responses, that the hurt people feel is not the result of Paul or
Harold's actions, it is ALL caused by the person feeling such hurt.
Here's a representative sample of his viewpoint:
Doug Wrote:
> But thankfully with Siva Ri's test, we no longer have to even worry about
> intentions or even whether they were lies. All that matters to determine who
> is the cause of the harm is to look at when the actually harm is felt. Since
> these students who feel hurt by Paul feel this way long after he died, how
> could he have caused them harm? In fact, it was their own unconscious
> choices that cause harm, as well as feelings of disappointment, and feelings
> of loss when they no longer believe what they believed for many years.
In response to Doug's position some highly intelligent and wise people
shared their viewpoints. I listed some below and wanted to make a larger
point after these comments below.
Siva Ri Wrote:
Yes, we do create our own responses
to situations, and are responsible for our own feelings. Does it
follow then that the person we are reacting to is free from any
complicity? I think not. Knowing other people have buttons, we can
easily push them. We can easily exploit them. We can abuse their
trust, their gullibility, their emotional tenderness, or whatever. If
Twitchell lies to me, and I get angry, then I am responsible for the
anger, but Twitchell is still a liar exploiting my trust. My anger
does not rise up out of nowhere. It rises up from an external
stimulus. You yourself are constantly saying we should be nice to
others. Why, if other people are responsible for their own emotional
reactions to our criticism? See how you want to have it both ways?
Bottom line - no body is an island, not physically and not
emotionally. Our emotional reactions to external events are interwoven
with those external events. So Twitchell may not "cause" my emotional
reaction in the sense that I stir up my own emotions. But that in no
way lets him off the hook.
Marianne Wrote:
Is he still wearing that horrid purple robe? Anyway....we all know
broken bones can hurt. But there are other kinds of hurt too.
Emotional deception can hurt as much or more than physical abuse. A
point totally lost on Mr. Marmon. Deception and lies leave marks on
the inside. Kids are especially vulnerable to emotional neglect and
hurt. When they are lied to they never feel safe. They never learn to
trust. Even sadder, they become 'comfortable' with deception and seek
it out in adult relationships and, yes, in organizational
relationships too. I wonder how many eckists are so used to lying and
deception that they feel worse when it's not present than when it is.
Beddar Tsellz Wrote:
The "hurt" that a person experiences when a trust is betrayed is both
real and understandable. It is not a "problem" that they have. Healing
requires that they re-organize their lives and relationships. This is
what good psychologists help people do. The illusion overpromoted in
much of the new age literature is that none of these feelings are
important - all we have to do is free ourselves from them. They do
have a good point in some respects: We have to learn to free ourselves
from clinging to feelings of hurt. Such clinging is a "problem" or a
kind of illness and it creates and prolongs much pain. Some of the new
age teachings might help these cases, at least to open the person to
the possibility. But my experience is that really digging to the root
of deeply held emotional issues like this takes dedicated work. Read
Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstacy, the Laundry" for this general
idea.
And...
....Hurting when trust in a relationship is broken
is normal, is real and *is* to some extent caused by the person
breaking the trust. We all know that life if far too complicated to
isolate causes in simple terms, but the ideal we work for is clear: Do
all that we say we will do.
*********
Okay, beside myself and the elegant arguments I put forth, there are
four people who have counseled Doug about his extreme position he put
forth. The question is: will Doug see the errors of his ways, see how
untenable his position is and actually be swayed by such counsel? If
past history is any indication, I'd have to say no. Of course he could
surprise us all, who knows.
Here are some possible responses I anticipate based upon past experience
with having "dialogs" with Doug:
1) He'll stay away from the newsgroup and come back in a couple of weeks
and start responding to other posts and not address this issues any
longer until they come up again a year from now when he'll repeat his
untenable position once again. The argument he put forth here is the
same one he has been putting forth for years. Don't be fooled by the
thread name of "taking another look." The thread should have been
titled: "Why Paul is not and never will be culpable or responsible his
hurtful actions...I have bogus analogies to prove it."
2) He'll take the fact the five people have disagreed with him over this
issue as a sign that he speaking the truth because, afterall, those who
speak the truth are not popular. He can rejoice and revel in the fact
that others just are not as aware or as smart as him and can't see his
superior position.
3) He'll come back and claim that everyone misunderstood his position
and he was only using Savi Ri's viewpoints.
4) He'll come back and imply that people are not really looking deeply
at this issue as he is and challenge them to a REAL dialog.
5) He'll use his brain and cleverness to contort the topic into someone
else. He'll reframe it or move it to some sort of conceptual turf where
he feels he can win.
6) He'll simply imply that people don't know how to have real dialog
like him.
7) He'll outline how the org doesn't have anything to do with the path.
The path is really personal and how can anyone get hurt from such a
personal path.
8) He'll claim that his position is equal to other other positions
expressed here with the implication that truth is relative.
In short, he'll behave like a drunk rationalizing his addiction.
Doug, think of this as an intervention. Some people have gathered around
your argument and are giving you feedback about your extreme position
and the implications of such extreme position. People have gathered to
help you become aware that you have addiction problem with Twitchell.
Perhaps you are caught up in the addiction to be able to see the effects
the addiction has on your arguments. You are beginning to slur your
logic, you are frequently stumbling and losing your balance when it
comes to making distinctions, and you are using Twictchell to feel good
when negative feelings arise from reading people's arguments. I think it
is time to check yourself in a religious detox center. Go spend a month
giving up Twitchell and deal with what comes up. It will be good for
you. We'll all be waiting when you get out and be supportive.
Good luck.
Lurk
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
> In short, he'll behave like a drunk rationalizing his addiction.
Lurk, you can behave like such an ass.
Ad hominem remarks like yours above and group peer pressure are
not adequate in determining what is and what isn't true and useful.
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> >
> > In short, he'll behave like a drunk rationalizing his addiction.
>
> Lurk, you can behave like such an ass.
I'm just continuing my addiction framework in which to understand you
mahanta addicts.
>
> Ad hominem remarks like yours above and group peer pressure are
> not adequate in determining what is and what isn't true and useful.
It is not so much the numbers, but the content of what is said that
determines truthfulness, eh? That's why I arranged to have snippets of
each person's comment.
Notice how you did not respond to each person's content, but just whined
about ad hominem. What does that tell you?
Lurk
Joe
The core of Twitchell's take on shabda yoga/scientology/theosophy
(what we know as "eckankar") isn't so much based on light and sound,
God or Truth (and certainly not on divine love!) as it's based on a
perverse concept of Dishonesty As The Highest Way of Spiritual
Unfoldment.
Take eckankar apart: its true origins, its official history, its
presentation here and elsewhere, and its application, and you
consistently find "slickness" rather than open honesty.
To be honest in eckankar is to be a detractor; to subscribe to the
creed of Marman is to Understand The *Higher* Truth.
Tom Leafeater
Rich wrote:
>Rich
Well, after all that, you've only said in your post I went wrong, without
giving any basis for your reasoning. How did I go wrong, Maestro? Where did I
go astray? Please point out the error of my ways, all-knowing-one.
Leafeater
arelurker
Morgan wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 2003 20:41:51 -0800, joe_...@hotmail.com (Joe) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's your homework. Go to the video store and rent a movie called
> >> "House of Cards." The italian actor Joe Montainge (sp?) is in it. It is
> >> about some con men who con a psychologist.
> >>
> >> This will give you a more realistic feel of what we are dealing with
> >> when it comes to Paul and eckankar.
> >>
> >> Lurk
> >
> >Thanks for the tip, Lurk. It's fascinating to me how and why cons
> >cons, so i'll be looking for that movie in the vid store.
> MORG:
> Aren't movies great Joe and Lurk? We all are running videos of our own
> lives too doncha think? Who do we want to be at this moment and the
> next?
You don't have a control, quit acting like you do.
> What kind of movies will we make? An adventure, comedy, tragedy,
> drama...?
In your case, an infantile cartoon...obviously.
>We're all star quality. Least that's what God told me.
God sucks and is a liar.
Lurk
> <smile>
>
> Morgan
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
> Notice how you did not respond to each person's content, but just whined
> about ad hominem. What does that tell you?
I chose to comment on your attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with
you as some kind of addict. The other individuals you quoted had some
valid points. You did not.
Ken
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> The core of Twitchell's take on shabda yoga/scientology/theosophy
> (what we know as "eckankar") isn't so much based on light and sound,
> God or Truth (and certainly not on divine love!) as it's based on a
> perverse concept of Dishonesty As The Highest Way of Spiritual
> Unfoldment.
>
> Take eckankar apart: its true origins, its official history, its
> presentation here and elsewhere, and its application, and you
> consistently find "slickness" rather than open honesty.
>
> To be honest in eckankar is to be a detractor; to subscribe to the
> creed of Marman is to Understand The *Higher* Truth.
I nominate that post for the Honorary George Orwell Memorial "Black
is White" Award.
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> >
> > Notice how you did not respond to each person's content, but just whined
> > about ad hominem. What does that tell you?
>
> I chose to comment on your attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with
> you as some kind of addict.
Not anyone, just someone like Doug (and yourself for that matter), who
says some very strange things when his "juice" (Paul's and Harold's
image) is threatened. Yours and his narcissistic supply is threatened
just like an alcoholic's supply of booze is being threaten.
The other individuals you quoted had some
> valid points. You did not.
Sure I have a valid point. Marman has been doing his addictive dance
here for years. We can only hope that he will listen and respond
favorably to the "intervention."
What you are calling ad hominem is me giving service to the world. I'm
trying to bring Doug back home to God. You think eckists are the only
ones allow to do that.
Lurk
David
Rich- I just wish I could convey how incredibly practical this path is
to those who are convinced it cannot be. Humility is the very heart of
success here- any ECKist that retains his or her arrogance will not
succeed.
Concern about those we love that goes beyond any possible type of
mental formula
is also a basic. It is strange to see an understanding of what it
means to be a pure channel for the ECK morphed into an unrecognizable
disease- but I guess some folks need to see it that way........
Love, David
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
>
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > > Notice how you did not respond to each person's content, but just whined
> > > about ad hominem. What does that tell you?
> >
> > I chose to comment on your attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with
> > you as some kind of addict.
>
> Not anyone, just someone like Doug (and yourself for that matter),
Right. I should have said, "any Eckist".
> who
> says some very strange things when his "juice" (Paul's and Harold's
> image) is threatened. Yours and his narcissistic supply is threatened
> just like an alcoholic's supply of booze is being threaten.
Yeah, yeah, sure.
Your behavior is just as defensive of your pov as mine. More so,
actually. But the fact is, this whole alcoholic / dependency thing is a
crock, and I suspect that you know it. That's why I say you seem to
have no integrity. You'll apparently say anything to score your
rhetorical points against Eckankar.
But if that's what makes it worthwhile for you to get out of bed in the
morning, well then what can I say? Carry on if you must.
