Another Example of Harold's Elitism At Work
Rich
>
> Here's a post from a few years ago. Enjoy.
>
> Evie wrote:
> >
> > Good Morning :) The following is from the book, "The Secret
> > Teachings" by Harold Klemp, pages 264 - 266.
> >
> > Spiritual Charlatans
> >
> > "Several years ago, before I became the Living ECK Master, a friend
> > and I were asked to investigate a group in San Francisco that was
> > using a form of HU as a chant. We wanted to find out if they were
> > trying to create an offshoot of ECKANKAR. We decided the best way to
> > investigate this was to attend one of their meetings.
> >
> > When we arrived, we found a small room with chairs for about thirty
> > people. Behind a podium stood a little gentleman who looked to e from
> > the Far East. As we took our seats, this man began a long, drawn-out
> > speech, the gist of which was the selling of his spiritual services.
> > For $350.00 he guaranteed that anybody who signed up would have all of
> > his needs taken care of, whether it was someone to love, a new job, a
> > new car, or a new house.
> >
> > My friend was very tired, and he started to fall asleep in his chair.
> > But each time he dozed off, he would tip over. We were in a prominent
> > place in the audience where everybody could see this, and it made it
> > seem as if what the speaker had to say wasn't very important. The man
> > started out very confidently, but after my friend inadvertantly caused
> > some commotion, he cut his talk short.
>
> What's *inadvertent* about this blatant rudeness!
Being very tired and dozing is blatant rudeness? LOL Nice try Lurk.
> Is there an
> implication that spirit was working through his friend causes him to
> fall asleep to purposely disrupt of this guys meeting that was evil?
No.... Maybe just in your mind there is.
> As an argument against ex-eckists and non-eckist posting on a.r.e.,
> several eckists have made the bold claims that eckists would never go
> into someone else's meeting and disrupt it.
Right and that is not what happened here. Nice try again but he said
they went to "investigate". Are you saying he was falling asleep on
purpose. This is really a weak try Lurk. Better find another qoute
that could be misconstrued. this one isn't it.
> Here is your spiritual
> leader condoning his friends commotion that disrupted this meeting. HOW
> DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS!
Simple. Your are saying he condoned it when of course he didn't say
that at all. He merely reported what happened.
<SNIP>
> > I don't know what the little man experienced, but he ended the
> > meditation very abruptly.
> What's the implication here: That Spirit interceded through Harold and
> caused the man to end the session?
Sigh, that's what *you* are trying to implicate. Harold said he didn't
know. How did you miss that?
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arel...@home.com
Evie wrote:
>
> Good Morning :) The following is from the book, "The Secret
> Teachings" by Harold Klemp, pages 264 - 266.
>
> Spiritual Charlatans
>
> "Several years ago, before I became the Living ECK Master, a friend
> and I were asked to investigate a group in San Francisco that was
> using a form of HU as a chant. We wanted to find out if they were
> trying to create an offshoot of ECKANKAR. We decided the best way to
> investigate this was to attend one of their meetings.
>
> When we arrived, we found a small room with chairs for about thirty
> people. Behind a podium stood a little gentleman who looked to e from
> the Far East. As we took our seats, this man began a long, drawn-out
> speech, the gist of which was the selling of his spiritual services.
> For $350.00 he guaranteed that anybody who signed up would have all of
> his needs taken care of, whether it was someone to love, a new job, a
> new car, or a new house.
>
> My friend was very tired, and he started to fall asleep in his chair.
> But each time he dozed off, he would tip over. We were in a prominent
> place in the audience where everybody could see this, and it made it
> seem as if what the speaker had to say wasn't very important. The man
> started out very confidently, but after my friend inadvertantly caused
> some commotion, he cut his talk short.
What's *inadvertent* about this blatant rudeness! Is there an
implication that spirit was working through his friend causes him to
fall asleep to purposely disrupt of this guys meeting that was evil?
As an argument against ex-eckists and non-eckist posting on a.r.e.,
several eckists have made the bold claims that eckists would never go
into someone else's meeting and disrupt it. Here is your spiritual
leader condoning his friends commotion that disrupted this meeting. HOW
DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS!
Ohh...I get it, it's okay to disrupt a meeting if one decides that the
meeting is being held by spiritual charlatans and one sets oneself up to
be the positive force that conquers evil.
>
> "We are now going to do a short meditation," he said, "Now chant
> whatever word you want to chant." As soon as everyone else had closed
> their eyes, we happened to notice one of his assistants outside the
> door putting perfume in front of a fan and blowing it into the room.
> This was probably designed to inspire the proper mood. As these
> strange scents and aromas came wafting in, we were supposed to assume
> they must be from some divine source. The assistant then started to
> play a tape recording of some of the different sounds that the man
> said we would hear, very slowly increasing the volume throughout the
> meditation.
>
> The other ECKist and I had protection against these tactics because as
> we went into the meditative state, which for us was contemplation, we
> chanted HU or our own word. So again, the saying, "In God We Trust"
> was true.
Why would they need protection from aromas and tape recorded sounds.
Geez, seems like overkill to call on spirit for that.
> On the inner planes, my friend and I stood on a plateau surrounded by
> the Swordsment of the SUGMAD. Approaching in the distance were huge
> armies representative of the psychic forces. While the group was in
> meditation, this man would unleash his psychic hypnotic power; it was
> way of putting his hooks into them. But as the battling armies came
> forth, the Swordsmen of the SUGMAD, who are th ECK Masters, started
> waving their swords about. Suddenly, with an earth-shattering roar,
> the heavens rolled with thunder, flashed with lightning, and the
> armies of psychic forces melted before these awesome swords.
Why such an elaborate battle ground going on in Harold's head? All you
have to do is click your heals and say "there's no place like home."
It's my belief that psychic attacks can only have an effect if you let
them. Not sure I understand the need to create this elaborate mock up.
It's dramatic though.
>
> I don't know what the little man experienced, but he ended the
> meditation very abruptly.
What's the implication here: That Spirit interceded through Harold and
caused the man to end the session?
So it wasn't enough to physically disrupt the meeting, a psychic star
wars had to ensue?
Is this why eckist go around thinking that their presence somehow will
cause the evil forces to stir. For example, I've heard eckist say things
like: "since we moved into this neighborhood, it seems the neighbor's
karma is beginning to speed up." The implication here being the positive
force that flows through them is somehow effecting the neighbor's karma.
C'mon and explain to me how that sentiment is anything but spiritual
self aggrandizement...bullshit for the spiritual ego. I hear stuff like
this all the time. This isn't isolated cases, exceptions to the rule,
this seems to be a way of life of many of the folks I knew who thrived
off this eckist identity.
But the most shocking thing to realize is where eckists get these ideas.
>
> Don't go into a bad situation knowingly. If you know there's trouble,
> avoid it. It's best not to beg for trouble because the ECK just might
> use it to let you learn something. The ECKist can find himself in the
> worst situations, but if he gets into an area where he doesn't belong,
> the ECK will step in to protect him."
Spirit will protect you if you *believe* it will, whether you're an
eckist or not.
Arelurker
Michael Wallace
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:38FD5A...@aloha.net...
> arel...@home.com wrote:
>
> > What's the implication here: That Spirit interceded through Harold and
> > caused the man to end the session?
>
> know. How did you miss that?
I think he's all spun out Sri Rich...
I mean... He is getting worse. Everything has some meaning that is hidden,
and everyone is trying to say something underneath an agenda... Egad... Even
this dumb note is probably some hidden device making comment about
something.
What I 'really" suspect though, is that Lurk just failed to see what was
funny in the post... And was afraid to admit it ... <G>
Love
Michael
Windy
>
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:38FD5A...@aloha.net...
> > arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > > caused the man to end the session?
> >
> > know. How did you miss that?
>
> I think he's all spun out Sri Rich...
>
> I mean... He is getting worse. Everything has some meaning that is hidden,
> and everyone is trying to say something underneath an agenda... Egad... Even
> this dumb note is probably some hidden device making comment about
> something.
>
> What I 'really" suspect though, is that Lurk just failed to see what was
> funny in the post... And was afraid to admit it ... <G>
>
> Love
>
> Michael
Yeah, he probably doesn't watch many comedies and this just blew a fuse
with him.
SantimVah
Jim Agricola <crescen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38FDA15B...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Rich wrote:
>
situation.
> I think you might be put off a bit.
>
LOL Well Jim this happens all the time. I've had some of my best sleeps of
my life "listening" to Sri Harold at seminars. Why be put off? Just take
things as they come.
> >
> >
> > > Is there an
> > > implication that spirit was working through his friend causes him to
> > > fall asleep to purposely disrupt of this guys meeting that was evil?
> >
> > No.... Maybe just in your mind there is.
>
> Sounds more like Harold's "friend" was simply bored with the whole thing.
I
> think that message comes across loud and clear. Why was he bored? well
there
> is a strong implication that both viewed the meeting with indifference yet
did
> not have the etiquette to leave. Not very becoming of a Master.
>
Jim, did you miss this line in the story?
"My friend was very tired, and he started to fall asleep in his chair."
Your question would be better put as "Why was he tired?"
The answer could be, "Cause he had 2 hours sleep the night before and had
been up since 5am this morning and it was getting onto 10pm as the guy's
"long drawn out talk" continued."
Have you been attending Lurk's "Specialist One-Eyed Detractor Training"
classes? <g>
> >
> > > As an argument against ex-eckists and non-eckist posting on a.r.e.,
> > > several eckists have made the bold claims that eckists would never go
> > > into someone else's meeting and disrupt it.
> >
> > Right and that is not what happened here. Nice try again but he said
> > they went to "investigate". Are you saying he was falling asleep on
> > purpose. This is really a weak try Lurk. Better find another qoute
> > that could be misconstrued. this one isn't it.
>
> It doesn't sound very Eck-like to "investigate" a meeting. I thought
> non-interference was a cornerstone of the Eck. If Mr. Klemp possesses some
of
> the highest attributes of the Eck (being the Living Eck Master) where is
the
> need to look into a gathering of souls from another path and then
exacerbate
> the situation by having a cohort fall asleep. I's say that was clearly
rude
> and not a "weak try" on arelurker's part. It sounds more like
rationalization
> on Rich's part.(g)
>
Jim did you miss the earlier point as well?
"We wanted to find out if they were
trying to create an offshoot of ECKANKAR. We decided the best way to
investigate this was to attend one of their meetings."
How do you construe "non-interference" with 2 people attending a public
meeting with the intention of investigating (thatis to gain knowledge) the
nature of the teaching/path? To purposely and with intent to disrupt the
meeting would be interference of course. Unintentionally falling alseep due
to tiredness is another matter.
But of course you wouldn't consider your and lurk's, and sharon's persistent
presence on this NG as "interference" would you? Just an ongoing
investigation of the truth perhaps????
> >
> >
> > > Here is your spiritual
> > > leader condoning his friends commotion that disrupted this meeting.
HOW
> > > DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS!
> >
> > Simple. Your are saying he condoned it when of course he didn't say
> > that at all. He merely reported what happened.
>
> And in his reporting it, does neither condone nor condemn it. He leaves it
up
> to the listener to decide. arelurker's interpretation of it seems most
> plausible.
>
Given your intentions and prejudiced ideas how else could you see it?
> > > > I don't know what the little man experienced, but he ended the
> > > > meditation very abruptly.
> >
> > > What's the implication here: That Spirit interceded through Harold and
> > > caused the man to end the session?
> >
> > Sigh, that's what *you* are trying to implicate. Harold said he didn't
> > know. How did you miss that?
>
> How can you expend so much energy rationalizing away this story. Did you
take
> my "cult test" Rich? Sounds like it may be time to examine your commitment
to
> Eckankar.
>
Well Jim, how can you spend so much time trying to rationalise Lurk's view
as peter perfect? Or is Lurk paying his supporters now?
Why was the story posted here anyway? An Eckist to show some interesting
aspect of the ECK or the LEM? NO! It was posted by a cereal detractor as an
attempt to apply his personal view that all things ECK are elitist. As such,
this one-eyed view has been challenged by an Eckist who presents his own
understanding from what was "actually written" in the story. I for one can
understand Rich's interpretation of what occured, and find Lurk's, as well
as your's not based on the story so much as anti-Eckankar agenda.
Cult test? Does it make any more sense than what you have written above? <g>
With love and patience
SantimVah
> Jim
>
Sharo...@playful.com
> Rich wrote:
>
> > arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > > > My friend was very tired, and he started to fall asleep in his
> > > > chair. But each time he dozed off, he would tip over. We were in a
> > > > prominent place in the audience where everybody could see this, and
> > > > it made it seem as if what the speaker had to say wasn't very
> > > > important. The man started out very confidently, but after my
> > > > friend inadvertantly caused some commotion, he cut his talk short.
> > >
> > > What's *inadvertent* about this blatant rudeness!
> >
>
> What if someone fell asleep at an ECK meeting? Put yourself in that
> situation. I think you might be put off a bit.
>
If someone falls asleep at an eck meeting, they're supposedly
getting it "on the inner" and it's okay.
And if you can't get to a meeting physically, you're supposed
to do these visualizations & stuff & attend "on the inner."
There are always "jokes" about the attendance at seminars being
much higher than it is, because of everyone there "on the inner."
I used to do it. For example, at one big seminar I couldn't
attend, I "tuned in" at a specified time to do a hu-chant with
other satsang members who were at the seminar. And they
commented on feeling my presence there. I was here at home,
all tranced out, imagining I was there.
See, this cult isn't happy with just totally taking over every
waking moment of your life, no matter what you're doing, it's
like a virus running in the background, barely perceptible, all
the time. The cult wants to totally possess you, even when
you're asleep.
> >
> >
> > > Is there an
> > > implication that spirit was working through his friend causes him to
> > > fall asleep to purposely disrupt of this guys meeting that was evil?
> >
> > No.... Maybe just in your mind there is.
>
Bullshit. Falling asleep in a situation like that is always
interpreted as doing inner stuff, and if you're at a non-eckist
meeting when you do it, of course as a good cult member you're
going to be convinced you *were* battling the Kal somehow!!
<giggle> So...did the sleepy friend come down with food
poisoning later in the day?
> Sounds more like Harold's "friend" was simply bored with the whole thing.
> I think that message comes across loud and clear. Why was he bored? well
> there is a strong implication that both viewed the meeting with
> indifference yet did not have the etiquette to leave. Not very becoming
> of a Master.