>
> The other individuals you quoted had some
> > valid points. You did not.
>
>
> Sure I have a valid point. Marman has been doing his addictive dance
> here for years. We can only hope that he will listen and respond
> favorably to the "intervention."
>
> What you are calling ad hominem is me giving service to the world. I'm
> trying to bring Doug back home to God. You think eckists are the only
> ones allow to do that.
Attempting to portray someone who does not agree with you as
addicted to their point of view is just plain silly. And it's a definitively
ad hominem response.
arelurker
Herein lies the essence of the problem with groups like eckankar: Your
statement above makes it clear that being humble and acting with
humility is the goal, the "heart of the path" as you say. Spiritual
success is defined as not being arrogant and striving for humility. What
a load of crap you've been sold! (See my post about the con artist and
swamp land.)
You see, I would advise the opposite to someone on a spiritual path: I
would advise one to observe their arrogance without judging it if
possible. Watch it come up and notice under what circumstance it arises
or what prompted it. Watch it fade away or if you choose to take an
interest, go deeper into it. Why? Because that is "what is" at that
moment. It seems to me to be a useful thing to be true to what is going
on in one's present time consciousness.
As soon as you try to do the eckist thing and posit humility as a
strategy in response to arrogance you are causing your arrogance to live
on....only it lives on and hides beneath a false humility that is
erected. Pushing arrogance into shadow sets up a split in a person. You
can see this split manifested among eckists whether here on the
newsgroup or at eck functions. You know the nice and humble eckist that
comes to this newsgroup who has their humble act down but can't conceal
the arrogance that oozes from their being to which they remain unaware.
The same is true for holding up humility as the spiritual goal. You'll
never achieve it because humility isn't a learned behavior for the most
part. Humility and humbleness are byproducts of a certain consciousness
or state, not a goal to be achieved and certainly not some quality every
eckists has to emulate like monkeys.
This is why I like to poke fun at eckists being pussies. I'm trying to
wake them up from the pussy stupor. From what I observed in eckankar,
Harold has done a fine job of elevating his pussy qualities, his
passivity to some sort of signification of his high spiritual
attainment. I mean, let's face it, the guy is an A-1 quintessential
pussy, a boy in a man's body. He talks like a pussy, he walks like a
pussy and thinks like a pussy. And then his male followers start talking
like a pussies and walking like a pussies..... I mean it is enough to
makes all us manly men sick. It makes me want to go watch football after
talking to eckists.
Lurk
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> >
> >
> > Ken wrote:
> > >
> > > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > > >
> > > > Notice how you did not respond to each person's content, but just whined
> > > > about ad hominem. What does that tell you?
> > >
> > > I chose to comment on your attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with
> > > you as some kind of addict.
> >
> > Not anyone, just someone like Doug (and yourself for that matter),
>
> Right. I should have said, "any Eckist".
I disagree, not all eckists are addictive zealots.
>
> > who
> > says some very strange things when his "juice" (Paul's and Harold's
> > image) is threatened. Yours and his narcissistic supply is threatened
> > just like an alcoholic's supply of booze is being threaten.
>
> Yeah, yeah, sure.
>
> Your behavior is just as defensive of your pov as mine. More so,
> actually. But the fact is, this whole alcoholic / dependency thing is a
> crock, and I suspect that you know it. That's why I say you seem to
> have no integrity. You'll apparently say anything to score your
> rhetorical points against Eckankar.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss my fine comparisons. There is such a
thing as religious addiction. I read a book once a few years back the
great Samorez use to quote called, "When God Becomes a Drug" by Father
Leo Booth.
So at the very least, I have a Priest who backs me up.
>
> But if that's what makes it worthwhile for you to get out of bed in the
> morning, well then what can I say? Carry on if you must.
>
> >
> > The other individuals you quoted had some
> > > valid points. You did not.
> >
> >
> > Sure I have a valid point. Marman has been doing his addictive dance
> > here for years. We can only hope that he will listen and respond
> > favorably to the "intervention."
> >
> > What you are calling ad hominem is me giving service to the world. I'm
> > trying to bring Doug back home to God. You think eckists are the only
> > ones allow to do that.
>
> Attempting to portray someone who does not agree with you as
> addicted to their point of view is just plain silly.
I wasn't saying he was addicted to his point of view but that his
addictive behavior cause him to have such a point of view. Big
difference. Study my post again and see if you get it.
Lurk
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote
>
Ken wrote...
> > Attempting to portray someone who does not agree with you as
> > addicted to their point of view is just plain silly.
>
> I wasn't saying he was addicted to his point of view but that his
> addictive behavior cause him to have such a point of view. Big
> difference. Study my post again and see if you get it.
>
> Lurk
What addictive behavior? You need to be able to define and delineate
it in detail. Otherwise, it's just more hot air. As I said before, regarding
all this addiction BS you keep spouting. . . it's a definitively ad
hominem response.
I'm just waiting for you to call me a "little monkey".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,908386,00.html
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
> You see, I would advise the opposite to someone on a spiritual path: I
> would advise one to observe their arrogance without judging it if
> possible. Watch it come up and notice under what circumstance it arises
> or what prompted it. Watch it fade away or if you choose to take an
> interest, go deeper into it. Why? Because that is "what is" at that
> moment. It seems to me to be a useful thing to be true to what is going
> on in one's present time consciousness.
Please! Tell us how it is, oh great Bhodisatva.
Anyone who takes spiritual advise from such an abusive prick as you . . .
Really, it simply boggles the mind.
arelurker
Morgan wrote:
>
> Oh mighty Lurk,
You should have stopped right there.
flattering yourself daily here doesn't make you a
> superior person. You simply just like to holler at others for their
> faults and express an unability to love another.
How does one express their unability to love another.
I assume you mean express my inability to love another.
If you meant inability, how can I express something I an unable to do?
Why is this so? Do
> you care just for yourself?
I care for others. I'm helping you return home to God from the Harji's pussyland.
Is this so called honesty you try to send
> out just a thinly, veiled hostility?
No, thanks for asking.
Is your indirect way of communicating your thinly veiled hostility?
Lurk says God sucks yet God still
> loves him. Lurk says God is a liar. Prove him wrong Lurk. When you say
> things like this, how do you expect people to believe you? Geeze,
> Lurk! <smile>
I hardly think God gives a crap about your silly new age notions of
controlling your life. That's why I said your God sucks and is a liar.
Lurk
>
> Morgan
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> >
> > You see, I would advise the opposite to someone on a spiritual path: I
> > would advise one to observe their arrogance without judging it if
> > possible. Watch it come up and notice under what circumstance it arises
> > or what prompted it. Watch it fade away or if you choose to take an
> > interest, go deeper into it. Why? Because that is "what is" at that
> > moment. It seems to me to be a useful thing to be true to what is going
> > on in one's present time consciousness.
>
> Please! Tell us how it is, oh great Bhodisatva.
I believe the correct spelling of the word has two "t's."
Bodhisattva
> Anyone who takes spiritual advise from such an abusive prick as you . . .
> Really, it simply boggles the mind.
Abusive? How can you characterize me as abusive? The abuse is all in
your head, right?
Lurk
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote
> >
> Ken wrote...
> > > Attempting to portray someone who does not agree with you as
> > > addicted to their point of view is just plain silly.
> >
> > I wasn't saying he was addicted to his point of view but that his
> > addictive behavior cause him to have such a point of view. Big
> > difference. Study my post again and see if you get it.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> What addictive behavior? You need to be able to define and delineate
> it in detail.
Define, for you? Why? You can't hear what I say anyway with you head in
the sand.
Otherwise, it's just more hot air. As I said before, regarding
> all this addiction BS you keep spouting. . . it's a definitively ad
> hominem response.
>
> I'm just waiting for you to call me a "little monkey".
Will and ostrich do?
Lurk
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,908386,00.html
arelurker
Morgan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 14:29:13 -0500, arelurker <arel...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Morgan wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh mighty Lurk,
> >
> >You should have stopped right there.
> >
> >
> >flattering yourself daily here doesn't make you a
> >> superior person. You simply just like to holler at others for their
> >> faults and express an unability to love another.
> >
> >How does one express their unability to love another.
> >
> >I assume you mean express my inability to love another.
> >
> >If you meant inability, how can I express something I an unable to do?
> >
> >
> >
> >Why is this so? Do
> >> you care just for yourself?
> >
> >I care for others. I'm helping you return home to God from the Harji's pussyland.
> >
> >
> >Is this so called honesty you try to send
> >> out just a thinly, veiled hostility?
> >
> >No, thanks for asking.
> >
> >Is your indirect way of communicating your thinly veiled hostility?
> >
> >
> >Lurk says God sucks yet God still
> >> loves him. Lurk says God is a liar. Prove him wrong Lurk. When you say
> >> things like this, how do you expect people to believe you? Geeze,
> >> Lurk! <smile>
> >
> >I hardly think God gives a crap about your silly new age notions of
> >controlling your life. That's why I said your God sucks and is a liar.
> >
> >Lurk
> >
> MORG:
> You're so full of crap Lurkji. Why don't you start a religion?
I understand why you would think being full of crap is a requirment for
starting a religion....being a Harji and Paulji follower and everything.
Lurk
>
> Morgan
Sam
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Your Doctor
Sam
@aloha.net Rich
"David" <soul...@aol.com> wrote
> "Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote
> > It's
> > informative for Eckists to see the stumbling blocks that tripped
those
> > that have gone before them.
> Rich- I just wish I could convey how incredibly practical this path
is
> to those who are convinced it cannot be. Humility is the very heart
of
> success here- any ECKist that retains his or her arrogance will not
> succeed.
> Concern about those we love that goes beyond any possible type of
> mental formula
> is also a basic. It is strange to see an understanding of what it
> means to be a pure channel for the ECK morphed into an
unrecognizable
> disease- but I guess some folks need to see it that way........
And that's OK... In the big picture all are in the ongoing process of
learning to balance our dualistic manifestations so the clear view of
Soul can shine through. Passive/aggressive, pain/pleasure, ect - the
greater the extreme, the more recognizable it becomes as the stumbling
blocks grow into walls. The spiritual path entails exploring the
illusion of these walls until they resolve into Divine Love.
Doug Marman
"Siva Ri" <siv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0a906c9.03030...@posting.google.com...
> Doug, when you first started this thread, I suspected you might be
> setting up a loophole as a way to deflect criticisms against Paul.
> Thank you for not disappointing me. I wish to make a point here
> though, since you seem to think my thoughts on self-created "pain"
> support your Twitchell loophole. Yes, we do create our own responses
> to situations, and are responsible for our own feelings. Does it
> follow then that the person we are reacting to is free from any
> complicity? I think not. Knowing other people have buttons, we can
> easily push them. We can easily exploit them. We can abuse their
> trust, their gullibility, their emotional tenderness, or whatever. If
> Twitchell lies to me, and I get angry, then I am responsible for the
> anger, but Twitchell is still a liar exploiting my trust. My anger
> does not rise up out of nowhere. It rises up from an external
> stimulus. You yourself are constantly saying we should be nice to
> others. Why, if other people are responsible for their own emotional
> reactions to our criticism? See how you want to have it both ways?