>
> >
> > > As an argument against ex-eckists and non-eckist posting on a.r.e.,
> > > several eckists have made the bold claims that eckists would never go
> > > into someone else's meeting and disrupt it.
> >
> > Right and that is not what happened here. Nice try again but he said
> > they went to "investigate". Are you saying he was falling asleep on
> > purpose. This is really a weak try Lurk. Better find another qoute
> > that could be misconstrued. this one isn't it.
>
> It doesn't sound very Eck-like to "investigate" a meeting. I thought
> non-interference was a cornerstone of the Eck. If Mr. Klemp possesses
> some of the highest attributes of the Eck (being the Living Eck Master)
> where is the need to look into a gathering of souls from another path and
> then exacerbate the situation by having a cohort fall asleep. I's say
> that was clearly rude and not a "weak try" on arelurker's part. It sounds
> more like rationalization on Rich's part.(g)
>
Hey, Klemp is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and
omnipotent!!
> >
> >
> > > Here is your spiritual
> > > leader condoning his friends commotion that disrupted this meeting.
> > > HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS!
> >
> > Simple. Your are saying he condoned it when of course he didn't say
> > that at all. He merely reported what happened.
>
> And in his reporting it, does neither condone nor condemn it. He leaves
> it up to the listener to decide. arelurker's interpretation of it seems
> most plausible.
>
> > > > I don't know what the little man experienced, but he ended the
> > > > meditation very abruptly.
> >
> > > What's the implication here: That Spirit interceded through Harold
> > > and caused the man to end the session?
> >
> > Sigh, that's what *you* are trying to implicate. Harold said he didn't
> > know. How did you miss that?
>
> How can you expend so much energy rationalizing away this story. Did you
> take my "cult test" Rich? Sounds like it may be time to examine your
> commitment to Eckankar.
>
His commitment to the cult is absolute. He's a true
believer.
"Those who have become recruited into ECK must realize this from the
beginning. Because of this power of the ECK, these persons must show
initiative, resourcefulness, and a fanatical loyalty to ECK." PT,
Satsang III, L. 3 (secret discourse)
"If the chela is not possessed of this quality of dedication and
loyalty to the path of ECK, his incarnations are lengthened in this
world, and he shall not be able to enter into the next worlds at the end
of this present life." PT, Shariyat 1, Chapter 6
Sharon
--
http://members.delphi.com/sharon2000
New email address: sharo...@playful.com
Frank H. Weeden
> If someone falls asleep at an eck meeting, they're supposedly
> getting it "on the inner" and it's okay.
And who are you to say that they aren't?
> And if you can't get to a meeting physically, you're supposed
> to do these visualizations & stuff & attend "on the inner."
The option is certainly there. And it has worked for me.
> There are always "jokes" about the attendance at seminars being
> much higher than it is, because of everyone there "on the inner."
Just an acknowledgement of what is, Sharon. This is like being
angry at the fact that the sky is blue.
> I used to do it. For example, at one big seminar I couldn't
> attend, I "tuned in" at a specified time to do a hu-chant with
> other satsang members who were at the seminar. And they
> commented on feeling my presence there. I was here at home,
> all tranced out, imagining I was there.
>
> See, this cult isn't happy with just totally taking over every
> waking moment of your life, no matter what you're doing, it's
> like a virus running in the background, barely perceptible, all
> the time. The cult wants to totally possess you, even when
> you're asleep.
No. This is simply your perception, Sharon, rather than actual fact.
Nice try.
> Bullshit. Falling asleep in a situation like that is always
> interpreted as doing inner stuff, and if you're at a non-eckist
> meeting when you do it, of course as a good cult member you're
> going to be convinced you *were* battling the Kal somehow!!
I've never heard such nonsense.
> <giggle> So...did the sleepy friend come down with food
> poisoning later in the day?
Again: Utter nonsense. The implication is despicable, Sharon.
Well, then again, I suppose I should just consider the source...
> Hey, Klemp is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and
> omnipotent!!
>
> His commitment to the cult is absolute. He's a true
> believer.
Because someone has a set of beliefs that differ with yours, does
not make them a mindless cult robot. Hey Sharon, do you know one
of the main reasons the pilgrims left England? Do you know the
main reason that Tibetan monks are in danger of being murdered
everyday? Do you know why the streets of Bosnia, Palestine, Jerusalem,
Beiruit, and Rwanda continue to run with blood? Religious intolerance.
Persecution. How charming, the company that you've chosen to hang with.
You must feel really good about yourself. How many times have you
fantasized about murdering Harold, or going on a genocidal war to
kill all Eckists? Of course, I don't expect you to answer honestly.
You never do.
> "Those who have become recruited into ECK must realize this from the
> beginning. Because of this power of the ECK, these persons must show
> initiative, resourcefulness, and a fanatical loyalty to ECK." PT,
> Satsang III, L. 3 (secret discourse)
Initiative and resourcefulness are survival tools for living.
A fanatical loyalty to the ECK, which is also another word for
life and love and the Holy Spirit... Hrmmm... Not bad things to
give one's loyalties to. I guess that's a far cry from fanatically
tearing down people, fanatically telling lies, fanatically twisting
things, or fanatically making up things that just aren't true, right
Sharon?
> "If the chela is not possessed of this quality of dedication and
> loyalty to the path of ECK, his incarnations are lengthened in this
> world, and he shall not be able to enter into the next worlds at the end
> of this present life." PT, Shariyat 1, Chapter 6
Yeah, well... I guess some of us are in for a mighty long haul. <G>
Frank
Rich
> Rich wrote:
>
> > arel...@home.com wrote:
> >
> > > > My friend was very tired, and he started to fall asleep in his chair.
> > > > But each time he dozed off, he would tip over. We were in a prominent
> > > > place in the audience where everybody could see this, and it made it
> > > > seem as if what the speaker had to say wasn't very important. The man
> > > > started out very confidently, but after my friend inadvertantly caused
> > > > some commotion, he cut his talk short.
> > >
> > > What's *inadvertent* about this blatant rudeness!
> >
> > Being very tired and dozing is blatant rudeness? LOL Nice try Lurk.
>
> What if someone fell asleep at an ECK meeting? Put yourself in that situation.
> I think you might be put off a bit.
Not at all. Been there done that. I have dozed, and seen it happen
many times. I don't see intent where none was intended as is so often
true of detractors in this NG.
> > > Is there an
> > > implication that spirit was working through his friend causes him to
> > > fall asleep to purposely disrupt of this guys meeting that was evil?
> >
> > No.... Maybe just in your mind there is.
>
> Sounds more like Harold's "friend" was simply bored with the whole thing. I
> think that message comes across loud and clear.
It said he as tired. How do you intuit "bored"? The same way Lurk
intuited purposeful blatant rudeness?
> Why was he bored? well there
> is a strong implication that both viewed the meeting with indifference yet did
> not have the etiquette to leave.
How do you intuit "indifference" from what was written?
> Not very becoming of a Master.
But these are only your fabrications of their attitude and intent. AND,
now it is seen that you are basing your negative assumptions on Lurk's
negative assumptions... because you obviously didn't even bother to read
the original text where the first few words say he wasn't the master at
the time.
> > > As an argument against ex-Eckists and non-eckist posting on a.r.e.,
> > > several Eckists have made the bold claims that Eckists would never go
> > > into someone else's meeting and disrupt it.
> >
> > Right and that is not what happened here. Nice try again but he said
> > they went to "investigate". Are you saying he was falling asleep on
> > purpose. This is really a weak try Lurk. Better find another quote
> > that could be misconstrued. This one isn't it.
>
> It doesn't sound very Eck-like to "investigate" a meeting.
What? David Lane always tells Eckists to do more research.
> I thought non-interference was a cornerstone of the Eck.
It is, and they didn't interfere. You might try and read what it is you
are critiquing before you make yourself look so trollish.
> If Mr. Klemp possesses some of
> the highest attributes of the Eck (being the Living Eck Master)
Again, he was not the master at the time.
> where is the
> need to look into a gathering of souls from another path
"Gathering of souls from another path"? Have you been taking lessons
in Sharonesque Interpretation 101?<G>
> and then exacerbate
> the situation by having a cohort fall asleep.
Ah, that's a good one!:-) Backhanded blame. Harold 'made' him fall
asleep. LOL
> I's say that was clearly rude
> and not a "weak try" on arelurker's part. It sounds more like rationalization
> on Rich's part.(g)
LOL Excuse me for sticking to the facts of what was written.<G>
> > > Here is your spiritual
> > > leader condoning his friends commotion that disrupted this meeting. HOW
> > > DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS!
> > Simple. Your are saying he condoned it when of course he didn't say
> > that at all. He merely reported what happened.
>
> And in his reporting it, does neither condone nor condemn it. He leaves it up
> to the listener to decide. arelurker's interpretation of it seems most
> plausible.
Right, if you don't read the original story.
> > > > I don't know what the little man experienced, but he ended the
> > > > meditation very abruptly.
> >
> > > What's the implication here: That Spirit interceded through Harold and
> > > caused the man to end the session?
> >
> > Sigh, that's what *you* are trying to implicate. Harold said he didn't
> > know. How did you miss that?
>
> How can you expend so much energy rationalizing away this story. Did you take
> my "cult test" Rich?
_Your_ cult test Jim? If it's anything like the veracity of what you
wrote in this post, it would be a waste of time for anyone except those
that would like to confirm their own biases.
Try this real cult test and let us know how you do.
http://www.omnimag.com/archives/mind_brain/cult/index.html
*WARNING*: I have recommended this to detractors for years, and none
have returned to say that they passed the first time.
> Sounds like it may be time to examine your commitment to Eckankar.
My commitment as Soul is to Spirit and God. Eckankar is transitory.
Frank H. Weeden
> Ah, that's a good one!:-) Backhanded blame. Harold 'made' him fall
> asleep. LOL
You're feeling sleeeeeepy . . . .
so very sleepy . . . . .
v e r y s l e e p y . . .
You are wanting some Haagen Daz . . . .
A WHOLE FRICKIN' GALLON!! YEAH!!!!
Off to the get some ice cream and
feeling very sleepy while doing so, <G>
Frankster
Frank H. Weeden
>
> Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote in message news:38FDEF...@aloha.net...
> > Jim Agricola wrote:
> >
>
> > > Not very becoming of a Master.
> >
> > But these are only your fabrications of their attitude and intent. AND,
> > now it is seen that you are basing your negative assumptions on Lurk's
> > negative assumptions... because you obviously didn't even bother to read
> > the original text where the first few words say he wasn't the master at
> > the time.
> >
>
>
> I guess it fills their day with something...
It certainly fills this newsgroup with something.
It smells bad, and I have to keep scraping it off
the bottom of my boots. Phew!!! <G>
Frankster
Frank H. Weeden
Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> Frank H. Weeden <gun...@united.net> wrote in message
> news:38FE1762...@united.net...
> > Rich wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, that's a good one!:-) Backhanded blame. Harold 'made' him fall
> > > asleep. LOL
> >
> > You're feeling sleeeeeepy . . . .
> >
> > so very sleepy . . . . .
> >
> > v e r y s l e e p y . . .
>
> Actually Frank... It is an old MIND SCANNING technique Sri Harold used and
> set up way back then to confuse and make detractors come up with absurd
> allegations in order to make them look stupid...
>
> And guess what...
>
> It WORKED!
>
> That ole' black magic... <G>
>
> Love
>
> Michael
ROFL!!!
Michael Wallace
> Sharo...@playful.com wrote:
> > There are always "jokes" about the attendance at seminars
being
> > much higher than it is, because of everyone there "on the
inner."
>
> angry at the fact that the sky is blue.
Well... If the sky is blue for you... It may well be black for me <G>
(Though I will swaer black and blue it is purple!)
All is relative... Especially in Tennessee they tell me <G>
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
> > Not very becoming of a Master.
>
> But these are only your fabrications of their attitude and intent. AND,
> now it is seen that you are basing your negative assumptions on Lurk's
> negative assumptions... because you obviously didn't even bother to read
> the original text where the first few words say he wasn't the master at
> the time.
>
Yet another one, hey Rich...
I guess it fills their day with something...
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
> Rich wrote:
>
> > Ah, that's a good one!:-) Backhanded blame. Harold 'made' him fall
> > asleep. LOL
>
Diamond star
why did I know that you'd still be here when I got
back. Hey, I see on the videos I rent that the FBI investigates any
allegations of infringement of copy rights. Is that what
you do, agent Frank. Or maybe it's Agent Wellby who is busy
"investigating man eating catepillars from Venus". Now
that's from the Three Stooges in Orbit, which promises to show us how
Martians really look. Had to make sure you
know where I got that so "agent" Frank wouldn't investigate me.
Tell me frank, is that gunhead like something from the Marine drills
that they repeat over and over, like this is gun, and this
is my dick. One is for killing and one is for fun. Guess you got them
mixed up. Love, Rose (p.s. I'm not being mean.
I'm just operating from another plane at the moment.)
Now here is what the spiritual laws say about what we can and cannot
do. Page 87.
"When you come to the state of self-mastery, it does not mean that you
now have license to live life doing
whatever you please. It simply means that now you know and understand
the laws of Spirit as they apply to you.
You know the things you can do and the things you cannot do. And while
you make your way through life with these
guidelines, you also are being a vehicle for Spirit."
Note that it says, you know what you can do and cannot do, how the law
applys to you. It doesn't say, frank, or jesse, or the dalton
gang knows what you can do or how the laws apply to you. It says, you
know. That means, we cannot say how
they apply to another person. Criticism based on the laws is absurd,
therefore, unless you are looking at yourself.
Or, as some in the 12 step programs would put it, "Take your own
inventory." May the Blessing Be.
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Sharo...@playful.com
> "Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
>
> > Sharo...@playful.com wrote:
> >
> > > If someone falls asleep at an eck meeting, they're
> > > supposedly getting it "on the inner" and it's okay.
> >
>
> everything? I just believe it is simply rude to fall asleep in church, or
> a temple, or wherever for whatever reason? Sounds like this region of the
> mind is not only sacred, but a safe haven to retreat to when the physical
> world cannot be dealt with.. Paul Twitchell may have thought of it as a
> "playground" of sorts, or a place to burn off karma, but if that's the
> case, who needs Eckankar to tell you that?
Getting all the supposedly great spiritual wisdom you get when
you're an eckist! <gg>
The "inner" is quite handy, for example, although Twitch had
promised many more volumes of the "Shariyat" he sort of died
before he could write them. The first two, well...they've got
a lot of cultic nonsense in them. So...the eckists rationalize
these things by saying the "physical" Shariyats are "lower" and
you need all this "inner" spiritual eyesight to see that when
Twitch wrote non-eckists were aliens, that's not what he meant.