> Bottom line - no body is an island, not physically and not
> emotionally. Our emotional reactions to external events are interwoven
> with those external events. So Twitchell may not "cause" my emotional
> reaction in the sense that I stir up my own emotions. But that in no
> way lets him off the hook.
DOUG RESPONDS:
First, I am raising this whole discussion point mainly because I am curious.
I'm actually trying to learn something about this that isn't quite clear to
me yet, so I'm feeling my way along. It's kind of like thinking out loud,
but inviting others to jump in and add their comments as well.
I find it curious that you would be so happy to see that I brought this
discussion back to Paul, but it seems to have slipped your notice that in
fact it was Lurk who brought this subject back to Paul. I was actually happy
to see the discussion at first not be used one way or the other. However,
since Lurk brought the point of it back to Paul, I thought I'd follow his
lead to see if reactions changed on how to look at these things. Well, no
big surprise that the discussion immediately gets far more polarized.
Anyway, enough explanation.
I actually agree with you, contrary to what you are suggesting, that people
can hurt others. I agree that if someone lies to exploit someone else that
they have hurt them and will be responsible for what they have created. I
also agree with you that if a person reacts to such actions that such
reactions are their own creations.
And I agree that when anger rises up in response to abuse that this is
natural and quite often appropriate. It is in fact a reflection of what the
other person has created.
Why do you think I disagree with these things? I actually find them quite
obvious and think we probably see these things fairly closely, from what you
are saying.
Perhaps you could point out what you thought I said that would have led you
to believe that I disagreed?
Doug.
> >
> "Doug Marman" <d.ma...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<J0C8a.334667$Ec4.3...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > From Siva Ri's great observation, we can help distinguish the pain
caused by
> > a person's own internalized feelings and real hurt caused by others.
It's
> > easy for these to be confused, but as Siva Ri pointed out, if it is
really
> > being caused by another person, then the pain should be felt at the
moment
> > it is done, not after the thought of it sinks in. What is really nice
about
> > Siva Ri's approach is that it does not depend upon intentions, which are
> > almost always impossible to determine, but is based on what hurt is
caused
> > by others and what is internalized.
> >
> > Also, from Ben we learned that abusers can try to mix up the difference
> > between real hurt caused by others and internalized pain. They can use
this
> > to justify that the pain caused by their abuse is not really caused by
them.
> > So, it is important for us to be able to distinguish the difference.
> >
> > To these two principles, I would like to add the one I just mentioned in
my
> > post responding to Sam: That it is important for us to be conscious of
what
> > is affecting us and where it is coming from. By taking responsibility
for
> > our choices, we return to ourselves our ability to consciously choose
our
> > attitudes and what we say or do. Therefore, it is important for us to
see
> > the difference between pain caused by our own internal reactions and
real
> > hurt caused by others.
> >
> > Now, based on these three principles, I'd like to take a closer look at
> > Lurk's recent response to my post:
> >
> > > LURK WROTE:
> > > So is a spiritual teacher who garners the trust of his students and
> > > breaches such trust by lying, it that forcing themselves on the other
> > > person and constitute hurt?
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > We can easily answer this by using Siva Ri's test. When did this feeling
of
> > hurt occur? Is it at the moment when the teacher says something, or
later
> > when the person comes to believe their trust has been breached?
> >
> > This is a great test, since it doesn't matter whether what was said was
> > actually a lie or not (which is a good thing since there is quite a bit
of
> > disagreement over this) and it doesn't matter what the intention was
(since
> > there is even more disagreement over this).
> >
> > If we take the cases raised against Paul, for example, we find that all
of
> > what Paul said or wrote happened long before any "pain" was felt by
those
> > who claim they were hurt by Paul. In fact, in pretty much all the cases
I've
> > heard of, Paul wrote or said them before these people were even studying
his
> > teachings. Therefore they clearly did not feel their pain at the moment
Paul
> > did or said what now bothers them.
> >
> > This shows, as Siva Ri pointed out, that the pain did not come from what
> > Paul said or wrote, but from the internal reactions of people and how
they
> > chose to take it.
> >
> >
> > > LURK CONTINUED:
> > > I think a better analogy to the eckankar situation is the con artist
and
> > > the mark.
> > >
> > > The con artist lies to the mark for material and emotional gain. Con
> > > artist just love the excitement of putting one over on others.
> > >
> > > Twitchell (and Harold by extension) lies to others for material and
> > > emotional gain. They just love fashioning themselves as these high
> > > consciousness individuals to compensate for the smallness.
> > >
> > > The mark believes the lies of the con artist because their emotional
> > > greed takes over. They fall for the "it sounds to good to be true"
> > > proposition because they have some part of themselves that is lacking
> > > and wants to compensate for that by imagining all the wonders that
will
> > > happen when what the con artist is selling comes true.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > Going back to Siva Ri's principle, the actual harm caused when someone
is
> > conned is the actual money stolen. That's the part that is missing from
this
> > example by Lurk. There is no money stolen by Paul or Harold. The rest of
> > Lurk's story is just an example of how people can mix up real harm
caused by
> > others and the feelings of pain we feel within ourselves.
> >
> > This, of course, doesn't mean that these feelings of pain are not real.
We
> > all know what these feel like, but it is not the feeling of being conned
> > that justifies us calling it a con. It must actually mean harm caused by
> > actually stealing, which happens at the moment of the theft.
> >
> > It is obvious that people who do not believe in religion make claims
like
> > this one, that all religion is a rip off and a con. That's obviously the
> > same mistake being made here, since there is no theft in religion (in
> > general) but what they are talking about is the feelings that a person
can
> > feel when they realize that they believed in something that they now no
> > longer believe in. If they choose to do so, they can blame those who led
> > them into believing in religion in the first place, as if it was someone
> > else's choice rather than their own to choose.
> >
> > Going back to the third principle, above, there is actually harm that we
do
> > to our own Soul when we talking ourselves into believing that what we
> > believe is caused by someone else. It is our choice and we should always
be
> > choosing it consciously. Then, if we change our mind, we should also
change
> > it consciously. We make our own choices and we live with our choices,
and to
> > try blaming others for the results of our choices means we have not yet
> > taken responsibility for our own choices.
> >
> >
> > > LURK CONTINUES:
> > > Eckists believe the lies of Paul because their spiritual greed takes
> > > over. They fall for Paul's absolutistic and black and white rhetoric
and
> > > outright lies because they have a lack within themselves. They want to
> > > compensate for this lack by imagining themselves being aligned with
the
> > > highest consciousness IN THE WORLD and all the other trashy spiritual
> > > stuff Paul sold.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > Obviously, Lurk is just spouting what he would like to believe, and is
> > obviously not representing how ECKists feel about it. He is suggesting
that
> > they do not know the real reason why they believe in Paul's teaching,
but he
> > does know.
> >
> > Back to principle number three, it is clear that we should know. It is
> > important to know our real reasons, because if we don't how can we make
> > conscious choices?
> >
> > But of course this also means that we must decide for ourselves what our
> > reasons are, not the pronoucements of Lurk. So, this is merely a
baseless
> > and meaningless remark by Lurk, since only each person can speak for
> > themselves what their reasons are. This is a part of what it means to
> > consciously know and to consciously choose.
> >
> >
> > > LURK CONTINUED:
> > > When a Mark finds out they have been conned, it is natural to blame
the
> > > con artist for misleading them. Many will not look at their own greed
> > > and how that played a role. They will say the con artist hurt them
badly
> > > for gaining their confidence and breaching their trust. IN my opinion,
> > > they are partially right. It is hurtful on the part of the con artist
to
> > > lie and mislead for material gain so the con artist has culpability.
> > > However, the Mark has culpability too for it was their own greed that
> > > allow the con artist to hurt them. So for the mark to say the con
artist
> > > hurt them and to deny their part is partially correct and further sets
> > > themselves up to be conned again by someone else. For the con artist
(or
> > > his apologist) to suggest that they Mark is exclusively responsible
for
> > > his/her hurt because hurt is a matter of interpretation on the part of
> > > the Mark and to support the notion that the con artist did not hurt
the
> > > mark, is partially correct and amounts to adding insult to injury.
> > >
> > > The comparisons to eckankar and paul are obvious so I won't expound to
> > > much here.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > The problem, once again, with Lurk's analogy is that he is talking only
> > about the internalized pain and internalized hurt of being conned. There
> > really is no theft or crime with religion or what Paul or Harold have
> > written or said. If so, we could use Siva Ri's test and we would see
that
> > the harm was actually caused at the moment of the theft. Since Paul died
> > before the dissenters even began studying his teachings, it is clear
that no
> > harm was done at the moment of what Paul wrote or taught. Therefore,
there
> > was no harm caused by what he said.
> >
> > Where pain comes in is when we choose to believe something and then feel
> > disappointment when what we believed no longer seems true. It is the
same
> > with relationships: We feel pain when the relationship breaks up - no
matter
> > what may have caused it, there will still be pain due to the loss. This
is a
> > very real feeling and one that we all try to avoid causing others to go
> > through, but we cannot control what others will experience.
> >
> > This whole issue becomes even more obvious when I think back to the
reasons
> > that the dissenters on ARE have shared for leaving ECKANKAR. Of all the
> > people who have shared, I can only think of one who did so because he
felt
> > lied to about plagiarism or the other so-called lies. He truly seemed
> > sincerely upset by his feeling of broken trust. He also admitted that
> > through his own childhood where he suffered real pain at the hands of
his
> > parents and how this also led to feelings of lost trust. So, it was
clear
> > that for him the feeling of lost trust brought back for him memories of
real
> > pain and suffering caused by real abuse. This is what made it so
difficult
> > for him to go through this feeling again.
> >
> > However, this also shows us, once again, how important it is for us to
be
> > conscious of our choices and conscious of what is influencing us or
> > affecting us. Yet, while I've only heard of this one case, I've heard of
> > dozens where people claim they are upset after they decide to leave and
then
> > find out about Paul's plagiarism or other so-called lies that get thrown
> > around. The pain they feel is clearly something going on within
themselves.
> > Many even knew about the plagiarism before they left, but now feel that
it
> > was because they were being "conned" that they didn't realize what it
really
> > meant. This is all internalized pain, and not pain caused by Paul or
Harold.
> >
> > This is why ECKists don't agree with the "con" analogy, since they still
do
> > believe in Paul or Harold's teaching. Therefore, for them, they don't
see
> > any intent to con or any theft or crime. This just shows us further that
it
> > is not harm caused by Paul or Harold.
> >
> >
> > > LURK CONTINUED:
> > > The question boils down to: Does lying to students in the way Paul
lied
> > > to student constitute hurting them? Is that invasive? Is that getting
> > > into people's space? Given the circumstances I'd say yes. Why? People
> > > can only be responsible for their decisions and interpretations and
> > > emotions when it is based upon the truth. When it is based upon lies
> > > they are fed, then some of the students responsibility is taken from
> > > them by the liar, Paul.
> > >
> > > Is the student who realizes this who blames Paul for feeling hurt and
> > > betrayed right to express such say Paul hurt them? Partially. Yes they
> > > are right in saying Paul's lying hurt them, but if they do so in a
> > > manner in which they take no responsibility for their gullibility in
> > > believing, then they are partially right and are misusing the
language.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > It is nice of Lurk to say that part of the responsibility belongs to the
> > student, but in fact their choice to believe is all their responsbility.
> > This is even clearer when we see that Paul and Harold have both made it
> > clear that no one should become an initiate in ECKANKAR without first
> > studying for two years.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > So that the student knows what they are getting into and is sure this is
> > what they want to do. This is to give them time so that they can make a
> > conscious choice. That's the whole basis of the teaching. If you aren't
> > making conscious choices, then you are bringing harm to your own self.
> >
> > It is quite obvious to me, and most ECKists, that Paul taught out of his
> > care for students, not because he wanted to swindle them. This whole
concept
> > of Paul intentionally trying to defraud others is bogus, as far as I'm
> > concerned. There simply is nothing to even come close to proving it. It
is
> > all based on internalized hurt.
> >
> > But thankfully with Siva Ri's test, we no longer have to even worry
about
> > intentions or even whether they were lies. All that matters to determine
who
> > is the cause of the harm is to look at when the actually harm is felt.
Since
> > these students who feel hurt by Paul feel this way long after he died,
how
> > could he have caused them harm? In fact, it was their own unconscious
> > choices that cause harm, as well as feelings of disappointment, and
feelings
> > of loss when they no longer believe what they believed for many years.
> >
> >
> > > LURK WROTE:
> > > Where the Doug's marriage analogy fails in reflecting some of the
finer
> > > aspects of the eckankar situation is where people leave eckankar and
> > > come to terms with their own responsibility for feeling hurt and
> > > delineate Paul or Harold's responsibility.... and go on to warn others
> > > how they have been, and are being, lied to. And in the course of such
> > > warnings, they explain how Paul hurt people with his lying and how
> > > students set themselves up to be hurt by having something inside that
> > > wants to believe such bullshit, then this is accurate use of language
in
> > > my opinion. Warning others about the hurtful lying of Paul doesn't
mean
> > > the person has not moved on and all the other junk Doug tries to
portray
> > > in his analogy.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > Lurk couldn't be more wrong on this point if he tried. What Lurk is
> > describing is exactly what often happens in cases of failed
relationships.
> > It is common to see one party acting as if the other party harmed them,
how
> > they turned out to be far from what they thought they were, which means
they
> > were lied to. And of course feeling anger and feeling hurt they then
feel
> > justified in telling others about how bad their ex-partner was.
> >
> > In fact, if we study this closely we see that this falls squarely onto
Ben's
> > principle - that abusers will mix up the cause of harm to justify their
own
> > abusive behavior. So, we hear rapists claiming that the woman was asking
for
> > it by wearing a dress or putting make-up on. They justify in their own
minds
> > that they did not really cause them harm, when they clearly did.
> >
> > When a ex turns on their previous partner like this, it is clearly
abusive,
> > unless of course they were literally abused. Not just feeling pain for a
> > failed relationship, but real harm caused at the moment it was done.
> >
> > We have no case for real harm caused by Paul or Harold, because all
these
> > people complaining were students for many years before deciding to
leave.
> > After they decide to leave, they feel the pain. This shows that this is
an
> > internal matter, and one that is their own responsibility. We all must
take
> > responsibility for our feelings of hurt when a relationship falls apart.
It
> > is the same situation here.
> >
> >
> > > LURK CONTINUED:
> > > People who warn others about the con in the neighborhood are doing the
> > > civic duty, a public service whether they have come to terms with
their
> > > own part in the con or not.
> > >
> > > A misuse of language is to use perceptional mechanics and semantics to
> > > keep the con from sharing responsibility by semantically making them
> > > exempt from hurting people which is what I percieve Doug is doing.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > Lurk's example only works when there was a real con or real abuse - not
just
> > internalized feelings of pain or hurt.
> >
> > However, if we want to take Lurk's case and make it even more obvious -
we
> > know that some people have been sent to prison when they were innocent.
DNA
> > tests have been proving the innocence of people on death row. What if
> > someone is wrongly accused, and then treated like criminals even after
> > released from prison. How will the people feel when they find out that
they
> > were innocent? Will they apologize? Will they accept the harm they
caused to
> > the other person? Or will they continue to imagine they are really
guilty to
> > avoid the realization that they are now the abuser?
> >
> > The problem I'm getting at is that when no real abuse or con has
occurred
> > that Lurk's suggestion is clearly and obviously a form of justified
abuse in
> > itself. To label someone a criminal when no crime has been proven is
against
> > everything we call justice in this country. This is exactly whey we say
a
> > person is innocent until proven guilty. Neither Paul or Harold have been
> > proven guilty of any crime. Not even close. Yet Lurk wants to hang up
> > posters and floud ARE with posts treating them like they were criminals.
> >
> > I say this borders on abuse, but it certainly does show us that we need
to
> > clear of our own conscious choices and to become conscious of what
really is
> > affecting us and why.
> >
> >
> > > LURK CONTINUED:
> > > In order for your apologetics to work Doug, you have to convince
people
> > > that conning or lying to students is not hurting people. Good luck
with
> > > that argument.
> >
> > DOUG RESPONDS:
> > I think that was just shown above. However, I think before I would have
to
> > prove such a thing, Lurk would have to prove that harm was actually felt
at
> > the time of the so-called crime. Since Paul died before he even started
> > studying Paul's teachings, I'd say Lurk hasn't got a chance to prove his
> > point.
> >
> > Never mind the fact that Lurk has not proven that there was no intent to
con
> > or intent to defraud anyone.
> >
> > Well, that should stir up the discussion a little. <G>
> >
> > Doug.
Tom Leafeater
Ha! Yes, Ken is creating his own pain here, according to Doug, for the pain
didn't occur when the abuse actually germinated, i.e., the moment you typed the
response but before pushing the send button!
Leaf
cher
Can you spell "head trip"? <smile>
cher
sort of male... the thinking, feeling sort just freaks you out to such a
degree that you attack them without so much as a thought as to how
ignorant it makes you appear. <smile> Maybe that's why you're so
desperately afraid of homosexuals as well. Interesting what you show
this group about yourself, lurk. Fascinating character.... for a comic
book. <grin>
arelurker wrote:
<snip>
cher
lives.... it means that they can see these experiences from various
perspectives and therefore are not overwhelmed by these experiences.
Sure people feel hurt.... but they actually get over it. And believe it
or not, this isn't limited to only ECKists. There are millions of beings
who find their strength and courage and overcome these tests of faith in
their lives. A great many people find that these tests make them
stronger, unlike you and your friends who are seeking to make mountains
out of molehills. Nothing sadder than a being who desperately longs to
be a victim, but has no scares to market.
Tom Leafeater wrote:
>
> What's with the new one?"
>
> Oh, the one in #23? Just brought him in a couple of hours ago. Thought he was
> catatonic at first, but he's just really one depressed dude.
>
> Well, looks like this one's mine. I was handed the case file when I got back
> from lunch.
>
> Good luck, you'll need it.
>
> Why do you say that?
>
> Well, for one thing, be belongs to some kind of new age religion. He's some
> kind of priest, according to his neighbor. Seems to be in denial of his
> emotions.
>
> A depressed priest?
>
> Yep.
>
> *******(3 weeks later)*******
>
> Okay, friend, want to talk about what's going on? I'm here to help.
>
> I have no problems. I'm just going through a karmic burnoff.
>
> Okay. So what's the karma you're burning off?
>
> Well, I got married yesterday, and two days later, my wife had sex with a guy
> she works with.
>
> Yes?
>
> Yes, but I forgive her and I'm grateful to her for the lesson.
>
> Really?
>
> Yes.
>
> That's…remarkable.
>
> Not really. It's the least I could do. This is a great learning experience.
>
> So…how did you find out about this?
>
> She was so open with me. She came home and told me all the details.
>
> What details?
>
> She told me how this happened, and how her relationship began, and the type of
> foreplay she gave him.
>
> You're kidding.
>
> No, I wanted her to be honest. I wanted her to trust me. She told me everything
> in great detail.
>
> That must have hurt for you to, shall we say, have your nose rubbed in it.
>
> Well, not exactly. You see, I am detached about such things.
>
> Detached?
>
> Yes. I have my emotions under control. Have you ever heard of Eckankar?
>
> Well, I don't think so…
> I do feel a little disappointed…
cher
real....ly this abusive and droll.
arelurker wrote:
<snipe>
cher
himself. Little does he realize that he's got a guru complex and by
destroying all others in his path who might be competition is a means to
an end. <grin>
Morgan wrote:
>
> Oh mighty Lurk, flattering yourself daily here doesn't make you a
> superior person. You simply just like to holler at others for their
> faults and express an unability to love another. Why is this so? Do
> you care just for yourself? Is this so called honesty you try to send
> out just a thinly, veiled hostility? Lurk says God sucks yet God still
> loves him. Lurk says God is a liar. Prove him wrong Lurk. When you say
> things like this, how do you expect people to believe you? Geeze,
> Lurk! <smile>
>
> Morgan
>
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 23:25:31 -0500, arelurker <arel...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
Doug Marman
"Joe" <joe_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ef6e483.03030...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > Here's your homework. Go to the video store and rent a movie called
> > "House of Cards." The italian actor Joe Montainge (sp?) is in it. It is
> > about some con men who con a psychologist.
> >
> > This will give you a more realistic feel of what we are dealing with
> > when it comes to Paul and eckankar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I've seen it and I remember it. It was a good movie.
And then of course there is The Sting.
Doug.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> Thanks for the tip, Lurk. It's fascinating to me how and why cons
> cons, so i'll be looking for that movie in the vid store.
>
Doug Marman
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3E681F3A...@charter.net...
>
>
> Morgan wrote:
> >
> > On 5 Mar 2003 20:41:51 -0800, joe_...@hotmail.com (Joe) wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Here's your homework. Go to the video store and rent a movie called
> > >> "House of Cards." The italian actor Joe Montainge (sp?) is in it. It
is
> > >> about some con men who con a psychologist.
> > >>
> > >> This will give you a more realistic feel of what we are dealing with
> > >> when it comes to Paul and eckankar.