They imagine they're reading the *real* Shariyats in those other
planes "golden wisdom temples."
Yes, I think it's rude to fall asleep in church, etc., but...hey,
it happens.
Twitch didn't think of the other planes as a playground, or place
to burn off karma. He wanted people to be "detached" from their
real lives on earth and sort of be in this schizophrenic lalaland
so that he could use them & direct them to accomplish his own
purposes.
I think life on earth is VERY real, and since we're here, it
makes more sense to really focus on it and make the best of it,
and sort of really go for it, you know what I mean?
Whatever we believe, well...we're not here on earth that long.
And I don't think we're here as punishment, as the cult teaches.
>
> >
> >
> > > And if you can't get to a meeting physically, you're
> > > supposed to do these visualizations & stuff & attend "on
> > > the inner."
> >
> > The option is certainly there. And it has worked for me.
>
> Do you actually "attend" the meeting and come back as if you were really
> there? And can you give a detailed account of what was said; what the
> speaker was wearing; the color of the room, etc.?
>
Of course not!! <ggg>
It's something you just ... "know"! <ggg>
> >
> >
> > > There are always "jokes" about the attendance at seminars
> > > being much higher than it is, because of everyone there "on
> > > the inner."
> >
> > Just an acknowledgement of what is, Sharon. This is like being
> > angry at the fact that the sky is blue.
>
> Frank, you speak as if it is natural to "soul travel". Again, have you
> ever gone somewhere in the soul body and come back to describe exactly
> how it was, wherever you were? Can you go to the White House and see if
> Hillary and Bill are sharing the same bedroom? Just curious.(g)
>
Well, in a way, it *is* natural. Astral projection is
natural for many people...and yes, I know those who can
do it, and indeed come back with details which are confirmed
by me being on the phone with whoever's being popped in on.
And the other "soul travel" ... the just shifting
consciousness thing....well, that's natural, too. It's
daydreaming, and things like just sort of shifting from what
you might normally be thinking, seeing things from another
viewpoint & stuff.
<gg> I think perhaps more people might have been interested
in popping into the Oval Office to see Monica in action!!
> >
> >
> > > I used to do it. For example, at one big seminar I
> > > couldn't attend, I "tuned in" at a specified time to do a
> > > hu-chant with other satsang members who were at the
> > > seminar. And they commented on feeling my presence there.
> > > I was here at home, all tranced out, imagining I was there.
> > >
> > > See, this cult isn't happy with just totally taking over
> > > every waking moment of your life, no matter what you're
> > > doing, it's like a virus running in the background, barely
> > > perceptible, all the time. The cult wants to totally
> > > possess you, even when you're asleep.
> >
> > No. This is simply your perception, Sharon, rather than actual fact.
> > Nice try.
>
I agree my perception that I was at the seminar was just
a cultic belief.
I think maybe you misread what I said. Because we all
believed I could really be there, that's why the other
Satsang members thought I was there. We just imagined
it. Our beliefs made us feel that I was there.
> If you can't give an account of where you go as a "soul body" then you
> weren't really there, and Eckankar's premise is bunk.
>
True!!
> >
> >
> > Because someone has a set of beliefs that differ with yours, does
> > not make them a mindless cult robot. Hey Sharon, do you know one
> > of the main reasons the pilgrims left England? Do you know the
> > main reason that Tibetan monks are in danger of being murdered
> > everyday? Do you know why the streets of Bosnia, Palestine, Jerusalem,
> > Beiruit, and Rwanda continue to run with blood? Religious intolerance.
> > Persecution. How charming, the company that you've chosen to hang with.
> > You must feel really good about yourself. How many times have you
> > fantasized about murdering Harold, or going on a genocidal war to
> > kill all Eckists? Of course, I don't expect you to answer honestly.
> > You never do.
>
> Wow this stuff is out of hand! You are really one angry fellow, Frank.
> How has Eckankar helped you?
Whoa!!! I didn't see this!!!
I am shocked at Frank!!! I have *never* had violent
thoughts like this!! Oh...except as I posted here, I did
have non-specific feelings of wanting to kill a man, any
man, after I was raped a few years ago. And that was what
disturbed me most of all...the anger I felt at the man, and
because I was trying so hard to repress my "negative" feelings
and understand that my reactions were normal, well...they simply
grew.
I tried to view the incident as an eckist, to continue to feel
divine unconditional love for the man, to try to see &
understand that *I* had created this somehow, either through
things I'd done in this life, or that it was a karmic situation
and evidently I must've raped this guy in a past life so I
deserved it...the usual eckstuff. It's not healthy.
You know...as far as how the cult has "helped" Frank, well, I
knew him and cared about him when I was an eckist. I'm still
the same person I was then. But now...he sees me not as I was
and am, but rather, as an alien heathen pagan enemy of the ECK,
as his cult teaches.
I see Frank turning into what he's accusing *me* of being.
And it's very, very sad. He's becoming a true creature of the
cult.
Ken
Jim Agricola <crescen...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
:
:
: "Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
: > Because someone has a set of beliefs that differ with yours, does
: > not make them a mindless cult robot. Hey Sharon, do you know one
: > of the main reasons the pilgrims left England? Do you know the
: > main reason that Tibetan monks are in danger of being murdered
: > everyday? Do you know why the streets of Bosnia, Palestine, Jerusalem,
: > Beiruit, and Rwanda continue to run with blood? Religious intolerance.
: > Persecution. How charming, the company that you've chosen to hang with.
: > You must feel really good about yourself. How many times have you
: > fantasized about murdering Harold, or going on a genocidal war to
: > kill all Eckists? Of course, I don't expect you to answer honestly.
: > You never do.
:
: Wow this stuff is out of hand! You are really one angry fellow, Frank. How has
: Eckankar helped you?
Frank's comments aren't out of line. Sharon has *openly* supported that
guy from England (what's his name???) who sent death threats to Harold
Klemp and other Eckists. The same one who said he was "slimed" as he
drove in his car on the motorway. The same one who was thrown out of the
U.S. and told he'd be locked back up if he ever came back.
With that kind of support for people who are clearly out of balance and wish
people harm . . . what else can one say?
Ken
Galuuk
in it eternally. Some of us (california types like David Lane) think they live
in it year round. But Rich doesn't have to wear a rubber suit to go surfing.
Somehow it seems fitting that David L. spends a lot of time in a rubber suit.
Michael's got things all upside down and Santim too. Their leaves are just
beginning to fall.
Morten sees warmth in his fireplace virtually year around.
But no matter where we're found the Mahanta is near.
May we each in Spirit be frolicing in San Diego this spring.
Joey
At the end of information there is knowledge.....
At the end of knowledge there is Wisdom.....
At the end of Wisdom there is Love.....
Anne
gal...@aol.com (Galuuk) wrote:
>May we each in Spirit be frolicing in San Diego this spring.
>
Thanks Joey, this sounds wonderful. See you there in my heart!!!
Love to ALL,
Anne
>
>Joey
>At the end of information there is knowledge.....
>At the end of knowledge there is Wisdom.....
>At the end of Wisdom there is Love.....
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Michael Wallace
>
the inner."
> >
> > Just an acknowledgement of what is, Sharon. This is like being
> > angry at the fact that the sky is blue.
>
> Frank, you speak as if it is natural to "soul travel". Again, have you
ever gone
> somewhere in the soul body and come back to describe exactly how it was,
wherever
> you were? Can you go to the White House and see if Hillary and Bill are
sharing
> the same bedroom? Just curious.(g)
Yet another person who has no idea what they are talking about.
You are describing "Remote Viewing" and maybe you should look up what Monroe
says about it...
And it is a perfectly natural and normal thing to experience Soul Travel...
Happens to lots of people...
Love
Michael
Michael Wallace
> I have no desire to look up someone named Monroe nor "remote Viewing". I
would
> like you to verify that when you soul travel, you can actually be
somewhere in a
> different body while your physical one is elsewhere.
As I said... Another person with no idea.
This is a basic tenet of
> Eckankar correct?
Nope.
To soul travel means for one's soul to travel. Very simple.
> Now I pose the question to you. Have ever been able to "go" somewhere in a
> different body and verify the events which took place there after
recombining
> with your physical state?
Again... You are talking about Remote Viewing... Not Soul Travel. If you
feel the need to narrow down the experience of Soul Travel to such small
confined states that's your business...
> If Eckankar teaches something else, let me know. Don't deviate.My question
is
> valid and simple. Just tell the truth..
I am not interested in educating you Jim... Go read the books and find out
for yourself.
I think Rich put an excellent post on the basics of Soul Travel a couple of
months ago... Maybe you want to research his posts and find that one, if you
are interested.
Cheers
Love
Michael
arel...@home.com
Jim Agricola wrote:
>
> "Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
>
> > Sharo...@playful.com wrote:
> >
> > > If someone falls asleep at an eck meeting, they're supposedly
> > > getting it "on the inner" and it's okay.
> >
> > And who are you to say that they aren't?
>
> Getting "what" on the inner? Why do Eckists use the "inner" to justify
> everything? I just believe it is simply rude to fall asleep in church, or a
> temple, or wherever for whatever reason? Sounds like this region of the mind is
> not only sacred, but a safe haven to retreat to when the physical world cannot be
> dealt with..
They definately got an inner bunker mentality going. <gg> A good
question for them to ask is, why?
Lurk
Paul Twitchell may have thought of it as a "playground" of sorts, or
> a place to burn off karma, but if that's the case, who needs Eckankar to tell you
> that?
>
> >
> >
> > > And if you can't get to a meeting physically, you're supposed
> > > to do these visualizations & stuff & attend "on the inner."
> >
> > The option is certainly there. And it has worked for me.
>
> Do you actually "attend" the meeting and come back as if you were really there?
> And can you give a detailed account of what was said; what the speaker was
> wearing; the color of the room, etc.?
>
> >
> >
> > > There are always "jokes" about the attendance at seminars being
> > > much higher than it is, because of everyone there "on the inner."
> >
> > Just an acknowledgement of what is, Sharon. This is like being
> > angry at the fact that the sky is blue.
>
> Frank, you speak as if it is natural to "soul travel". Again, have you ever gone
> somewhere in the soul body and come back to describe exactly how it was, wherever
> you were? Can you go to the White House and see if Hillary and Bill are sharing
> the same bedroom? Just curious.(g)
>
> >
> >
> > > I used to do it. For example, at one big seminar I couldn't
> > > attend, I "tuned in" at a specified time to do a hu-chant with
> > > other satsang members who were at the seminar. And they
> > > commented on feeling my presence there. I was here at home,
> > > all tranced out, imagining I was there.
> > >
> > > See, this cult isn't happy with just totally taking over every
> > > waking moment of your life, no matter what you're doing, it's
> > > like a virus running in the background, barely perceptible, all
> > > the time. The cult wants to totally possess you, even when
> > > you're asleep.
> >
> > No. This is simply your perception, Sharon, rather than actual fact.
> > Nice try.
>
> If you can't give an account of where you go as a "soul body" then you weren't
> really there, and Eckankar's premise is bunk.
>
> >
> >
arel...@home.com
Michael Wallace wrote:
>
> Jim Agricola <crescen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:38FF3F76...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Michael Wallace wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Agricola <crescen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:38FEEDA5...@hotmail.com...
> > > >
> > > the inner."
> > > > >
> > > > > Just an acknowledgement of what is, Sharon. This is like being
> > > > > angry at the fact that the sky is blue.
> > > >
> > > > Frank, you speak as if it is natural to "soul travel". Again, have you
> > > ever gone
> > > > somewhere in the soul body and come back to describe exactly how it
> was,
> > > wherever
> > > > you were? Can you go to the White House and see if Hillary and Bill
> are
> > > sharing
> > > > the same bedroom? Just curious.(g)
> > >
> > > Yet another person who has no idea what they are talking about.
> > >
> > > You are describing "Remote Viewing" and maybe you should look up what
> Monroe
> > > says about it...
> > >
> > > And it is a perfectly natural and normal thing to experience Soul
> Travel...
> > > Happens to lots of people...
> > >
> > > Love
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > Michael,
> > I have no desire to look up someone named Monroe nor "remote Viewing". I
> would
> > like you to verify that when you soul travel, you can actually be
> somewhere in a
> > different body while your physical one is elsewhere.
>
> As I said... Another person with no idea.
Then could you be so kind as to educate him?
>
> This is a basic tenet of
> > Eckankar correct?
>
> Nope.
>
> To soul travel means for one's soul to travel. Very simple.
> > Now I pose the question to you. Have ever been able to "go" somewhere in a
> > different body and verify the events which took place there after
> recombining
> > with your physical state?
>
> Again... You are talking about Remote Viewing... Not Soul Travel. If you
> feel the need to narrow down the experience of Soul Travel to such small
> confined states that's your business...
>
> > If Eckankar teaches something else, let me know. Don't deviate.My question
> is
> > valid and simple. Just tell the truth..
>
> I am not interested in educating you Jim... Go read the books and find out
> for yourself.
Avoidance 101.
Jim, you have about as much chance at getting a straight answer out of
this eckists as a politician. Good luck.
Lurk
Diamond star
> I guess it's been here officially for a month now. Some of us (like Rich) live
> in it eternally. Some of us (california types like David Lane) think they live
> in it year round. But Rich doesn't have to wear a rubber suit to go surfing.
>
> Somehow it seems fitting that David L. spends a lot of time in a rubber suit.
>
> Michael's got things all upside down and Santim too. Their leaves are just
> beginning to fall.
>
> Morten sees warmth in his fireplace virtually year around.
>
> But no matter where we're found the Mahanta is near.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At the end of information there is knowledge.....
> At the end of knowledge there is Wisdom.....
> At the end of Wisdom there is Love.....
wonderful weather here in the Pac.N.W. and I
appreciate every moment of it, along with the new sets of song sparrows
that have migrated into my woods. Sun,
flowers and light, Sound, the song of birds, Looks and sounds like
Heaven to me. Love, Rose
SantimVah
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:38FFAF34...@home.com...
>
>
> SantimVah wrote:
> >
> > Jim Agricola <crescen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:38FDA15B...@hotmail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Rich wrote:
> > >
> > > > arel...@home.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What's *inadvertent* about this blatant rudeness!
> > > >
> > > > Being very tired and dozing is blatant rudeness? LOL Nice try
Lurk.
> > >
> > > What if someone fell asleep at an ECK meeting? Put yourself in that
> > situation.
> > > I think you might be put off a bit.
> > >
> >
> > LOL Well Jim this happens all the time. I've had some of my best sleeps
of
> > my life "listening" to Sri Harold at seminars. Why be put off? Just take
> > things as they come.
>
> short his talk?
>
No, Spiritual services provide much better facilities for snoozing. And if
had tipped over, the helpers would have been there with a strectcher, and
none would be the wiser, the talk would have continued irrespective if I was
asleep or dying from a heart attack. Like I said, take things as they come,
no big deal. <g>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Is there an
> > > > > implication that spirit was working through his friend causes him
to
> > > > > fall asleep to purposely disrupt of this guys meeting that was
evil?
> > > >
> > > > No.... Maybe just in your mind there is.
> > >
> > > Sounds more like Harold's "friend" was simply bored with the whole
thing.
> > I
> > > think that message comes across loud and clear. Why was he bored? well
> > there
> > > is a strong implication that both viewed the meeting with indifference
yet
> > did
> > > not have the etiquette to leave. Not very becoming of a Master.
> > >
> >
> > Jim, did you miss this line in the story?
> >
> > "My friend was very tired, and he started to fall asleep in his
chair."
> >
> > Your question would be better put as "Why was he tired?"
> >
> > The answer could be, "Cause he had 2 hours sleep the night before and
had
> > been up since 5am this morning and it was getting onto 10pm as the guy's
> > "long drawn out talk" continued."
>
> tipping over more than once and causing a disturbance to the point where
> the speaker cuts his talk short, then he should have excused himself and
> left the meeting.
>
It was not evident that the talk was cut short because of the chap falling
asleep, Harold indicated he didn't know and he WAS there, so how could you
suggest otherwise? May he just needed to cut a big one? <g>
> Same with Harold: If he felt uncomfortable smelling aromas and hearing
> tape recorded sounds when he was meditating, he could have left the
> room. But instead he creates his swordsman of the sugmad drama in which
> he gets to play the hero. What a pattern!
>
What, you sticking your nose into things you nothing about. Yes it is a bit
of a pattern Lurk. <g>
> Harold's friend was a disruption to the point where he cut short this
> group's service short. That's interference. Can't you read? Harold
> seemed to be proud of it. Whether it was intentional or not is not that
> important. It did interfere with the service.
>
Read? Where did the story say, "he cut his talk short becuse of the friends
disruption"? Just another one those creative Soul Travel experiences Lurk?
There is no "evidence" to suggest the service was interferred with.
>
> >
> > But of course you wouldn't consider your and lurk's, and sharon's
persistent
> > presence on this NG as "interference" would you?
>
> Are we disrupting you from practicing your religion.
>
Did Harold disrupt this guy from practicing his religion? No!
> No.
>
> Duh.
Yes I often think of you like homer. ,g>
> Your getting absurd and childish here Satinvah.
>
No I'm not. I think it is clear that jim is doing your biding and I'm just
asking if he's getting paid for it. The fact that you are responding here,
is evidence enough to prove that is the case imo. Is that part of the deal?
For you to back Jim up if things get too tricky?
> >
> > Why was the story posted here anyway? An Eckist to show some interesting
> > aspect of the ECK or the LEM? NO!
>
> It shows an interesting pattern in Harold where he feels he is being
> attacked by some force outside himself. The other story was about his
> break away from Christianity where he felt his home town congregation
> was attacking him by praying for him. He went on the recount his dream
> where he empowered himself demonizing the minister and congregation.
>
> This story has a similar pattern: He felt like aromas and tape recorded
> music during a meditation was an attack. So he went in on the inner and
> slayed that demon he created.
>
> I find it interesting from the perspective of this being touted as the
> highest consciousness in the world.
>
LOL, you're too much lurk, you just crack me up. Similar pattern, yeah sure
if you consider that harold was the person in both stories. LOL!! Your
stories and interpretations don't rate as part of the picture though, what
you say happed isn't actually the case, so you miss it on both counts.
> > It was posted by a cereal detractor as an
> > attempt to apply his personal view that all things ECK are elitist.
>
> I don't think everything eck masters or eckists do are elitist.
>
Fine, then post 500 examples of each to make up for the last 1000 posts
reflecting your ignorant and elitist stands against all things ECK. I'll
keep a track of the numbers at deja.com and let you know when you've hit the
mark.
anding from what was "actually written" in the story.
>
> It appears to me Rich did not read the passage.
>
> > I for one can
> > understand Rich's interpretation of what occured, and find Lurk's, as
well
> > as your's not based on the story so much as anti-Eckankar agenda.
>
> Yeah Yeah. Got to love this true believer energy.
>
Well if it looks like it and smells like it and tastes like it and feels
like it and sounds like an anti-Eckankar agenda then it is!
Don't get bedsores sitting in that there chair too long Lurk.
SantimVah
> Lurk
arel...@home.com
Here's what Harold said, "The man started out very confidently, but
after my friend inadvertently caused some commotion, he cut his talk short."
Have you got any other theories?
I know many of you eckist feel you can simply state something and that
is enough to make it true but here's Harold's quote again, "The man
started out very confidently, but after my friend inadvertently caused
some commotion, he cut his talk short."
> >
> > >
Even more absurd and childish.
> > >
> > > Why was the story posted here anyway? An Eckist to show some interesting
> > > aspect of the ECK or the LEM? NO!
> >
> > It shows an interesting pattern in Harold where he feels he is being
> > attacked by some force outside himself. The other story was about his
> > break away from Christianity where he felt his home town congregation
> > was attacking him by praying for him. He went on the recount his dream
> > where he empowered himself demonizing the minister and congregation.
> >
> > This story has a similar pattern: He felt like aromas and tape recorded
> > music during a meditation was an attack. So he went in on the inner and
> > slayed that demon he created.
> >
> > I find it interesting from the perspective of this being touted as the
> > highest consciousness in the world.
> >
> LOL, you're too much lurk, you just crack me up. Similar pattern, yeah sure
> if you consider that harold was the person in both stories. LOL!! Your
> stories and interpretations don't rate as part of the picture though, what
> you say happed isn't actually the case, so you miss it on both counts.
I would repost for you what actually happened but you have already
demonstrated you inability to read with comprehension.
>
> > > It was posted by a cereal detractor as an
> > > attempt to apply his personal view that all things ECK are elitist.
> >
> > I don't think everything eck masters or eckists do are elitist.
> >
> Fine, then post 500 examples of each to make up for the last 1000 posts
> reflecting your ignorant and elitist stands against all things ECK. I'll
> keep a track of the numbers at deja.com and let you know when you've hit the
> mark.
If you don't mind, I prefer to post what I post.
>
> anding from what was "actually written" in the story.
> >
> > It appears to me Rich did not read the passage.
> >
> > > I for one can
> > > understand Rich's interpretation of what occured, and find Lurk's, as
> well
> > > as your's not based on the story so much as anti-Eckankar agenda.
> >
> > Yeah Yeah. Got to love this true believer energy.
> >
> Well if it looks like it and smells like it and tastes like it and feels
> like it and sounds like an anti-Eckankar agenda then it is!
To act like my interpretations are not based upon the words written by
Harold is as true believerish as you stating earlier in the post that
the meeting wasn't cut short in Harold story.
Should I provide you with some names of deprogrammers <g>
Lurk
SantimVah
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:39004BC9...@home.com...
would any of my therories make to you anyway? As I said before, in Harold's
full story he said he didn't know why the guy cut his talk short. The fact
that it occurred after the inadvertant commotion may be relevant and then
again it may not. The only real way to establish due cause would be to
interview the speaker in question. Everything else is just suppostion and
hot air.
It proves nothing either way about Harold's actions or intentions at the
time or suggests anything about "elitism" regarding Harold. you of course
seem to see this as some kind of evidence of elitism, personally I just
can't see how you could arrive at such a conclusion given the known
information.
I see a big difference between "inadvertantly causing a commotion" and
purposely interfering a religious service (sorry sales pitch). If the
speaker was unable to maintain his composure because one person was
inadvertantly falling asleep then it doesn't say much about his mastery does
it? He couldn't offer the guy an alternative place to lie down, or request
that he leave the room?
If asked to leave and then refusing to, i could see this as interfering, but
that didn't happen did it? the guy just cut his talk short. Boy you can get
caught up over really trivial issues Lurk.
Sorry, I forgot the <g>
>
> > > >
> > > > Why was the story posted here anyway? An Eckist to show some
interesting
> > > > aspect of the ECK or the LEM? NO!
> > >
> > > It shows an interesting pattern in Harold where he feels he is being
> > > attacked by some force outside himself. The other story was about his
> > > break away from Christianity where he felt his home town congregation
> > > was attacking him by praying for him. He went on the recount his dream
> > > where he empowered himself demonizing the minister and congregation.
> > >
> > > This story has a similar pattern: He felt like aromas and tape
recorded
> > > music during a meditation was an attack. So he went in on the inner
and
> > > slayed that demon he created.
> > >
> > > I find it interesting from the perspective of this being touted as the
> > > highest consciousness in the world.
> > >
> > LOL, you're too much lurk, you just crack me up. Similar pattern, yeah
sure
> > if you consider that harold was the person in both stories. LOL!! Your
> > stories and interpretations don't rate as part of the picture though,
what
> > you say happed isn't actually the case, so you miss it on both counts.
>
> I would repost for you what actually happened but you have already
> demonstrated you inability to read with comprehension.
>
LOL, the old standby, I need glasses.
>
> >
> > > > It was posted by a cereal detractor as an
> > > > attempt to apply his personal view that all things ECK are elitist.
> > >
> > > I don't think everything eck masters or eckists do are elitist.
> > >
> > Fine, then post 500 examples of each to make up for the last 1000 posts
> > reflecting your ignorant and elitist stands against all things ECK. I'll
> > keep a track of the numbers at deja.com and let you know when you've hit
the
> > mark.
>
> If you don't mind, I prefer to post what I post.
>
No, I don't mind at all, please go ahead.
> >
> > anding from what was "actually written" in the story.
> > >
> > > It appears to me Rich did not read the passage.
> > >
> > > > I for one can
> > > > understand Rich's interpretation of what occured, and find Lurk's,
as
> > well
> > > > as your's not based on the story so much as anti-Eckankar agenda.
> > >
> > > Yeah Yeah. Got to love this true believer energy.
> > >
> > Well if it looks like it and smells like it and tastes like it and feels
> > like it and sounds like an anti-Eckankar agenda then it is!
>
> To act like my interpretations are not based upon the words written by
> Harold is as true believerish as you stating earlier in the post that
> the meeting wasn't cut short in Harold story.
>
I never said the meeting wasn't cut short, just that it wan't clear that the
cutting short was a direct result of the commotion or that that in itself
never suggested "interfereance" as such, that's all. Don't say things I
didn't say Lurk, if you don't mind.
> Should I provide you with some names of deprogrammers <g>
>
> Lurk
>
Not necessary, have Sharon's contact details prominent on the fridge, thanks
anyway. <g>
SantimVah
<snipped a bit at the end if that's ok?> <g>
Windy
I have a dense vine of honeysuckle growing on a fence near the house. An
itsy bitsy finch made her nest there. It isn't being used yet. I suppose
she is a perfectionist. It is so perfectly woven you would think a
master basket weaver made it for her.
Anyway, I had heard her tit tit tit for a while and didn't know what it
was all about. A couple of days ago I was sitting on the ground and
something told me to look up. Barely through the dence twining vine I
could see some shadow that did not fit into the structure of the branch
formation. I stood up and parted the leaves to find her nest.
She was having a fit when I had to plant a lilac bush nearby and let me
know of her disapproval of my presence. She is so funny to observe. I
quickly finished up and let her think she had frightened me away with
her aggitated tit tit noises.
Now when she lays her eggs I'll just have to let that area of the yard
go for a while. Nature is so wonderful to observe.
Windy
Frank H. Weeden
> > Nice interuption to the other stuff, Joey. It has certainly been
> > wonderful weather here in the Pac.N.W. and I
> > appreciate every moment of it, along with the new sets of song sparrows
> > that have migrated into my woods. Sun,
> > flowers and light, Sound, the song of birds, Looks and sounds like
> > Heaven to me. Love, Rose
>
> I have a dense vine of honeysuckle growing on a fence near the house. An
> itsy bitsy finch made her nest there. It isn't being used yet. I suppose
> she is a perfectionist. It is so perfectly woven you would think a
> master basket weaver made it for her.
> Anyway, I had heard her tit tit tit for a while and didn't know what it
> was all about. A couple of days ago I was sitting on the ground and
> something told me to look up. Barely through the dence twining vine I
> could see some shadow that did not fit into the structure of the branch
> formation. I stood up and parted the leaves to find her nest.
> She was having a fit when I had to plant a lilac bush nearby and let me
> know of her disapproval of my presence. She is so funny to observe. I
> quickly finished up and let her think she had frightened me away with
> her aggitated tit tit noises.
> Now when she lays her eggs I'll just have to let that area of the yard
> go for a while. Nature is so wonderful to observe.
> Windy
Last year, a mockingbird decided to build her nest in one of my Maple
trees
in the front yard. Whenever I would ride by on my mower, she would
barnstorm
me, and when I watered the trees, she would sit on a powerline over my
yard
and scold me bitterly. Her eggs finally hatched, and if I stood on
tiptoe,
I could see the little birds craning their necks and opening their
beaks.
If mama-bird was paranoid before the eggs hatched, she just about lost
her
mind at me for looking in on her babies!
Last night, we got our first really big thunderstorm of spring. I stood
in
the driveway, watching the clouds boiling across the sky. The lightning
was
flashing from cloud to cloud, and the thunder grew louder and louder,
until
the very earth was vibrating with it. The wind was lashing the trees and
bushes, moaning with a deep, throaty sound. I watched a wall of rain
come
over the river, and within moments, I was running for the front porch,
with
rain, hail, thunder, lightning, and wind shaking the world. The storm
was
ferocious, but ended about two hours later. Night had fallen, and the
clouds
were breaking up. From behind the clouds, the lightning was still
flashing,
and through holes in the clouds, I occasionally caught sight of a bolt
of
lightning. The stars were shining through holes in the clouds, and the
fireflies
began to come out and dance their courtship dance for the stars. They
are in
love with the stars, you know. They told me so. :-) The wind was soft,
warm,
and fragrant with the rain. I called my wife and daughter out to look at
the
sky. My daughter hurried back to the threshold, but stayed long enough
to
point with one tiny finger and say, "Sky! Sky!" The full moon rose, and
through the parting clouds, flooded the land with it's tranquil, silver
glow. Truly, it was one of the most beautiful nights I have ever seen...