> > >>
> > >> Lurk
> > >
> > >Thanks for the tip, Lurk. It's fascinating to me how and why cons
> > >cons, so i'll be looking for that movie in the vid store.
> > MORG:
> > Aren't movies great Joe and Lurk? We all are running videos of our own
> > lives too doncha think? Who do we want to be at this moment and the
> > next?
>
> You don't have a control, quit acting like you do.
>
>
> > What kind of movies will we make? An adventure, comedy, tragedy,
> > drama...?
>
> In your case, an infantile cartoon...obviously.
>
>
> >We're all star quality. Least that's what God told me.
>
> God sucks and is a liar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
So, based on your previous logic, God is therefore also hurtful, since he is
a liar.
Doug.
Doug Marman
>
>
> Morgan wrote:
> >
> > Oh mighty Lurk,
>
> You should have stopped right there.
>
>
> flattering yourself daily here doesn't make you a
> > superior person. You simply just like to holler at others for their
> > faults and express an unability to love another.
>
> How does one express their unability to love another.
>
> I assume you mean express my inability to love another.
>
> If you meant inability, how can I express something I an unable to do?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Well, I could understand what Morgan meant. Why is it so hard to follow?
If someone steps up to a piano and clearly is unable to play good music,
that shows them expressing their inability to play the piano.
>
> Why is this so? Do
> > you care just for yourself?
>
> I care for others. I'm helping you return home to God from the Harji's
pussyland.
>
>
> Is this so called honesty you try to send
> > out just a thinly, veiled hostility?
>
> No, thanks for asking.
>
> Is your indirect way of communicating your thinly veiled hostility?
>
>
> Lurk says God sucks yet God still
> > loves him. Lurk says God is a liar. Prove him wrong Lurk. When you say
> > things like this, how do you expect people to believe you? Geeze,
> > Lurk! <smile>
>
> I hardly think God gives a crap about your silly new age notions of
> controlling your life. That's why I said your God sucks and is a liar.
DOUG RESPONDS:
More assertions, but where is the evidence to back it up? <G>
Doug.
cher
Wow! I missed that hat trick! Lurk has been abused by God. Now that's
the consummate victimology. Amazing..... victimized by God.... I wonder
who he could sue over that complaint! <grin>
Doug Marman
"Beddar Tsellz" <beddar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f7c6a07b.03030...@posting.google.com...
> Doug and Siva Ri,
>
> Some of this sounds like the worst of the "New Age" to me. I
> appreciate all the efforts to parse pain, but if we're walking down
> that path, let me parse it a little more:
>
> When a person causes physical damage to our body, it generally hurts.
> Why does it hurt? It hurts because a specific structure in our body,
> the nervous system, is designed to create unpleasant sensations under
> certain conditions. What are those conditions? Simply put, the
> conditions causing pain are any effect that threatens to disrupt or
> does disrupt the integrity of the body. The body is made up of cells
> and structures that communicate in millions of ways to make the body
> function as a whole. The nervous system tells us when that integrity
> is threatened.
>
> We understand physical pain so well because it is easy to see when
> someone affects our body and we immediately feel pain. The cause and
> effect is obvious. At the emotional level, the situation is slightly
> more subtle, and admittedly, it does require a deeper look. However, I
> think with just a couple of distinctions, it is not so hard to
> understand.
>
> Although humans (and westerners in particular) often like to think of
> themselves as separate entities, we are in fact all very much
> connected (just as the ecosystem is interconnected). What others do
> can affect us at an emotional level. Although we can't see our
> emotional selves with our eyes, our lives on an emotional level are
> just as real as our physical lives, only the interconnections are even
> more immediate.
>
> To be very clear, let's look at our physical lives for a moment. If an
> auto mechanic fixes our car, he does so with the expectation that we
> are going to pay him. If we don't pay him, it does hurt him. It hurts
> his life, his ability to pay his bills (fulfill his obligation to
> others), and to feed his family, etc. This is a form of harm as much
> as bodily harm. This is why Harold so often talks about doing all we
> say we will do. Contracts and agreements are the metaphor for the
> lines of interconnection that make societies function.
>
> On an emotional level, it's the same thing. We build our lives within
> a framework of agreements and understandings with others, especially
> those who we love. Just as the body feels pain when its integrity is
> threatened, so does our emotional life. In a marriage, a very deep
> level of intimacy is possible precisely because of the very great
> trust between the partners. In our culture, most people enter marriage
> with an understanding of fidelity. In other cultures (and for some in
> this culture), the understanding may be different. But here,
> especially based on the Christian roots and vows used in marriage,
> along with the cultural norms, there is generally an understanding of
> fidelity.
>
> The concept is no different for a team of basketball players. When
> they go out on the court, they expect their team mates to do their
> best for the team. If one member throws the game for whatever reason,
> the players are hurt. This is not just some problem they have with
> attachment, and they don't need to go read books on attitude
> adjustment. They have based some part of their lives on this
> understanding between team mates. If they knew one of the team mates
> would deliberately lose the game for them, they would put their energy
> elsewhere. Their lives have been "hurt" by the deceptive player.
>
> The "hurt" that a person experiences when a trust is betrayed is both
> real and understandable. It is not a "problem" that they have. Healing
> requires that they re-organize their lives and relationships. This is
> what good psychologists help people do. The illusion overpromoted in
> much of the new age literature is that none of these feelings are
> important - all we have to do is free ourselves from them. They do
> have a good point in some respects: We have to learn to free ourselves
> from clinging to feelings of hurt. Such clinging is a "problem" or a
> kind of illness and it creates and prolongs much pain. Some of the new
> age teachings might help these cases, at least to open the person to
> the possibility. But my experience is that really digging to the root
> of deeply held emotional issues like this takes dedicated work. Read
> Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstacy, the Laundry" for this general
> idea.
>
> We live our lives in networks of relationships, and Harold has done a
> great service by pointing people to the idea that we must do all we
> say we will do. Our agreements are invisible connections that provide
> the means for life to operate at the relationship and community level.
> Having an awareness of Soul doesn't isolate us from this truth. The
> "Mr. Spock" ideal from Star Trek isn't real life (even the show itself
> continually made that point). The experience of emotional pain is
> often a signal, just like the nervous system sensation of pain,
> telling us that the integrity of the network we live in has broken.
> This network is constructed through agreements and trust.
>
> One last point of this subject. A person who has truly refined their
> awareness is in a position to heal more quickly from emotional harm. A
> person in a deep state of equanimity can make changes far more easily
> when lines of relationship change. But, in my opinion, normal life is
> very much built on our agreements, both contractual (as in business)
> and relational. Marriage and friendship are some of the most important
> and intensive examples. Hurting when trust in a relationship is broken
> is normal, is real and *is* to some extent caused by the person
> breaking the trust. We all know that life if far too complicated to
> isolate causes in simple terms, but the ideal we work for is clear: Do
> all that we say we will do.
>
> Working towards freedom from crystallized emotional patterns and
> unconscious expectations is a helpful teaching. Taking it to the
> extreme of assuming little or no responsibility for our relationships
> and agreements is new age pablum. As Sam Gamgee said in The Fellowship
> of the Ring, "I made a promise, Mr. Frodo, and I aims to keep it!" Mr.
> Tolkien gives us some good lessons in relationship.
>
> Beddar Tsellz
DOUG RESPONDS:
Beddar, thanks for some clear thinking, as usual. I think you explained this
very well. I also happen to agree with everything you just wrote.
I know I'm trying to get at something subtle, but follow me for a moment.
Let's take an example to help illustrate a little easier. Let's say a woman
hears from her best friend that she saw the woman's husband at a restaurant
kissing another woman. That woman feels the pain of her husband's cheating
the moment she hears this story.
It is real pain. I agree with you. I think emotional pain is as real as
physical pain. We agree.
But then the woman confronts her husband when he gets home and he denies
that it was him. In fact, he later proves it wasn't him, since he was giving
a public talk at that very moment at the other end of town. There are
thousands of witnesses. It turns out that it was someone else, not him in
the restaurant.
So, then in this case where did this pain that the woman felt come from?
Did the husband cause it?
Does that help you see what I'm trying to get at? I'm not trying to parse
pain into meaningless boxes, as if this made pain less painful. I guess I'm
asking isn't there a difference between the kind of pain we feel from
disappointment than the pain actually caused by someone else who actually
hurt us?
Sure that pain caused by someone else can be emotional pain. I agree with
that. But how do we distinguish it from the kind of pain that wasn't
actually caused by someone else? How do we tell the difference?
Isn't it clear that there is a difference? Yet isn't the fact that this
discussion itself is so difficult to express clearly also showing us how
difficult it is to tell the difference? Especially when the pain is
emotional?
I can't imagine trying to suggest that emotional pain was somehow not real
pain, or that someone who hurts another person emotionally was somehow not
really hurting them. That's not the point I was getting at.
Is this any clearer now?
Thanks.
arelurker
What a load.
>
> I find it curious that you would be so happy to see that I brought this
> discussion back to Paul, but it seems to have slipped your notice that in
> fact it was Lurk who brought this subject back to Paul. I was actually happy
> to see the discussion at first not be used one way or the other. However,
> since Lurk brought the point of it back to Paul, I thought I'd follow his
> lead to see if reactions changed on how to look at these things. Well, no
> big surprise that the discussion immediately gets far more polarized.
>
> Anyway, enough explanation.
>
> I actually agree with you, contrary to what you are suggesting, that people
> can hurt others. I agree that if someone lies to exploit someone else that
> they have hurt them and will be responsible for what they have created.
I see the catch here for Doug: he thinks Paul didn't lie to EXPLOIT
others, therefore Paul did not hurt others, right? Gotta watch Marman's
slick word tricks. He carefully crafts his responses to leave wiggle
room.
I
> also agree with you that if a person reacts to such actions that such
> reactions are their own creations.
>
> And I agree that when anger rises up in response to abuse that this is
> natural and quite often appropriate. It is in fact a reflection of what the
> other person has created.
>
> Why do you think I disagree with these things?
Uhhh, because you were saying something different the other day?
I actually find them quite
> obvious and think we probably see these things fairly closely, from what you
> are saying.
>
> Perhaps you could point out what you thought I said that would have led you
> to believe that I disagreed?
How about this:
Doug wrote:
> But thankfully with Siva Ri's test, we no longer have to even worry about
> intentions or even whether they were lies. All that matters to determine who
> is the cause of the harm is to look at when the actually harm is felt. Since
> these students who feel hurt by Paul feel this way long after he died, how
> could he have caused them harm? In fact, it was their own unconscious
> choices that cause harm, as well as feelings of disappointment, and feelings
> of loss when they no longer believe what they believed for many years.
This is what Doug wrote earlier this week. Compared to what is written
today, it appears Doug has changed his tune. I'll have to add waffling
to his growing list of characterizations.
Lurk.
arelurker
Subtle? You're making a minor point.
>
> Let's take an example to help illustrate a little easier. Let's say a woman
> hears from her best friend that she saw the woman's husband at a restaurant
> kissing another woman. That woman feels the pain of her husband's cheating
> the moment she hears this story.
>
> It is real pain. I agree with you. I think emotional pain is as real as
> physical pain. We agree.
>
> But then the woman confronts her husband when he gets home and he denies
> that it was him. In fact, he later proves it wasn't him, since he was giving
> a public talk at that very moment at the other end of town. There are
> thousands of witnesses. It turns out that it was someone else, not him in
> the restaurant.
>
> So, then in this case where did this pain that the woman felt come from?
>
> Did the husband cause it?
This is first year psych student stuff. Big deal. You're just talking
about one category where, by definition the person experiencing the pain
misinterprets and feels betrayed and you're trying to extend that to
Paul's and Harold's deceptions.
Did Paul lie? Yep.
Is that hurtful action? Yep.
Is the student misinterpreting? Nope.
>
> Does that help you see what I'm trying to get at? I'm not trying to parse
> pain into meaningless boxes, as if this made pain less painful. I guess I'm
> asking isn't there a difference between the kind of pain we feel from
> disappointment than the pain actually caused by someone else who actually
> hurt us?
>
> Sure that pain caused by someone else can be emotional pain. I agree with
> that. But how do we distinguish it from the kind of pain that wasn't
> actually caused by someone else? How do we tell the difference?
You ask questions like: Did Paul lie? Yep
Is lying hurtful action? Yep.
>
> Isn't it clear that there is a difference? Yet isn't the fact that this
> discussion itself is so difficult to express clearly also showing us how
> difficult it is to tell the difference?
The discussion is difficult because you waffle on your positions and
when challenged, you come back and make a very trite distinction about
people who misinterpret actions and feeling pain and people feeling pain
from hurtful actions.
All you have to do is look at the facts. The husband had an excuse, he
was on the other side of town. Paul had no excuse, contrary to you
apologetic book, it is a fact, he lied! Lying is hurtful action and
when eckist realize they been lied to, they feel hurt.
Maybe if Paul and Harold did not con people they would not have to put
up bullet proof glass in the eck international offices
Especially when the pain is
> emotional?
>
> I can't imagine trying to suggest that emotional pain was somehow not real
> pain, or that someone who hurts another person emotionally was somehow not
> really hurting them. That's not the point I was getting at.
Sure you were. You said so. How you can backtrack is amazing to me.
Quit trying to con people Doug....we all read what you wrote.
Lurk
Doug Marman
> How could Paul be breaking a trust at the point where he lied, when most
of
> > the students complaining about it today didn't even start studying his
> > teachings until after he died? Are suggesting that Paul broke a trust
with
> > people before they even had a trust in him?
>
> Doug Marmon
>
> Since this debate has been covered quite well already by various responses
> here, I thought I would provide a view from a very different direction
only
> partially touched on so far. I may ramble a bit, for I am writing this out
> quite spontaneously, and have no idea how this will take shape at the
moment.
>
> First, reality transcends space and time, so it doesn't matter when
Twitchell
> lied. He bequeathed his lies to others, who continued with the sham.
People are
> often affected by the actions of others long after the originators are
gone.
> This doesn't excuse the actions. Twitchell's lies continue on even today,
and
> there are those who are being bamboozled by the lies even now. Some of us
even
> helped propagate those lies, and now feel responsible for our actions,
thus we
> speak out to mitigate whatever disillusionment we were part of creating.
>
> As for me, I was there when Twitchell was alive, and he lied to me
directly. I
> see no difference between this and a person who was deceived at a later
date,
> for what matters is that there was actual delivery of the lie to the
> individual, not the time of origin. There is no separation when time is
omitted
> from the equation. Time is relative, therefore, there is no separation
between
> action and effect. They are inseparable. They are one. But in the temporal
> view, there is always a seeming lapse of time between cause and effect,
however
> minute. One follows the other.
>
> As to the notion that emotional pain, which occurs only at time of
delivery of
> information, is therefore self induced - because of the lack of onset at
actual
> time of the act of the abuse: Doug is relying on the illusion of space to
> defend his assertion. Many people have awareness of events that are
happening
> elsewhere. If all is here and now, there is no separation. People
sometimes
> know something is amiss in a relationship, but have no reliable
confirmation.
> Their senses are telling them something is wrong, but the other person in
the
> relationship is lying to them about what is happening, so they begin to
> distrust their intuition. Upon actual physical confirmation, the
realization is
> completed.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I wasn't relying on anything, like you are suggesting, Tom. I was trying to
find a way to determine how we can distinguish between false pain and true
pain. Siva Ri offered up what I thought might work as a good way to help
sort through it. Now I'm not so sure it works, for many of the reasons you
are pointing out.
You see, I'm not trying to suggest that when a person actually does
something to hurt another person, just because they don't feel it at that
time doesn't mean they still weren't hurt.
I'll give an example to support your case. If someone destroys another
person's car while it is parked on the road. That person doesn't feel a
thing until they come out and find their car was destroyed. Then it hits
them. It actually does hurt them, even though they weren't hurt directly,
still something of their was destroyed, and therefore we would all agree
they were harmed.
But what happens if it turns out that lightning struck a tree and that tree
fell over and destroyed the car? The person still has a destroyed car. The
result is the same. But it feels different, because no one intentionally
caused it. It was purely an accident in which no person was even involved.
Now what happens if it was an accident, but there was a person involved? Now
it feels different again from the other two cases. We feel that the person
who caused it is still responsible.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we go through a complete range of
feelings that aren't based on the end result which we can see, but are based
on what we think happened and whether we think it was intentional or not.
The reason this is important is because we can sometimes be wrong about what
we think happened and the intentions.
So, how do we tell the difference?
I'm not suggesting that we can't know, or that it is all unknowable. I think
we can know. But how do we? How do we tell the difference between the pain
caused by our own interpretations and the pain actually caused to us by
someone else?
Maybe there isn't a way to tell the difference. I thought that Siva Ri's
test might work, but now I'm not sure it does. So, is there any way to tell
the difference?
>
> Besides, both physical and emotional pain does occur at the time of
delivery of
> the abuse. One's body feels pain when it receives delivery of a physical
blow,
> whereas one's emotions feel pain when struck with the force of sensory
input
> (such as words, ideas, information). Emotions are far more easily
manipulated
> than physical matter. This why only insensitive, callous, uncaring
individuals
> would intentionally abuse another with actions or words which are known to
> cause intense pain and suffering, without a very good reason. Hence the
old
> test question before performing an action - is it true, is it necessary,
is it
> kind? No matter what culture people are part of, they always know what is
a
> hurtful act, and what is not, within a given social context. Aware,
> compassionate individuals, having knowledge that the social mores of their
> culture put a high regard on fidelity, would not knowingly enter into a
> relationship with an intention to dishonor the trust, since they would
know
> this would likely cause great pain. Of course, there are times when,
despite
> the best of intentions, people have to break such trusts. In such a case,
one
> must look at the intent. Did the person willfully deceive another by
luring
> them into a trust which was undeserved? One can avoid causing pain to
others by
> living with integrity and goodwill to others. Just as we know that the
human
> body is physically vulnerable to harm, we also know that human emotions
are
> vulnerable to injury. A person who knowingly takes a course of action that
> causes harm to either body or mind of another is at least partly
responsible
> for the pain that is felt by another. We all know what emotions are, and
that
> people can feel great suffering due to their feelings. Those who excuse
> unethical behavior by viewing the people they abuse as causing their own
pain
> should be avoided, for they are demonstrating a high disregard for others.
I
> have heard so many in Eckankar utter the words, "Its their karma. I am not
> responsible for hurting them! They are learning detachment!" This
justification
> has been used to wave aside all manner of unethical conduct. I am amazed
that
> this flawed logic has surfaced again in Doug's post.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I am truly amazed that all of you guys are imagining that this is what I am
saying. In fact, I'm totally in agreement with you. I couldn't even imagine
suggesting what you just said.
My focus, however, is not on the easy case where we know someone
intentionally tried to hurt someone else, or abused someone else. Those are
easy cases to decide.
The problem comes in when it was not intentional, or in fact there may not
even have been anything done to harm another person at all, but other people
still feel hurt. There are tons of examples about cases like this.
Haven't you seen kids who get to the point where one sibling feels hurt when
the other sibling just looks at them? The other sibling might not even have
meant anything by their glance, yet they are accused of doing it
intentionally to cause harm. In a case like that, how do you explain to that
kid that such glances are not really causing them harm? How do we learn the
difference?
It is easy to say that once we know a person's intentions then it is easy to
know, but in fact knowing the intentions of another person are about the
most difficult thing in the world. There are often issues buried within
them, from past experiences in their life or even previous lives, that are
all lurking beneath what moves them to say something or do something. Yet,
we often see their actions as if we know exactly why they did something. In
other words, we are probably wrong much more than we are right when we think
we know the intentions of another person.
The fact that you continue to misread my points shows that this very thing
is happening right here in River City.
I expected that my discussion would stir things up, but I am truly amazed at
how much ill will can be spilled over a discussion like this. I find the
difficulty of the subject what makes it so interesting. I don't see these
things as easy or black and white at all. You can go on an imagine that this
is because I'm trying to assuage Paul's guilt in some way, but this has
nothing to do with it.
I personally don't mind if Paul comes out looking like a rose, or like a
thorn in people's side. I do find it interesting, however, that people would
work so hard trying to characterize me this way. Clearly people are reacting
to something they see in my words that I'm not putting in there.
That doesn't mean that I'm completely innocent, however, since I said right
in the beginning that I thought the subject would be controversial.
>
> In Taoist philosphy, Qi is a very real energetic force, and is affected by
> various events, whether physical, emotional, or mental. When trust is
broken,
> the subtle intangible Qi brought into form by that trust is broken. This
can
> cause a temporary imbalance in an individual, which affects the nervous
system,
> causing pain. This is a well-established concept in the ancient art and
science
> of Chinese medicine, which in the West has been termed the "mind-body
> connection." Emotions are affected by Qi, and the body is affected by
emotions,
> and of course, this works conversely as well. Mind and body are seen as
one,
> with no real separation. Thus, disease may be caused by intense emotions,
> especially when held for a long period of time.
>
> This is why it is so important (for some, at least) to be in a
relationship
> based on real trust. Without it, there is the feeling of deception and
> manipulation which may creep in, sounding an alarm. It is not that a
romantic
> affair (or other forms of infidelity, depending on the type of
relationship) is
> occurring that really hurts, it is the very real energetic break in trust,
> which could be viewed as a rupture of an energetic field surrounding the
> partnership. When it is broken, pain may occur until the energetic field
is
> restored, such as by restoration of the original bond of trust, or to a
new
> arrangement which reestablishes balance in the individual (such as
separation,
> and a new life). The pain serves as a warning that an imbalance has
occurred,
> and therefore has an essential function. It is not a flaw to feel
emotional
> pain.