Love,
Frank
Windy
> Last year, a mockingbird decided to build her nest in one of my Maple
> trees
> in the front yard. Whenever I would ride by on my mower, she would
> barnstorm
> me, and when I watered the trees, she would sit on a powerline over my
> yard
> and scold me bitterly. Her eggs finally hatched, and if I stood on
> tiptoe,
> I could see the little birds craning their necks and opening their
> beaks.
> If mama-bird was paranoid before the eggs hatched, she just about lost
> her
> mind at me for looking in on her babies!
them because they destroyed other birds nests. One day while we were
visiting a mockingbird started his little repetoire! I had to laugh when
she looked at me and said "I don't think any of his mock ups sound like
the real bird songs, either."
> come
> over the river, and within moments, I was running for the front porch,
> with
> rain, hail, thunder, lightning, and wind shaking the world. The storm
> was
> ferocious, but ended about two hours later.
could here it coming up the street. It sure came in a gust, didn't it.
The only damage I had was some potted plants got soaked. No biggie. I
don't think it lasted quite that long, though.
Night had fallen, and the
> clouds
> were breaking up. From behind the clouds, the lightning was still
> flashing,
> and through holes in the clouds, I occasionally caught sight of a bolt
> of
> lightning. The stars were shining through holes in the clouds,
I know I went to bed early last night about 9:30, half way through
Judge Judy. The storm was gone and so I looked outside and yep, like you
say, it was in the distance still giving hell! And I did notice those
stars nearer to us.
> and the fireflies
> began to come out and dance their courtship dance for the stars. They
> are in
> love with the stars, you know. They told me so. :-) The wind was soft,
> warm,
> and fragrant with the rain. I called my wife and daughter out to look at
> the
> sky. My daughter hurried back to the threshold, but stayed long enough
> to
> point with one tiny finger and say, "Sky! Sky!" The full moon rose, and
> through the parting clouds, flooded the land with it's tranquil, silver
> glow. Truly, it was one of the most beautiful nights I have ever seen...
>
> Love,
> Frank
Yes the storm does leave a sense of peace and forgiveness bahind,
doesn't it.
Our neighbors have a two year old also. They said when grandma came to
visit she is the nervous sort. When the car was being backed out of the
garage she yelled "Watch out for the tree"
So Alex was telling us that he was driving down the highway and their
little girl screamed frantically, "Watch out for the tree!"
He said it startled him at first cause he didn't know what was going on.
Kids are so funny. I suppose she thinks now, that trees will jump out at
you or there is something to be suspicious of them. Kids take things so
literally.
Thanks for sharing your post. It was most finely written I could almost
run for cover.
Love,
Windy
she
Frank H. Weeden
> >
> the inner."
> > >
> > > Just an acknowledgement of what is, Sharon. This is like being
> > > angry at the fact that the sky is blue.
> >
> > Frank, you speak as if it is natural to "soul travel". Again, have you
> ever gone
> > somewhere in the soul body and come back to describe exactly how it was,
> wherever
> > you were? Can you go to the White House and see if Hillary and Bill are
> sharing
> > the same bedroom? Just curious.(g)
For whatever reason, I have not seen Jim's letters coming through
on the newsgroup. My server was messed up yesterday. Soul Travel
is, in fact, very natural. For me, anyway. By the same token, I
have absolutely no interest at all in the private affairs of other
people, nor would I attempt to violate another's space. There are
so many things that are so much greater to be interested in. The
lives of the rich and famous, rate down at the very bottom of my
list of interests.
> Yet another person who has no idea what they are talking about.
>
> You are describing "Remote Viewing" and maybe you should look up what Monroe
> says about it...
Robert A. Monroe's book, "Journeys Out Of The Body," is a classic
in the field of astral projection. Soul Travel and Astral Projection
are two very different things, in my own experience. There were a
number of thought provoking and compelling studies done on Remote
Viewing, by the government, some years ago. Some of those studies
are mentioned in a book I just finished reading:
"The Heart Of The Mind; How To Experience God Without Belief,"
by Dr. Jane Katra and Russell Targ. Available through amazon.com,
if you are interested.
Love,
Frank
Galuuk
Galuuk
arel...@home.com
I don't know...you can possible appear any more foolish than you already
have here.
As I said before, in Harold's
> full story he said he didn't know why the guy cut his talk short. The fact
> that it occurred after the inadvertant commotion may be relevant and then
> again it may not. The only real way to establish due cause would be to
> interview the speaker in question. Everything else is just suppostion and
> hot air.
Or you can read what Harold wrote and see how he linked his friends
commotion in the same sentence where he indicates the guy cut the talk
short. It's strongly implied. Only a apologist would suggest otherwise,
in my humble opinion.
>
> It proves nothing either way about Harold's actions or intentions at the
> time or suggests anything about "elitism" regarding Harold. you of course
> seem to see this as some kind of evidence of elitism, personally I just
> can't see how you could arrive at such a conclusion given the known
> information.
Sure it does. Harold is proudly telling eckist not to get into a bad
situation (go to another path's talks). What an elitist. It's also the
pot calling the kettle black, eh?
I love your notion of responsibility. Kind of situational, you know.
> He couldn't offer the guy an alternative place to lie down, or request
> that he leave the room?
No the guy was too busy psychically attacking Harold. <lol>
>
> If asked to leave and then refusing to, i could see this as interfering, but
> that didn't happen did it? the guy just cut his talk short. Boy you can get
> caught up over really trivial issues Lurk.
These creative rationalizations are classic.
That's true...my mistake.
> just that it wan't clear that the
> cutting short was a direct result of the commotion or that that in itself
But it was clear Harold linked the two. It is ludicrous for you to deny it.
Lurk
Frank H. Weeden
>
> Huuuuuuuuuu
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Anne
ARMCHAIRS!!!! That blackhearted fiend, what's next violins....
Happy Seminar Weekend Lurk,
Love to ALL,
Anne
p.s. You know if you run this thread by really fast is has
moving patterns in it...now with colors it would be really
groovy <VBG>...ok someone get the butterfly net, looney bin here
I come and happy to see ya!! Oh look, I'm already here and the
mind control meds are really kicking in, lol...."I'd like to
teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, I'd like to buy the
world a coke and something, something, something..."
Anne
HUUUUUUUUUUU, HUUUUUUUUUUUUU, Huuuuuuuuuuu, huuuuuuuuuuuu
Frank H. Weeden
With Gratitude,
Frank
SantimVah wrote:
>
> <snipped all the baloney>
>
> > SV:
> > If asked to leave and then refusing to, i could see this as interfering,
> but
> > that didn't happen did it? the guy just cut his talk short. Boy you can
> get
> > caught up over really trivial issues Lurk.
>
> Lurk:
> These creative rationalizations are classic.
>
> Yes Lurk they are classic, and really I think they fall onto both sides of
> the fence.
> Underlying all the lengthy posts back & forth, this is what most of it comes
> down to. We are both discussing something here we both have no real
> knowledge of, or accurate understanding of, or any way of being to arrive at
> some kind of definitive truth or agreeement. Whatever happened happened, and
> it doesn't matter what you or I think happened. We weren't there.
>
> I have never heard this story before, and can only assume that harold
> included it one of his talks once upon a time and used it as he most
> commonly does as a "parable" to underscore the particular theme of his talk.
> The real intention of this story being told in the way he did is probably
> shrouded now unless you can place in one of his full recorded talks. I
> really don't know and am not suggesting one thing or the other as a fact.
> There story certainly leaves many things unsaid, and though this raises
> questions for you, I don't see it as anything of real importance to me. I
> just discuss it here with you, because you bring it up as another example of
> your sincere criticisms of my religious path. If the responses you receive
> are so poor or lacking in substance why bother with me at all? Not for any
> altruistic desire to save me from myself, for what do you care about me
> anyway?
>
> The same goes for the 25year and ongoing saga of lane's work. Yes there are
> real facts in his book and current postings, but i feel from what I know and
> read is that most of his words amount to "creative rationalizations" as you
> put it. He comes to the subject with his own agenda and rationalizations,
> and no doubt do I, and other Eckists here at a.r.e.. What is the reason for
> this? What does Eckankar preach or do that so threatens the world? Is it a
> dangerous cult? Are people forcibly separated from their families, forced to
> renounce their carrers or possesssions and give themselves totally to the
> wishes of the Org.? Anyone been tortured, maimed, cheated of their rightful
> inheritance, crowded into a buliding and burnt to death? No, no , no, no and
> again no! What is the reason and validity to this endless barage of
> criticism here on a.r.e. against those of us willing to simply stand up and
> say we are Eckists and believe that others may benefit as we have done from
> the teachings? really, seriously what are you trying to achieve?
>
> I do not ask for your opinions? I do not say that every other path on the
> planet is crap? Why do you and others infer that my path is so? Sure I
> accept that some people, maybe even thousands have come to eckankar, joined
> up in good faith and found it wanting. Some may have felt that they were
> treated unfairly, and even emotionally abused in some way. But hey, some
> people get emotionally abused just standing in the checkout line at the
> local supermarket. Do we scream out shut down the supermarket chain for not
> defending these delicate souls? No, we don't. You may criticise and curse
> the person that did the actual abusing, if that is what it is, but if that
> is the case, Twitchell is no longer here, and if some HI or other Eckist
> treated someone badly then find who they are and take it with them
> personally because it is none of my business and is none of my
> responsibilty. I can feel compassion for people who feel pain but how can i
> do that at what continually feels like at the point of a gun? So why persist
> in criticising me because I follow Sri harold and the ECKANKAR as I see it
> TODAY. I do not have a problem with the teachings so please stop telling me
> I should.
>
> I see a lot of similarity in discussions on subjects of your making and
> Eckists at a.r.e. and what I say above. Sometimes you make a valid point and
> it is discounted out of hand, sometimes we make a valid point and that is
> discounted out of hand, both usually with creative rationalizations, but
> sometimes with humour and sometimes not, and sometimes with a slip of a
> personal slight. Sometimes a valid point is made and it is acknowledged by
> the other side and then it is discarded out of hand with another creative
> rationalization by the one that made the valid point.
>
> And where do we end up? Usually the same place we started, you know the
> entry gate to that merry go round of "cognitive dissonance". I have a
> simpler term for you to consider, "bullshit", but even that isn't really
> approriate because at least bullshit is useful, imo.
>
> Have a nice day, full of love and the enjoyment of family and friends on
> this easter holiday period. And whilst you do, keep in mind that some people
> simply aren't that blessed.
>
> HU
>
> SantimVah
Frank H. Weeden
to make your aquaintance in person.
In God's Love and Brotherhood,
Frank
SantimVah wrote:
>
> You are welcome frank.
>
> The detractors can ***************** themselves.
>
> I've had enough, goodbye,
>
> Santimvah
> Frank H. Weeden <gun...@united.net> wrote in message
> news:39022EF6...@united.net...
> > Well said, SantimVah. Thank you.
> >
> > With Gratitude,
> > Frank
> >
> > SantimVah wrote:
> > >
> > > <snipped all the baloney>
> > >
> > > > SV:
> > > > If asked to leave and then refusing to, i could see this as
> interfering,
> > > but
> > > > that didn't happen did it? the guy just cut his talk short. Boy you
> can
> > > get
> > > > caught up over really trivial issues Lurk.
> > >
> > > Lurk:
> > > These creative rationalizations are classic.
> > >
SantimVah
> SV:
> If asked to leave and then refusing to, i could see this as interfering,
but
> that didn't happen did it? the guy just cut his talk short. Boy you can
get
> caught up over really trivial issues Lurk.
Lurk:
These creative rationalizations are classic.
Yes Lurk they are classic, and really I think they fall onto both sides of
SantimVah
The detractors can ***************** themselves.
I've had enough, goodbye,
Santimvah
Frank H. Weeden <gun...@united.net> wrote in message
news:39022EF6...@united.net...
> Well said, SantimVah. Thank you.
>
> With Gratitude,
> Frank
>
> SantimVah wrote:
> >
arel...@home.com
SantimVah wrote:
>
> <snipped all the baloney>
>
> > SV:
> > If asked to leave and then refusing to, i could see this as interfering,
> but
> > that didn't happen did it? the guy just cut his talk short. Boy you can
> get
> > caught up over really trivial issues Lurk.
>
> Lurk:
> These creative rationalizations are classic.
>
> Yes Lurk they are classic, and really I think they fall onto both sides of
> the fence.
> Underlying all the lengthy posts back & forth, this is what most of it comes
> down to. We are both discussing something here we both have no real
> knowledge of, or accurate understanding of, or any way of being to arrive at
> some kind of definitive truth or agreeement. Whatever happened happened, and
> it doesn't matter what you or I think happened. We weren't there.
I beg to differ with you. I can read. Harold just was a hair shy of
making fun of this path. It's pretty obvious.
>
> I have never heard this story before, and can only assume that harold
> included it one of his talks once upon a time and used it as he most
> commonly does as a "parable" to underscore the particular theme of his talk.
The theme of beware of charlatans? You know when Harold was pointing his
one finger at this charlatan, there were three others pointing right
back at him (to take a corny page out of the book of responses we get
from eckists here). <g>
> The real intention of this story being told in the way he did is probably
> shrouded now unless you can place in one of his full recorded talks. I
> really don't know and am not suggesting one thing or the other as a fact.
> There story certainly leaves many things unsaid, and though this raises
> questions for you, I don't see it as anything of real importance to me. I
> just discuss it here with you, because you bring it up as another example of
> your sincere criticisms of my religious path. If the responses you receive
> are so poor or lacking in substance why bother with me at all? Not for any
> altruistic desire to save me from myself, for what do you care about me
> anyway?
I care about standing in my truth. I like to share, just as eckists like
to share. There's enough room in this world for lots of truths.
>
> The same goes for the 25year and ongoing saga of lane's work. Yes there are
> real facts in his book and current postings, but i feel from what I know and
> read is that most of his words amount to "creative rationalizations" as you
> put it. He comes to the subject with his own agenda and rationalizations,
> and no doubt do I, and other Eckists here at a.r.e.. What is the reason for
> this? What does Eckankar preach or do that so threatens the world?