>
> This concept extends to one's environment. The ambience of a room, for
example
> (which is thought to have energetic qualities) affects one on many levels.
> Likewise, the deceitful nature of another has its own effect when such a
person
> harbors ill will. A sensitive person can feel these energies, in my
opinion.
>
> Thus, it may be somewhat axiomatic that the stronger the trust and loyalty
the
> student places in the Master, the greater the energetic field which is
formed
> from the intensity of Qi that is generated. So when the trust is broken,
the
> greater the potential imbalance from the sudden rupture in the energetic
field.
> Some may be affected more intensely than others due to individual
circumstances
> and constitutions. As the separation becomes complete and begins to heal,
the
> individual's energetic field is restored, and balance resumes. For me, the
> deception was only gradually realized, thus I was spared any great
disrupture
> of my spiritual connection with Eckankar. I was grateful to have seen the
farce
> for what it was, so as to resume the course of my life without the
diversion
> into Twitchell's callous use of me as his dutiful pawn (I actually gave
this
> guy money when I was very young, during times when I was short on food in
my
> cupboard!).
>
> In light of these considerations, those who wantonly break trusts which
are
> established with others should be avoided, for they have no respect for
the
> sanctity of the bonds of trust which are formed (whether consciously or
not).
>
> Which leads us to Twitchell and his successors, and the assortment of
> apologists which have followed in his wake: Are these folks giving respect
to
> the sanctity of trustful relationships formed?
DOUG RESPONDS:
Tom, I agree with you about the importance of trust and real friendship. It
reminds me of a Sufi book I read once. I believe it was by Al-Ghazzali. It
was called the Duties of Brotherhood, or something like that. It was clearly
written in a different era, and showed differences in what they thought
about trust than we do today.
For example, they talk about being willing to give food to another brother
on the path no matter what the reason, or to offer their own coat for a
brother even if it wasn't asked for or even if the brother was not
considered worthy. The key was to give before being asked. The brother
should never even have to ask, nor should a brother ask, and thus the
importance of giving before being asked.
However, one of the things that struck me while reading this was how many
will make their dedication to a "brother" dependent upon what that brother
believes. It is not really a bond with the person. It is a bond with that
person's membership to a group they belong to.
Thus, when people change the direction of their spiritual path, suddenly
some of their own friends will abandon them. This to me is not a real
commitment to brotherhood. If we really care enough about others, then we
will still care even if they one day end up opposing us on some important
matter. We will still care about them. We still won't want to hurt them,
even if we disagree what they are doing.
Do you see what I mean?
That, to me, is what real trustful relationships are about. They are with
Soul, not the cloaks that Soul wears. What difference does it matter whether
Soul calls itself an ECKist or a Buddhist or a dissenter? I believe I've
made a commitment to all who travel or have travelled the spiritual path -
and that trust is one with the individuals, with Soul itself.
Thanks.
Doug.
>
> Leafeater
>
Doug Marman
"M" <mari...@wrongmail.com> wrote in message
news:363f2e6.03030...@posting.google.com...
> joe_...@hotmail.com (Joe) wrote in message
news:<4ef6e483.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > tomlea...@aol.com (Tom Leafeater) wrote in message
news:<20030305024315...@mb-bg.aol.com>...
>
> (good insights snipped)
>
> > A man tells the world he's a "Godman," tells his gullible chelas
> > they'll go to hell and have their lives fall apart if they leave him
> > (which includes his org) "for any reason," lies about his life story,
> > lies about the sources of his divine revelations and communications
> > (i.e. plagiarizes), and to top it off, lives very nicely off this
> > spiritual business, heedless that his Great Work contibutes nothing to
> > society but wounding some, and making others into liars to defend a
> > spiritual mission based on deception in every way, at every level.
> >
> >
> >
> > Whoa! Reb just appeared in my room just now! I take it all back!
>
> Is he still wearing that horrid purple robe? Anyway....we all know
> broken bones can hurt. But there are other kinds of hurt too.
> Emotional deception can hurt as much or more than physical abuse. A
> point totally lost on Mr. Marmon. Deception and lies leave marks on
> the inside. Kids are especially vulnerable to emotional neglect and
> hurt. When they are lied to they never feel safe. They never learn to
> trust. Even sadder, they become 'comfortable' with deception and seek
> it out in adult relationships and, yes, in organizational
> relationships too. I wonder how many eckists are so used to lying and
> deception that they feel worse when it's not present than when it is.
> M.
DOUG RESPONDS:
I wonder why you and the others who see me as their enemy would imagine that
I am even remotely suggesting this?
I guess some people like to think that the world is filled with evil people.
Or maybe it is just really hard to understand people who just see things
differently?
Or, when people are locked in on trying to find something wrong with
whatever another person says, then they will of course find something wrong,
even if it isn't accurate.
It is indeed a strange world.
Doug.
Doug Marman
> Doug came on the newsgroup under this thread of "taking another look at
> being hurt" and proposed via analogy, and then directly in subsequent
> responses, that the hurt people feel is not the result of Paul or
> Harold's actions, it is ALL caused by the person feeling such hurt.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Why don't you produce a quote that shows this is what I was saying?
So many assertions, Lurk. When will you actually show actual examples. Show
the quote. How much of your assertion is what you are reading into what I
have said?
And that, by the way, is my whole point. You can claim that I'm causing
harm, because YOU feel that I am suggesting something that I'm not
suggesting. This then justifies your right to strike back at me. Right?
Well, the reason I keep getting back to actual examples is because then we
can all see exactly what I said and what I did. All you giving us is all of
your assertions, which are based on what you are reading into what I am
writing. So much effort is spent on this. The simpler and more honest
approach is to just let me words speak for themselves and for you to say
where you agree or disagree.
Focusing so much energy on asserting that I'm saying things I have never
intended to say, makes me wonder why you won't just let my actual words
stand for themselves? Why so much energy to color what I say?
>
> Here's a representative sample of his viewpoint:
>
> Doug Wrote:
> > But thankfully with Siva Ri's test, we no longer have to even worry
about
> > intentions or even whether they were lies. All that matters to determine
who
> > is the cause of the harm is to look at when the actually harm is felt.
Since
> > these students who feel hurt by Paul feel this way long after he died,
how
> > could he have caused them harm? In fact, it was their own unconscious
> > choices that cause harm, as well as feelings of disappointment, and
feelings
> > of loss when they no longer believe what they believed for many years.
> LURK WROTE:
> In response to Doug's position some highly intelligent and wise people
> shared their viewpoints. I listed some below and wanted to make a larger
> point after these comments below.
>
>
>
> Siva Ri Wrote:
> Yes, we do create our own responses
> to situations, and are responsible for our own feelings. Does it
> follow then that the person we are reacting to is free from any
> complicity? I think not. Knowing other people have buttons, we can
> easily push them. We can easily exploit them. We can abuse their
> trust, their gullibility, their emotional tenderness, or whatever. If
> Twitchell lies to me, and I get angry, then I am responsible for the
> anger, but Twitchell is still a liar exploiting my trust. My anger
> does not rise up out of nowhere. It rises up from an external
> stimulus. You yourself are constantly saying we should be nice to
> others. Why, if other people are responsible for their own emotional
> reactions to our criticism? See how you want to have it both ways?
> Bottom line - no body is an island, not physically and not
> emotionally. Our emotional reactions to external events are interwoven
> with those external events. So Twitchell may not "cause" my emotional
> reaction in the sense that I stir up my own emotions. But that in no
> way lets him off the hook.
>
>
> Marianne Wrote:
> Is he still wearing that horrid purple robe? Anyway....we all know
> broken bones can hurt. But there are other kinds of hurt too.
> Emotional deception can hurt as much or more than physical abuse. A
> point totally lost on Mr. Marmon. Deception and lies leave marks on
> the inside. Kids are especially vulnerable to emotional neglect and
> hurt. When they are lied to they never feel safe. They never learn to
> trust. Even sadder, they become 'comfortable' with deception and seek
> it out in adult relationships and, yes, in organizational
> relationships too. I wonder how many eckists are so used to lying and
> deception that they feel worse when it's not present than when it is.
>
> Beddar Tsellz Wrote:
> The "hurt" that a person experiences when a trust is betrayed is both
> real and understandable. It is not a "problem" that they have. Healing
> requires that they re-organize their lives and relationships. This is
> what good psychologists help people do. The illusion overpromoted in
> much of the new age literature is that none of these feelings are
> important - all we have to do is free ourselves from them. They do
> have a good point in some respects: We have to learn to free ourselves
> from clinging to feelings of hurt. Such clinging is a "problem" or a
> kind of illness and it creates and prolongs much pain. Some of the new
> age teachings might help these cases, at least to open the person to
> the possibility. But my experience is that really digging to the root
> of deeply held emotional issues like this takes dedicated work. Read
> Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstacy, the Laundry" for this general
> idea.
>
> And...
>
> ....Hurting when trust in a relationship is broken
> is normal, is real and *is* to some extent caused by the person
> breaking the trust. We all know that life if far too complicated to
> isolate causes in simple terms, but the ideal we work for is clear: Do
> all that we say we will do.
> *********
>
> Okay, beside myself and the elegant arguments I put forth, there are
> four people who have counseled Doug about his extreme position he put
> forth. The question is: will Doug see the errors of his ways, see how
> untenable his position is and actually be swayed by such counsel? If
> past history is any indication, I'd have to say no. Of course he could
> surprise us all, who knows.
>
> Here are some possible responses I anticipate based upon past experience
> with having "dialogs" with Doug:
>
> 1) He'll stay away from the newsgroup and come back in a couple of weeks
> and start responding to other posts and not address this issues any
> longer until they come up again a year from now when he'll repeat his
> untenable position once again. The argument he put forth here is the
> same one he has been putting forth for years. Don't be fooled by the
> thread name of "taking another look." The thread should have been
> titled: "Why Paul is not and never will be culpable or responsible his
> hurtful actions...I have bogus analogies to prove it."
>
> 2) He'll take the fact the five people have disagreed with him over this
> issue as a sign that he speaking the truth because, afterall, those who
> speak the truth are not popular. He can rejoice and revel in the fact
> that others just are not as aware or as smart as him and can't see his
> superior position.
>
> 3) He'll come back and claim that everyone misunderstood his position
> and he was only using Savi Ri's viewpoints.
>
> 4) He'll come back and imply that people are not really looking deeply
> at this issue as he is and challenge them to a REAL dialog.
>
> 5) He'll use his brain and cleverness to contort the topic into someone
> else. He'll reframe it or move it to some sort of conceptual turf where
> he feels he can win.