Is this the minimum standard under which you will give your blessing to
make critical comments about a religion or path....that it threatens the
world. <role the eyes>
Is it a
> dangerous cult? Are people forcibly separated from their families, forced to
> renounce their carrers or possesssions and give themselves totally to the
> wishes of the Org.? Anyone been tortured, maimed, cheated of their rightful
> inheritance, crowded into a buliding and burnt to death? No, no , no, no and
> again no! What is the reason and validity to this endless barage of
> criticism here on a.r.e. against those of us willing to simply stand up and
> say we are Eckists and believe that others may benefit as we have done from
> the teachings?
My criticism is usually directed at eck master quotes and such and the
responses eckists make here. I don't criticize people for standing up
and say they are eckists as you suggest. I try to get specific so it'll
be constructive.
> really, seriously what are you trying to achieve?
An alternate point of view that won't be intimidated by the aggressive
tactics some eckists employ here.
>
> I do not ask for your opinions?
Yet you come to a forum where opinions are expressed freely without
asking other people's permission.
> I do not say that every other path on the
> planet is crap?
Bravo. The elitist attitude will change one inititate at a time. <g>
> Why do you and others infer that my path is so?
Why do you construe rendering opinions as interfering with you path?
Sure I
> accept that some people, maybe even thousands have come to eckankar, joined
> up in good faith and found it wanting. Some may have felt that they were
> treated unfairly, and even emotionally abused in some way. But hey, some
> people get emotionally abused just standing in the checkout line at the
> local supermarket.
I think you minimize the seriousness of people putting their trust in a
eck master who builds himself up as an authority and takes advantage of
their trust via deception.
> Do we scream out shut down the supermarket chain for not
> defending these delicate souls? No, we don't.
A bogus analogy.
You may criticize and curse
> the person that did the actual abusing, if that is what it is, but if that
> is the case, Twitchell is no longer here, and if some HI or other Eckist
> treated someone badly then find who they are and take it with them
> personally because it is none of my business and is none of my
> responsibilty.
I don't think your masters have acted responsibly. I think it is good to
make people aware of this viewpoint. The more educated a seeker is about
eckankar pro and con, the more informed his/her choice will be whether
to get involved. As a member, I would think you would want a fully
informed seeker. Maybe not.
> I can feel compassion for people who feel pain but how can i
> do that at what continually feels like at the point of a gun?
Don't know who your are referring to here.
> So why persist
> in criticising me because I follow Sri harold and the ECKANKAR as I see it
> TODAY. I do not have a problem with the teachings so please stop telling me
> I should.
I don't care if you follow Harold.
>
> I see a lot of similarity in discussions on subjects of your making and
> Eckists at a.r.e. and what I say above. Sometimes you make a valid point and
> it is discounted out of hand, sometimes we make a valid point and that is
> discounted out of hand, both usually with creative rationalizations, but
> sometimes with humour and sometimes not, and sometimes with a slip of a
> personal slight. Sometimes a valid point is made and it is acknowledged by
> the other side and then it is discarded out of hand with another creative
> rationalization by the one that made the valid point.
>
> And where do we end up? Usually the same place we started, you know the
> entry gate to that merry go round of "cognitive dissonance". I have a
> simpler term for you to consider, "bullshit", but even that isn't really
> approriate because at least bullshit is useful, imo.
When you have time, perhaps you could give me an example of this lower
than bullshit writing you speak about here. Or, you can stay up on your
high horse if you so choose.
Lurk
arel...@home.com
SantimVah wrote:
>
> You are welcome frank.
>
> The detractors can ***************** themselves.
>
> I've had enough, goodbye,
Ahh, don't give up on yourself on your first serious encounter with
yourself. <gg>
Lurk
davidbarnes
<alwalton...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote:
> HUUUUUUUUUUUUU, Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
> HUUUUUUUUUUU, HUUUUUUUUUUUUU, Huuuuuuuuuuu, huuuuuuuuuuuu
HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Mahantaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
LOve,
Barnes
Soul = Soul
SantimVah
Is that clear enough for you or do you need an interpreter for this too?
<arel...@home.com> wrote in message news:39025BBD...@home.com...
Anne
<No-spaMS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>F*** Off
>
>Is that clear enough for you or do you need an interpreter for
this too?
><arel...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39025BBD...@home.com...
Ahhh, the sweet smell of detachment, way to go SV. Too long
have you let this detractor drain your light and love like the
psychic vampire he is. Give those hard earned gifts to those who
want it. It is said in some 12 step programs that f*** it, is a
short version of the serenity prayer by St. Francis of Assisi.
"Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know
the difference."
It seems to all apply well here. Well done.
Love,
Anne
Boogis42
>> waking moment of your life, no matter what you're doing, it's
>> like a virus running in the background, barely perceptible, all
>> the time. The cult wants to totally possess you, even when
>> you're asleep.
Sharon,
I read this paragraph and all I could think was, "She's talking about the hold
spirit here."
I mean, The Hold Spirit totally takes over every waking moment of your life, no
matter what you're doing, barely perceptible, but all the time.
Are you calling the Holy Spirit a cult too?
Judy
"May The Blessings Be"
Anne
<crescen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Anne wrote:
>
>>
>> Ahhh, the sweet smell of detachment, way to go SV. Too long
>> have you let this detractor drain your light and love like the
>> psychic vampire he is. Give those hard earned gifts to those
who
>> want it. It is said in some 12 step programs that f*** it, is
a
>> short version of the serenity prayer by St. Francis of Assisi.
>>
>> "Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
change,
>> the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know
>> the difference."
>>
>> It seems to all apply well here. Well done.
>>
>> Love,
>> Anne
>
To
>speak of "psychic vampires" is a touch on the "far side". Why
the
>supportive anger? Sounds like you love a good brawl yourself.
>
>Jim
>
No Jim, I'm not angry, not at bit. I am supporting SV in
detaching from Lurk's continual draining of the Eckist's time and
emotional energy (the psychic energy, they are the same thing) to
no useful purpose. He is not even and fair, he is provoking and
disrespectful of the Eckist's space here on ARE.
If you want to make a brawl out of that, it makes no difference
to me. SV works this list out of his love and commitment to the
ECK. He comes here to give, to love, to serve, and to
learn, just like the rest of us. I see in his writing that
Lurk's purposes are distraction, energy drain, destruction, and
let's not forget attention. He adds nothing to the mission of
our list and does nothing to build connection and understanding.
If you feel his hurting others here is worthwhile it makes no
difference to me.
I said my piece in support of SV's letting go of this drain with
Lurk and I stand behind it. I see no reason for SV to give his
time and attention to someone who wants those things only to use
against the giver.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my support, I
appreciate it.
Huuuuuuuuu,
Ken
<arel...@home.com> wrote ...
:
Santim Vah wrote:
: Sure I
: > accept that some people, maybe even thousands have come to eckankar, joined
: > up in good faith and found it wanting. Some may have felt that they were
: > treated unfairly, and even emotionally abused in some way. But hey, some
: > people get emotionally abused just standing in the checkout line at the
: > local supermarket.
:
: I think you minimize the seriousness of people putting their trust in a
: eck master
"Minimize"? Come on Lurk, get a grip. The world is full of victims
searching for something to be the effect of. Just because you don't like
Eckankar is no reason to cater to those kinds of aberrations in people.
It's harmful to them for you to do so.
: who builds himself up as an authority and takes advantage of
: their trust via deception.
"Prove it to yourself". If an Eck Chela fails to perform this one simple
little task, then all the rest of their path is built on a foundation of sand.
This message is repeatedly emphasized in the written works. How
can any Chela fail to come to grips with this most basic point?
With a "prove it to yourself" approach, there is no unwarranted "build
up of authority" to be disillusioned with later.
With a "prove it to yourself" approach, it's impossible to be a victim of
one's trust being taken advantage of.
With a "prove it to yourself" approach, the deception the student must
watch for most closely is the self-imposed kind.
I don't look outside myself for a savior. The creator has provided each
of us all of the tools we need to survive. It's always up to us, individually.
: > Do we scream out shut down the supermarket chain for not
: > defending these delicate souls? No, we don't.
:
: A bogus analogy.
Not at all. It was a great point and by sloughing it off, your doing a
genuine disservice to the efforts at dialogue Santim was making here.
Of course, if you were serious, you would have treated the whole
process with a little more effort, wouldn't you?
Ken
Anne
<TNGM4.31022$WF.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Ken" <ken.st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Not at all. It was a great point and by sloughing it off, your
doing a
>genuine disservice to the efforts at dialogue Santim was making
here.
>Of course, if you were serious, you would have treated the whole
>process with a little more effort, wouldn't you?
Thank you for this Ken. And thank you, SV, I am really very
sorry I didn't see it/understand it sooner.
Love,
Frank H. Weeden
> "Prove it to yourself". If an Eck Chela fails to perform this one simple
> little task, then all the rest of their path is built on a foundation of sand.
> This message is repeatedly emphasized in the written works. How
> can any Chela fail to come to grips with this most basic point?
>
> With a "prove it to yourself" approach, there is no unwarranted "build
> up of authority" to be disillusioned with later.
>
> With a "prove it to yourself" approach, it's impossible to be a victim of
> one's trust being taken advantage of.
>
> With a "prove it to yourself" approach, the deception the student must
> watch for most closely is the self-imposed kind.
>
> I don't look outside myself for a savior. The creator has provided each
> of us all of the tools we need to survive. It's always up to us, individually.
Beautifully, and precisely stated, Ken. Thank you.
Love,
Frank
Frank H. Weeden
responsibility. There is no escaping this fact, no
matter where anyone runs, no matter how addicted they
are to the victim-consciousness -- personal, individual
responsibility and accountability are the earmarks of
spiritual maturity, and also the beginning of true
growth and wisdom.
Love,
Frank
Mahavahana
Anne, I thought Eckankar was a path of personal responsibility.....
Start by looking at the title of this thread: Who is it addressed to?
>He is not even and fair,
Why don't you specifically point out how Lurk isn't "even and fair."
Or is he simply saying things you don't like to hear? There's a
difference you know.
he is provoking and
> disrespectful of the Eckist's space here on ARE.
What nonsense Anne. C'mon.
Let's go back to basics, on what this newsgroup is about.
First of all, alt.religion.eckankar doesn't belong to eck org.
Realize and accept that fact.
Second of all, alt.religion.eckankar is an OPEN usenet newsgroup. Open
to *anyone* with an interest in Eckankar (and "interest* doesn't
necessarily mean a certain correct "pro" interest.
Realize and accept that fact.
Thirdly, if you wish to have a moderated newsgroup, and you wish to
control what opinions are expressed here, then please go and start a
moderated usenet newsgroup for eckankar.
But please, try to get this idea out of your head that a.r.e. somehow
belongs to a certain group of people with certain correct opinions
about this "eckankar" thing.
Try to accept "what is." "What is" is that Eckankar does have
ex-members who are critics of certain aspects of this religion, because
Eckankar does have (shudder!) certain faults.
Accepting "what is" is an easier way to go,sometimes ,thanthe
philosophy of F-it or ridiculous demonizing of the critics of eck org
with terms like "psychic vampire".
And one other thing about this newsgroup: like other newsgroups, its
often a forum of *debate*.
I looked up "debate" in the dictionary, but I couldn't find any
definitions that suggested mutual contratulation society of true
believers. But, maybe I have the wrong dictionary.
One thing more:
Eckankar will never have understanding and acceptance. Not until
Eckankar gets honest.
Accept that.
>
> If you want to make a brawl out of that, it makes no difference
> to me. SV works this list out of his love and commitment to the
> ECK. He comes here to give, to love, to serve, and to
> learn, just like the rest of us. I see in his writing that
> Lurk's purposes are distraction, energy drain, destruction, and
> let's not forget attention. He adds nothing to the mission of
> our list and does nothing to build connection and understanding.
> If you feel his hurting others here is worthwhile it makes no
> difference to me.
>
> I said my piece in support of SV's letting go of this drain with
> Lurk and I stand behind it. I see no reason for SV to give his
> time and attention to someone who wants those things only to use
> against the giver.
>
> Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my support, I
> appreciate it.
>
> Huuuuuuuuu,
> Anne
Whoa...
Yeesh....
You guys try so hard to make "peace," and its all as false as a greasy
9 dollar bill....
Are there any true free-thinking individuals here, besides Kent and
Mysti? Among the members I mean?
David Lane's research on Eckankar:
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
Anne
"Mahavahana" <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote:
>
>Start by looking at the title of this thread: Who is it
addressed to?
It's not addressed to you either, but I'll overlook that, k <g>?
>
> >He is not even and fair,
>
>
>Why don't you specifically point out how Lurk isn't "even and
fair."
>Or is he simply saying things you don't like to hear? There's
a
>difference you know.
I take it you don't like what I said either.
>
>>
> he is provoking and
>> disrespectful of the Eckist's space here on ARE.
>
>
>What nonsense Anne. C'mon.
>
>Let's go back to basics, on what this newsgroup is about.
>
>First of all, alt.religion.eckankar doesn't belong to eck org.
>
>Realize and accept that fact.
Never thought it did or we wouldn't be chatting now, would we?
>
>Second of all, alt.religion.eckankar is an OPEN usenet
newsgroup. Open
>to *anyone* with an interest in Eckankar (and "interest* doesn't
>necessarily mean a certain correct "pro" interest.
>
>Realize and accept that fact.
>
>Thirdly, if you wish to have a moderated newsgroup, and you wish
to
>control what opinions are expressed here, then please go and
start a
>moderated usenet newsgroup for eckankar.
>
>But please, try to get this idea out of your head that a.r.e.
somehow
>belongs to a certain group of people with certain correct
opinions
>about this "eckankar" thing.
I don't and I didn't say anything of the kind.
>
>Try to accept "what is." "What is" is that Eckankar does have
>ex-members who are critics of certain aspects of this religion,
because
>Eckankar does have (shudder!) certain faults.
I agree and I respect our differences as well.
>
>Accepting "what is" is an easier way to go,sometimes ,thanthe
>philosophy of F-it or ridiculous demonizing of the critics of
eck org
>with terms like "psychic vampire".
I continue to support SV and stand by my opinion of Lurk's
behavior with regard to that post.
>
>And one other thing about this newsgroup: like other
newsgroups, its
>often a forum of *debate*.
>
>I looked up "debate" in the dictionary, but I couldn't find any
>definitions that suggested mutual contratulation society of true
>believers. But, maybe I have the wrong dictionary.
We already covered this...
>
>One thing more:
>
>
>Eckankar will never have understanding and acceptance. Not
until
>Eckankar gets honest.
Eckankar has plenty of acceptance and understanding. Do you have
trouble with accepting that? But if you could find acceptance
we wouldn't be having this conversation, I guess. And that
would be both our losses. May you find some acceptance for
whatever it is you need.
And sincere thanks for the civility and respect. I need it, and,
the example.
Huuuuuuuuu,
Anne
<alwalton...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <ikIM4.5862$0n5....@c01read04.service.talkway.com>,
>"Mahavahana" <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote:
>>
>>Start by looking at the title of this thread: Who is it
>addressed to?
>
>It's not addressed to you either, but I'll overlook that, k <g>?
>>
Oops, you are one of those detractor fellows aren't you. My
mistake. But since you made such a point that this is an open
forum and I very much agree, I'll overlook that. Thanks.
Galuuk
up at the eagle while it builds its nest.
<<< My criticism is usually directed at eck master quotes and such and the
responses eckists make here. I don't criticize people for standing up
and say they are eckists as you suggest. I try to get specific so it'll
be constructive. >>>
Joey
arel...@home.com
>
> F*** Off
>
> Is that clear enough for you or do you need an interpreter for this too?
There's something missing here. What is it? Hmmmmm.
I know. You forgot to put:
Love,
SantimVah
Lurk
arel...@home.com
Anne wrote:
>
> In article <95649320...@brs.ihug.com.au>, "SantimVah"
> <No-spaMS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >F*** Off
> >
> >Is that clear enough for you or do you need an interpreter for
> this too?
> ><arel...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:39025BBD...@home.com...
>
> Ahhh, the sweet smell of detachment, way to go SV. Too long
> have you let this detractor drain your light and love like the
> psychic vampire he is.
Yet another colorful expression of a victim consciousness on the path of
eckankar...the path of total responsibility.
Lurk
Give those hard earned gifts to those who
> want it. It is said in some 12 step programs that f*** it, is a
> short version of the serenity prayer by St. Francis of Assisi.
>
> "Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
> the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know
> the difference."
>
> It seems to all apply well here. Well done.
>
> Love,
arel...@home.com
Anne wrote:
>
> In article <3903216A...@hotmail.com>, Jim Agricola
> <crescen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Anne wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Ahhh, the sweet smell of detachment, way to go SV. Too long
> >> have you let this detractor drain your light and love like the
> >> psychic vampire he is. Give those hard earned gifts to those
> who
> >> want it. It is said in some 12 step programs that f*** it, is
> a
> >> short version of the serenity prayer by St. Francis of Assisi.
> >>
> >> "Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
> change,
> >> the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know
> >> the difference."
> >>
> >> It seems to all apply well here. Well done.
> >>
> >> Love,
> >> Anne
> >
> >To liken a curse to Francis of Assisi is hardly well done, Anne.
> To
> >speak of "psychic vampires" is a touch on the "far side". Why
> the
> >supportive anger? Sounds like you love a good brawl yourself.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> No Jim, I'm not angry, not at bit. I am supporting SV in
> detaching from Lurk's continual draining of the Eckist's time and
> emotional energy (the psychic energy, they are the same thing) to
> no useful purpose. He is not even and fair, he is provoking and
> disrespectful of the Eckist's space here on ARE.
>
> If you want to make a brawl out of that, it makes no difference
> to me. SV works this list out of his love and commitment to the
> ECK. He comes here to give, to love, to serve, and to
> learn, just like the rest of us. I see in his writing that
> Lurk's purposes are distraction, energy drain, destruction, and
> let's not forget attention. He adds nothing to the mission of
> our list
What's your mission?
And the fact that you feel this is eckists' list, could be the source of
a lot of problems encountered here. Think about it, dear.
Lurk
and does nothing to build connection and understanding.
> If you feel his hurting others here is worthwhile it makes no
> difference to me.
>
> I said my piece in support of SV's letting go of this drain with
> Lurk and I stand behind it. I see no reason for SV to give his
> time and attention to someone who wants those things only to use
> against the giver.
>
> Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my support, I
> appreciate it.
>
> Huuuuuuuuu,
Frank H. Weeden
> Yet another colorful expression of a victim consciousness on the path of
> eckankar...the path of total responsibility.
>
> Lurk
Lurk, even after you know you have hurt someone, you just
keep right on rubbing it in, don't you? You're a real piece
of work, man... There are times that Eckists are not loving,
and there are times when Eckists get angry. This is not due
to some shortcoming of our path. This is because we are human
beings. So I guess this is, in reality, "another colorful
expression" of the shark consciousness? When the person you
have attacked is bleeding, you go in for the kill? Standing
ovation... Really, you should be so proud of yourself, Dear.
Frank
arel...@home.com
Ken wrote:
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote ...
> :
> Santim Vah wrote:
> : Sure I
> : > accept that some people, maybe even thousands have come to eckankar, joined
> : > up in good faith and found it wanting. Some may have felt that they were
> : > treated unfairly, and even emotionally abused in some way. But hey, some
> : > people get emotionally abused just standing in the checkout line at the
> : > local supermarket.
> :
> : I think you minimize the seriousness of people putting their trust in a
> : eck master
>
> "Minimize"? Come on Lurk, get a grip. The world is full of victims
> searching for something to be the effect of.
And the world is full of self anointed authorities preying on these victims.
And eckankar fits the bill and provides the perfect forum for such
transactions.
Like the art of conning people, it is better to become aware of both the
con man's methods and the Mark's weakness (greed, lust, etc.).
Course, I think where you're having trouble is accepting the con man part.
Just because you don't like
> Eckankar is no reason to cater to those kinds of aberrations in people.
> It's harmful to them for you to do so.
It's not so much a matter of like as a matter of what I see.
>
> : who builds himself up as an authority and takes advantage of
> : their trust via deception.
>
> "Prove it to yourself". If an Eck Chela fails to perform this one simple
> little task, then all the rest of their path is built on a foundation of sand.
Ken, how does one prove whether your eck master has the highest
consciousness or not. Please explain in detail. I'm on the edge of my
seat. <g>
> This message is repeatedly emphasized in the written works. How
> can any Chela fail to come to grips with this most basic point?
Perhaps there are double messages being sent to the Chelas, eh?
>
> With a "prove it to yourself" approach, there is no unwarranted "build
> up of authority" to be disillusioned with later.
>
> With a "prove it to yourself" approach, it's impossible to be a victim of
> one's trust being taken advantage of.
If there is really a "prove to yourself" approached employed by eckists
there probably wouldn't be any eckists. <g> This goes back to the question
above about the consciousness level of the Living Eck Master.
>
> With a "prove it to yourself" approach, the deception the student must
> watch for most closely is the self-imposed kind.
The "prove it to yourself" approach as taught in eckankar IS the
deception which uses a person's own self deceptions, in my opinion.
Harold says, "close your eyes and see me on the inner." Eckists close
their eyes and see him on the inner. Eckists read in books how special
it is to see the master on the inner and how they have been working
lifetimes to be in this situation. Eckists feel special for closing
their eyes and seeing Harold on the inner. They have experienced the
ominous power of the Living Eck Master. They have proved it to
themselves. And so on.
Like any good con, the Mark does most of the conning...the con man
simply guides the process. Gives new meaning to inner guide. <gg>
>
> I don't look outside myself for a savior. The creator has provided each
> of us all of the tools we need to survive. It's always up to us, individually.
Good for you.
>
> : > Do we scream out shut down the supermarket chain for not
> : > defending these delicate souls? No, we don't.
> :
> : A bogus analogy.
>
> Not at all. It was a great point and by sloughing it off, your doing a
> genuine disservice to the efforts at dialogue Santim was making here.
> Of course, if you were serious, you would have treated the whole
> process with a little more effort, wouldn't you?
I don't think the abuse he claims people experience in a supermarket
line is comparable to the abuse Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp depart
to their students with their deceptive practices. All he was doing was
minimizing concerns ex eckist have. At any rate, I did respond seriously.
Lurk
Anne
<arel...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>Anne wrote:
>>
>> In article <95649320...@brs.ihug.com.au>, "SantimVah"
>> <No-spaMS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Is that clear enough for you or do you need an interpreter
for
>> this too?
>> ><arel...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:39025BBD...@home.com...
>>
>> have you let this detractor drain your light and love like the
>> psychic vampire he is.
>
path of
>eckankar...the path of total responsibility.
>
>Lurk
Well, I can see how you can interpret it that way, it's overly
emotional on my part. So, I quote you on another thread:
"Perhaps my style is harsh to you. I'll look at that. Your style
of not answer questions or alluding to the
mystical is frustrating to me and I have asked you in the past to
look at that.
But still, there is much more information revealed because we
respond to each other, which is a good
thing.
Lurk"
Maybe we could all gain something from this approach...responding
rather than reacting. No one is innocent and this approach is
not easy to learn. Thank you. End of suggestion time...
Love,
arel...@home.com
"Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
>
> "arel...@home.com" wrote:
>
> > Yet another colorful expression of a victim consciousness on the path of
> > eckankar...the path of total responsibility.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> Lurk, even after you know you have hurt someone, you just
> keep right on rubbing it in, don't you? You're a real piece
> of work, man... There are times that Eckists are not loving,
> and there are times when Eckists get angry. This is not due
> to some shortcoming of our path.
It is when she starts repeating terms learned from the path like Psychic
Vampirism to characterize my disagreeing exchange with SantimVah.
This is because we are human
> beings. So I guess this is, in reality, "another colorful
> expression" of the shark consciousness? When the person you
> have attacked is bleeding, you go in for the kill? Standing
> ovation... Really, you should be so proud of yourself, Dear.
Anne was bleeding and hurting from what? I responded to SantimVah. She
responded to me calling me a Psychic Vampire.
Get a grip. Anne strikes me as one who can take care of herself.
She got game. <g>
Lurk
Anne
<gun...@united.net> wrote:
>"arel...@home.com" wrote:
>
>> Yet another colorful expression of a victim consciousness on
the path of
>> eckankar...the path of total responsibility.
>>
>> Lurk
>
>Lurk, even after you know you have hurt someone, you just
>keep right on rubbing it in, don't you? You're a real piece
>of work, man... There are times that Eckists are not loving,
>and there are times when Eckists get angry. This is not due
>beings. So I guess this is, in reality, "another colorful
>expression" of the shark consciousness? When the person you
>have attacked is bleeding, you go in for the kill? Standing
>ovation... Really, you should be so proud of yourself, Dear.
>
>
Again to quote you Lurk:
"Perhaps my style is harsh to you. I'll look at that. Your style
of not answer questions or alluding to the
mystical is frustrating to me and I have asked you in the past to
look at that.
But still, there is much more information revealed because we
respond to each other, which is a good
thing.
Lurk"
It won't work unless we all "go first."
Windy
Frank H. Weeden
on SantimVah.
"arel...@home.com" wrote:
>
> "Frank H. Weeden" wrote:
> >
> > "arel...@home.com" wrote:
> >
> > > Yet another colorful expression of a victim consciousness on the path of
> > > eckankar...the path of total responsibility.
> > >
> > > Lurk
> >
> > Lurk, even after you know you have hurt someone, you just
> > keep right on rubbing it in, don't you? You're a real piece
> > of work, man... There are times that Eckists are not loving,
> > and there are times when Eckists get angry. This is not due
> > to some shortcoming of our path.
>
> It is when she starts repeating terms learned from the path like Psychic
> Vampirism to characterize my disagreeing exchange with SantimVah.
>
> This is because we are human
> > beings. So I guess this is, in reality, "another colorful
> > expression" of the shark consciousness? When the person you
> > have attacked is bleeding, you go in for the kill? Standing
> > ovation... Really, you should be so proud of yourself, Dear.
>
Frank H. Weeden
Galuuk
>And the fact that you feel this is eckists' list, could be the source of
>a lot of problems encountered here. Think about it, dear.
Hmmm....this is A.R.E., isn't it???...Lurk???
Hmmm....and A.R.E. is an abbreviation for Alternate.Religion.Eckankar, isn't
it???....Lurk???
Hmmm....I wonder who it is here that has the "problem"?????
Windy
others against the wall. Isn't that called bullying. And then when the
arrow hits the mark they go skipping off to another area to see who they
can hurt. But hey, we do not bleed. We're just pixels to them.
And isn't it strange that what they are attacking here is our soul's
beliefs. But, what does it matter. As Alfie once said, he comes here to
pester people. It is fun for them. They aren't trolls they are bullies
who are the utmost cowards who can't even speak face to face with their
opponents. If you want my opinion, I think it would be better if the
Eckists just talked amongst themselves and the detractors could sit on
their thumbs.
Frank H. Weeden
>
> Isn't it ridiculous how some people think it is so cool to keep pushing
> others against the wall. Isn't that called bullying. And then when the
> arrow hits the mark they go skipping off to another area to see who they
> can hurt. But hey, we do not bleed. We're just pixels to them.
Sad, but true...
> And isn't it strange that what they are attacking here is our soul's
> beliefs. But, what does it matter. As Alfie once said, he comes here to
> pester people. It is fun for them. They aren't trolls they are bullies
> who are the utmost cowards who can't even speak face to face with their
> opponents. If you want my opinion, I think it would be better if the
> Eckists just talked amongst themselves and the detractors could sit on
> their thumbs.
It would be nice if such a thing could take place. The one thing about
Eckists, though: They are optimists and usually give others the benefit
of the doubt, which is why people who clothe themselves in false
sincerity
are able to lure Eckists into a discussion, every single time. And all
too
often, the Eckist comes out with a knife jutting from his/her ribs,
and it's sad to see. But, this is a.r.e., after all. If we cleaned this
cesspool up and made it a somewhat friendly place, how long would it be
before someone twirled their head around and started barfing green slop
all over the freshly painted walls and ceiling? *sigh*
Love,
Frank
Anne
"Mahavahana" <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 13:13:10 -0700 Anne
><alwalton...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote:
>> In article
<ikIM4.5862$0n5....@c01read04.service.talkway.com>,
>> "Mahavahana" <Mahav...@calistoga.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Start by looking at the title of this thread: Who is it
>> addressed to?
>>
>> It's not addressed to you either, but I'll overlook that, k
<g>?
>
posts to
>usenet is an open invite to opinions from far and near.
>
>
>
>> >
>> > >He is not even and fair,
>> >
>> >
>> fair."
>> >Or is he simply saying things you don't like to hear?
>> a
>> >difference you know.
>>
>> I take it you don't like what I said either.
>
many
>others that have passed through the "list," when challenged to
give
>specifics (in this case, what Lurk said that wasn't "even and
fair")
>you don't have anything to offer. OK, so noted.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> > he is provoking and
>> >> disrespectful of the Eckist's space here on ARE.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Let's go back to basics, on what this newsgroup is about.