>
> 6) He'll simply imply that people don't know how to have real dialog
> like him.
>
> 7) He'll outline how the org doesn't have anything to do with the path.
> The path is really personal and how can anyone get hurt from such a
> personal path.
>
> 8) He'll claim that his position is equal to other other positions
> expressed here with the implication that truth is relative.
>
> In short, he'll behave like a drunk rationalizing his addiction.
>
> Doug, think of this as an intervention. Some people have gathered around
> your argument and are giving you feedback about your extreme position
> and the implications of such extreme position. People have gathered to
> help you become aware that you have addiction problem with Twitchell.
> Perhaps you are caught up in the addiction to be able to see the effects
> the addiction has on your arguments. You are beginning to slur your
> logic, you are frequently stumbling and losing your balance when it
> comes to making distinctions, and you are using Twictchell to feel good
> when negative feelings arise from reading people's arguments. I think it
> is time to check yourself in a religious detox center. Go spend a month
> giving up Twitchell and deal with what comes up. It will be good for
> you. We'll all be waiting when you get out and be supportive.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Lurk
DOUG RESPONDS:
Such melodrama. You really do get me laughing, Lurk.
The funniest part is that you actually think you've got me nailed, when you
aren't even in the right universe.
By the way, I've responded to the other posts already, so there is no need
to repeat myself here.
I've enjoyed this subject, and actually don't think that Siva Ri's formula
works as well as I thought it might. I now come back to where I was when I
began this topic. It seems obvious that there are often cases where people
feel hurt when in fact no one has hurt them. It happens all the time, and we
can give tons of examples, but the problem is how do we tell the difference?
I still think that Siva Ri's formula at least gives us a clue to when we
should look more closely. If someone hurls an insult at someone else, the
other person can feel that, and whether it is emotional or not, it still
affects them because it is real. It is just the same as if they hit them
physically, except that they were hit emotionally instead.
But when we feel the pain, not at the moment that it is caused, but when we
learn about the event sometime later, then this sure should send up a flag
that maybe this is not what it looks like. That we should be careful about
what we are reacting over.
However, I'm not sure there is any way to really make a clear determination
about such relationship pain. That's what makes relationships so difficult.
People are just as often reacting over something that never happened as they
are reacting to real emotional things. Both cases look just as real to the
person who is upset or is feeling hurt.
I think it was Rich who said it, but perhaps is the most important point,
that we heal from our emotional pains much faster when we learn to forgive
and let go of the pain. I absolutely agree with Beddar that we shouldn't be
trying to bury our pains or deny them, since there is really a lot of growth
in grieving over our losses. Rumi once said that our sorrow and grief is the
way that Soul unloads things from itself.
The discussion sure does race toward polarization real fast around here. I
think some people like it that way.
I found it interesting in USA Today, yesterday, that they were talking about
the question of war with Iraqi is becoming more and more a divisive issue.
It has perhaps caused the biggest rift in decades. One of their points was
that, unfortunately, the leaders (and I would add the media) who should be
helping the citizens better understand the issue by raising the debate to a
higher level of dialogue, have instead been the very people trying to lower
the discussion into a battle of points being scored against the other side.
I really do think that dialogue is a lost art these days, and unfortunately
it really is causing a great deal of harm. It's not just emotional harm
either. But I couldn't say it was anyone's fault, since I don't think anyone
realizes how they are contributing to this pattern.
Myself included.
Doug.
Doug Marman
DOUG RESPONDS:
Your interpretation, unfortunately, is not even making it into college.
Let's take the case of the person experiencing pain who misinterprets and
feels betrayed by another person. If they can find something wrong with that
other person, such as that other person lied about something at some time,
does that mean they are now justified in saying their pain was caused by the
other person?
That's obviously just an excuse for them to blame the other person. So, your
comments about whether they lied or not are meaningless without specifics
that show us those lies really did cause harm.
Here's another example. David Lane claimed for years that Paul lied about
his birthdate. Are you really suggesting that this kind of lie was a hurtful
action that hurt other people?
If so, then what do we feel when we discover that Lane in fact had no real
evidence that Paul lied about his birthdate? In fact, every bit of evidence
he had found turned out to be not evidence of Paul lying at all, but someone
else recording his birthdate wrong. Actually, the fact is that Paul never
said to anyone in ECKANKAR how old he was or what the year of his birth was,
or at least there is not a single known case where he did. Now, when we
learn this, should we feel that Lane deceived us and lied about Paul, even
if he believed it sincerely?
Did Lane cause harm?
If we are going to talk about these things, why shouldn't we talk about all
the different aspects of them?
> > DOUG WROTE
> > Does that help you see what I'm trying to get at? I'm not trying to
parse
> > pain into meaningless boxes, as if this made pain less painful. I guess
I'm
> > asking isn't there a difference between the kind of pain we feel from
> > disappointment than the pain actually caused by someone else who
actually
> > hurt us?
> >
> > Sure that pain caused by someone else can be emotional pain. I agree
with
> > that. But how do we distinguish it from the kind of pain that wasn't
> > actually caused by someone else? How do we tell the difference?
> LURK WROTE:
> You ask questions like: Did Paul lie? Yep
>
> Is lying hurtful action? Yep.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Okay Mr. Brain. Has everyone lied at one time in their life? Yep.
Does that mean that everyone has been hurtful in their life? Yep.
So what? Is this supposed to tell us something?
> > DOUG WROTE:
> > Isn't it clear that there is a difference? Yet isn't the fact that this
> > discussion itself is so difficult to express clearly also showing us how
> > difficult it is to tell the difference?
> LURK WROTE:
> The discussion is difficult because you waffle on your positions and
> when challenged, you come back and make a very trite distinction about
> people who misinterpret actions and feeling pain and people feeling pain
> from hurtful actions.
DOUG RESPONDS:
You really are funny, Lurk. Just the other day you accused me of never
changing my position. What did you call it: Menomaniacal, or something like
that. Now I waffle.
I love to see these things from lots of viewpoints. You are the one stuck
trying to win some kind of game of attack. I don't mind. It's easy enough to
play dodge ball. You just don't think it's fair when I jump out of the way.
You think I should stand still so you can hit me. You're a funny guy.
Whether you think the distinction I am talking about is trite or not, that
still is what I'm talking about. I happen to find it interesting to talk
about, especially because it is contentious. I happen to think it is far
more important than you suggest, which is why it is so difficult to see
clearly.
The end result of people getting these things mixed up is that they will
turn on people and become abusive with others who never did them any harm,
because they misinterpreted. This happens in relationships all the time. The
results are significant, not trite. I would think that therefore it would be
worthy of discussion.
> LURK CONTINUED:
> All you have to do is look at the facts. The husband had an excuse, he
> was on the other side of town. Paul had no excuse, contrary to you
> apologetic book, it is a fact, he lied! Lying is hurtful action and
> when eckist realize they been lied to, they feel hurt.
>
> Maybe if Paul and Harold did not con people they would not have to put
> up bullet proof glass in the eck international offices
DOUG RESPONDS:
The point of my example was that the woman felt as if her husband had hurt
her, when in fact he had not. What if he couldn't prove he was on the other
side of town? What would have happened then? He still might have been
innocent, but it still could have ended in divorce, with the woman to this
day believing that he was cheating on her.
The point here is that a great deal of the hurt people feel comes from their
interpretations of intentions, and we often get those interpretation wrong.
I don't see how Paul lying about his birthdate could possibly be blown up
into some kind of deceit against his followers. Of course, it turned out to
be wrong, which even proved the case even further.
That's why I'm saying to you that you need to make more than just
assertions. You really need to use actual specific examples. You need to
show how Paul's lies hurt people or how he broke their trust.
If someone heard David Lane say that Paul lied about his birthdate, or
covered up his previous teachers, even though David has provided not a
single proof of either case, then they still might feel as if Paul broke
their trust. They could still feel this even though it never really
happened. So, obviously, your assertions need far more to support them to
prove your point.
I'm only saying, why not get specific? Why not give a real example and show
us exactly how it hurt others? It shouldn't be that hard, if it is as bad as
you say it is.
>
>
> Especially when the pain is
> > emotional?
> >
> > I can't imagine trying to suggest that emotional pain was somehow not
real
> > pain, or that someone who hurts another person emotionally was somehow
not
> > really hurting them. That's not the point I was getting at.
> LURK WROTE:
> Sure you were. You said so. How you can backtrack is amazing to me.
>
> Quit trying to con people Doug....we all read what you wrote.
DOUG RESPONDS:
Once again assertions without any examples. Show the quotes, Lurk. Then you
will prove your point. Otherwise it is just hot air.
Why would I say something that I don't believe, anyway?
I've been trying to talk about the cases where people feel hurt but the pain
isn't really originating from the source they think it is. You keep trying
to turn this into accusing me of saying that emotional pain is not real.
I've made it clear right from the beginning, when Ben made the same comment,
that my exact point is that people mix these up, but they are very
different.
In other words, yes people do get hurt, and yes people do feel they are
getting hurt when no one is hurting them. My question is how do we tell the
difference?
But I'm sure I'll just hear more of your assertions. Actually, I'm even
starting to look forward to them. How many people will Lurk attack today?
It's like watching karmic pinball. Ding, ding, ding... Racking up those
points. Unfortunately, when you think you're winning, you're really losing.
<G>
Doug.
Ken
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
>
Lurk wrote...
> > >
> > >Abusive? How can you characterize me as abusive? The abuse is all in
> > >your head, right?
> > >
> > >Lurk
> > >
> >
> > Ha! Yes, Ken is creating his own pain here, according to Doug, for the pain
> > didn't occur when the abuse actually germinated, i.e., the moment you typed the
> > response but before pushing the send button!
> >
> > Leaf
>
>
> Can you spell "head trip"? <smile>
Good lord, isn't it though.
Tom, you're just enabling Lurk's abusiveness. You're not doing him
or anyone else any good with this kind of thing. Please help him get
help now. Before it's too late!
(Psychobabble is so easy).
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> let me guess..... you're not a touchy feely sort of guy, right? That
> sort of male... the thinking, feeling sort just freaks you out to such a
> degree that you attack them without so much as a thought as to how
> ignorant it makes you appear.
Thinking or feeling qualities in males doesn't make them pussies. How
about lack of courage, passivity, emotionally dependence, contrived
humbleness, overcompensating personas (mahanta) are the qualities of a
pussy. Harold fits the bill as does many male eckists.
<smile> Maybe that's why you're so
> desperately afraid of homosexuals as well. Interesting what you show
> this group about yourself, lurk. Fascinating character.... for a comic
> book. <grin>
I'm not afraid of gays...that's your trip.
Lurk
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> No... you are definately not a figment of Ken's imagination.... you're
> real....ly this abusive and droll.
Oh, so we have an eckist here who admits that one person can abuse
another. Now if you'll admit the same for Paul and Harold.....
Lurk