>> >
>> >First of all, alt.religion.eckankar doesn't belong to eck
org.
>> >
>> >Realize and accept that fact.
>>
>> Never thought it did or we wouldn't be chatting now, would we?
>
>
>commentary of one of the very mildest and most reasonable of eck
>critics to visit a.r.e.
>
>The one you labelled a "psychic vampire," along with the other
We Shall
>Overcome rhetoric you graced us with...
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Second of all, alt.religion.eckankar is an OPEN usenet
>> newsgroup. Open
>> >to *anyone* with an interest in Eckankar (and "interest*
doesn't
>> >necessarily mean a certain correct "pro" interest.
>> >
>> >Realize and accept that fact.
>> >
>> >Thirdly, if you wish to have a moderated newsgroup, and you
wish
>> to
>> >control what opinions are expressed here, then please go and
>> start a
>> >moderated usenet newsgroup for eckankar.
>> >
>> >But please, try to get this idea out of your head that a.r.e.
>> somehow
>> >belongs to a certain group of people with certain correct
>> opinions
>> >about this "eckankar" thing.
>>
>> I don't and I didn't say anything of the kind.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Try to accept "what is." "What is" is that Eckankar does
have
>> >ex-members who are critics of certain aspects of this
religion,
>> because
>> >Eckankar does have (shudder!) certain faults.
>>
>> I agree and I respect our differences as well.
>
. .
>yesss...... this energy I'm drinking away from your astral body
is most
>delicious!
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >Accepting "what is" is an easier way to go,sometimes ,thanthe
>> >philosophy of F-it or ridiculous demonizing of the critics of
>> eck org
>> >with terms like "psychic vampire".
>>
>> I continue to support SV and stand by my opinion of Lurk's
>> behavior with regard to that post.
>
"respecting our
>difference. Nope, no siree..
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >And one other thing about this newsgroup: like other
>> newsgroups, its
>> >often a forum of *debate*.
>> >
>> >I looked up "debate" in the dictionary, but I couldn't find
any
>> >definitions that suggested mutual contratulation society of
true
>> >believers. But, maybe I have the wrong dictionary.
>>
>> We already covered this...
>>
>>
>> >
>> >One thing more:
>> >
>> >
>> >Eckankar will never have understanding and acceptance. Not
>> until
>> >Eckankar gets honest.
>>
>> Eckankar has plenty of acceptance and understanding. Do you
have
>> trouble with accepting that?
>
Harold
>doesn't dialogue with other major religious leaders, Darwin
never did,
>Paulji never did. By and large, other religions don't talk with
>Eckankar; Eckankar doesn't talk with other religions.
>
>Granted, Eckankar does mind its P's and Q's legally, and
Eckankar does
>keep a low profile and keeps out of the major controversies that
other
>new religious movements sometimes get into. And, Eckankar
deserver
>credit for that.
>
>But Eckankar does stand apart from the rest of the religious
community,
>and with good reason. Rebezar? Gakko? Twitchell's plagiarism
and
>wild tales? Darwin's fall? These things "make sense" to the
eck
>community, but are a bit harder to deal with in cross-clerical
>conversation.
>
>Still, there's hope. Christian Science and the Mormon religion
had
>many of the same problems.
>
>
>But if you could find acceptance
>> we wouldn't be having this conversation, I guess. And that
>> would be both our losses. May you find some acceptance for
>> whatever it is you need.
>
>
It's
>endemic to the narcissistic Eck mindset!
>
>"If anyone finds fault with me, they are really finding fault
with
>themselves."
>
>This is sort of along the lines of Harold's "If you get a
headache,
>someone is making a psychic attack against you."
>
>This narcissism must be endemic to Eck mindset.
>
>How comforting it must be to go through life being right about
>everything...like Nathan and many others here.
>
>
>
>>
>> And sincere thanks for the civility and respect. I need it,
and,
>> the example.
>>
>>
>> Huuuuuuuuu,
>> Anne
>
>
writing
>of "the lies of the detractors" and calling Lurk a "psychic
vampire."
>--
>
>
Joe? Are you going to respond to the rest of this thread, it
went through some changes and I'd like to hear your comments on
the rest of it, please. Thanks.
Huuuuuuuuu,
Frank H. Weeden
> Hi Frank,
>
> The old song goes, Too much of anything is just enough. <G>
>
> Perhaps one way to avoid the Shark Consciousness as you coined it is to
> treat each thread as a new beginning.
I would, but there's a point of common sense, Dave. If I go over to
some guy, every morning, and I say hello, and he spits in my eye, and
this happens every single morning, is every morning supposed to be a
new day? Or perhaps, would you simply begin avoiding the person?
(Providing you didn't just punch his lights out...) <G>
> In this the Year of the HU, maybe
> we can try to approach each new thread without consideration of any
> prior threads in most instances. This is my desire for me and what I
> try to do. This is just my opinion though, and nothing more. Take each
> post at face value and honor one another as Soul with respect for our
> unique interpretation of just what it means to be a human being this
> incarnation.If we disagree, disagree with the post alone not the person
> posting it. Just my opinion, feel free to do anything one wants of
> course.
For those who seem genuine and sincere, I give them the benefit of
the doubt. I see enough of the garbage floating past as I read
Eckists' replies to the various detractors. Nothing has changed yet,
and thus far, I have no reason to expect that anything will. *shrug*
I dearly hope someone proves me wrong. That would be GREAT! :-)
Honestly!
> This past week I took some shots so to speak, yet, when I received
> loving posts from for example, SantimVah, I felt and feel nothing but
> love for him. In fact, I feel nothing but love all around.
Yes, we all have times when we have our differences. The ability
to forgive and to accept each other is a great, courageous, and
beautiful thing.
> I really believe that friends and family argue sometimes but that it
> can present us with great opportunities. I firmly believe that with
> some people, this arguing leads to greater friendships and more loving
> relationships. Again this is my opinion and has been my experience.
This has been true in my own experience too, Dave. Just the same, I
also hold that, "Discretion is the better part of valor." There's a
time to engage in discussion, and a time to let it slide on by. <G>
> At the risk of getting my self verbally and emotionally beat up so to
> speak Again! I will now do the following:
>
> I hearby give a great loving hug to my a.r.e. Eck family including
> Anne, Frank, Ken, Rich Smith, Rich Pickett, Michael, Windy, Jackie,
> Joey, Hawk, Nathan, SantimVah, Spark and Jan. (Anyone else I am not
> excluding it's just that I have not ever posted with you)
Big ol' hug to you too, Dave. I may not always agree with you, but
I respect your courage, your candor, and your honesty.
> I also give a great big loving hug to my non-Eck family here on a.r.e.
> including Sharon, Lurk and the Mahavahanna (this includes most likely
> Jim, DaveAmerican Pie, the Crunchy Frog and more, many more I think),
> G. Michael Turner and others.
I'll join you in that, even though I think most of them will be like
the guy I used in my analogy above, and spit right in our eye, but
what the heck... I've been spit on by worse people, and I've been
spit on by better people. Just more rain in the storm of life? :-)
Or perhaps, like water off the back of a duck. *wink*
Love,
Frank
Anne
<gun...@united.net> wrote:
>
>I'll join you in that, even though I think most of them will be
like
>the guy I used in my analogy above, and spit right in our eye,
but
>what the heck... I've been spit on by worse people, and I've
been
>spit on by better people. Just more rain in the storm of life?
:-)
>Or perhaps, like water off the back of a duck. *wink*
>
>Love,
>Frank
>
My 2 cents Frank? I think it's worth the struggle and a lot more
patience. No one here is actively refusing. There is some
willingness. Stick out what you can and rest when you need to,
there's no rush. It's worth the effort for all of us to learn to
communicate with respect. No one refused. None of us can learn
over night and we will regress and need to do it again, I am
certain. Sorry to be corny, but it's the path/the process, not
the journey's end that matters. <Smile>
Lots of love to you,
Mahavahana
I see.
Good, good. Now, just keep staring at the screen a while longer . . .
arel...@home.com
> Isn't it ridiculous how some people think it is so cool to keep pushing
> others against the wall. Isn't that called bullying. And then when the
> arrow hits the mark they go skipping off to another area to see who they
> can hurt. But hey, we do not bleed. We're just pixels to them.
Are you going for an oscar there sweety.
Lurk
davidbarnes
<gun...@united.net> wrote:
> "arel...@home.com" wrote:
>
> > Yet another colorful expression of a victim consciousness on the path of
> > eckankar...the path of total responsibility.
> >
> > Lurk
>
> Lurk, even after you know you have hurt someone, you just
> keep right on rubbing it in, don't you? You're a real piece
> of work, man... There are times that Eckists are not loving,
> and there are times when Eckists get angry. This is not due
> beings. So I guess this is, in reality, "another colorful
> expression" of the shark consciousness? When the person you
> have attacked is bleeding, you go in for the kill? Standing
> ovation... Really, you should be so proud of yourself, Dear.
>
Hi Frank,
The old song goes, Too much of anything is just enough. <G>
Perhaps one way to avoid the Shark Consciousness as you coined it is to
treat each thread as a new beginning. In this the Year of the HU, maybe
we can try to approach each new thread without consideration of any
prior threads in most instances. This is my desire for me and what I
try to do. This is just my opinion though, and nothing more. Take each
post at face value and honor one another as Soul with respect for our
unique interpretation of just what it means to be a human being this
incarnation.If we disagree, disagree with the post alone not the person
posting it. Just my opinion, feel free to do anything one wants of
course.
This past week I took some shots so to speak, yet, when I received
loving posts from for example, SantimVah, I felt and feel nothing but
love for him. In fact, I feel nothing but love all around.
I really believe that friends and family argue sometimes but that it
can present us with great opportunities. I firmly believe that with
some people, this arguing leads to greater friendships and more loving
relationships. Again this is my opinion and has been my experience.
At the risk of getting my self verbally and emotionally beat up so to
speak Again! I will now do the following:
I hearby give a great loving hug to my a.r.e. Eck family including
Anne, Frank, Ken, Rich Smith, Rich Pickett, Michael, Windy, Jackie,
Joey, Hawk, Nathan, SantimVah, Spark and Jan. (Anyone else I am not
excluding it's just that I have not ever posted with you)
I also give a great big loving hug to my non-Eck family here on a.r.e.
including Sharon, Lurk and the Mahavahanna (this includes most likely
Jim, DaveAmerican Pie, the Crunchy Frog and more, many more I think),
G. Michael Turner and others.
Love,
Barnes
Soul = Soul
Ken
<arel...@home.com> wrote ...
:
Lurk:
: > : I think you minimize the seriousness of people putting their trust in a
: > : eck master
: >
Ken:
: > "Minimize"? Come on Lurk, get a grip. The world is full of victims
: > searching for something to be the effect of.
:
: And the world is full of self anointed authorities preying on these victims.
<sigh>
: And eckankar fits the bill and provides the perfect forum for such
: transactions.
:
: Like the art of conning people, it is better to become aware of both the
: con man's methods and the Mark's weakness (greed, lust, etc.).
:
: Course, I think where you're having trouble is accepting the con man part.
Because Eckankar isn't a con, man! <g>
It's your perception, it's your reality. I can accept that. You however are
unable to accept that Eckankar adds to my life. Think about it. And while
you're thinking, maybe you want to consider my point that you are hurting
people by catering to the self-victimization aberrations some people carry
around within themselves.
: Just because you don't like
: > Eckankar is no reason to cater to those kinds of aberrations in people.
: > It's harmful to them for you to do so.
:
: It's not so much a matter of like as a matter of what I see.
What you see is your own perception of the truth. What I see is mine.
The difference between us is that you are unwilling to admit that my
perception is valid for me.
: > : who builds himself up as an authority and takes advantage of
: > : their trust via deception.
: >
: > "Prove it to yourself". If an Eck Chela fails to perform this one simple
: > little task, then all the rest of their path is built on a foundation of
sand.
:
: Ken, how does one prove whether your eck master has the highest
: consciousness or not. Please explain in detail. I'm on the edge of my
: seat. <g>
I have never proved that to myself. I don't care if the Living Eck Master
has the "highest" consciousness in the world or not. How would I measure
it, anyway??? <LOL>
It's not an issue for me. Harold has helped me on many levels of Being.
That's enough for me right now. If Iever reach the point where this
teaching no longer has anything to offer me, then I'm gone.
: > This message is repeatedly emphasized in the written works. How
: > can any Chela fail to come to grips with this most basic point?
:
: Perhaps there are double messages being sent to the Chelas, eh?
Maybe you're just seeing what you want to see?
: > With a "prove it to yourself" approach, there is no unwarranted "build
: > up of authority" to be disillusioned with later.
: >
: > With a "prove it to yourself" approach, it's impossible to be a victim of
: > one's trust being taken advantage of.
:
: If there is really a "prove to yourself" approached employed by eckists
: there probably wouldn't be any eckists. <g> This goes back to the question
: above about the consciousness level of the Living Eck Master.
You're being very condesending again.
: > With a "prove it to yourself" approach, the deception the student must
: > watch for most closely is the self-imposed kind.
:
: The "prove it to yourself" approach as taught in eckankar IS the
: deception which uses a person's own self deceptions, in my opinion.
Maybe you fooled yourself for 8 years or however long you were an
Eckist. I haven't been able to, however. You and me, we're two different
people. Your insistence that my path match yours is your own myopic
view. Just because Eckankar didn't work for you has *no* bearing on it's
validity or usefulness with anyone else.
Get over yourself already.
: Harold says, "close your eyes and see me on the inner." Eckists close
: their eyes and see him on the inner. Eckists read in books how special
: it is to see the master on the inner and how they have been working
: lifetimes to be in this situation. Eckists feel special for closing
: their eyes and seeing Harold on the inner. They have experienced the
: ominous power of the Living Eck Master. They have proved it to
: themselves. And so on.
That never worked for me. I saw the self deceptive illusion you're
describing above while I was reading the first Eck book I ever picked up.
Now here's where you can choose to believe me or not, but it's true. I
processed all the stuff your talking about above long before I ever finished
the first book. And I told myself that if I didn't get proof that this path was
valid, I wasn't even going to bother with it. I got all the proof I could
handle.
The experiences that proved what I needed to know I've never found
printed in any book the way I experienced them. Again, it's your choice
whether you believe me or not, but what I'm telling you is from the heart.
: Like any good con, the Mark does most of the conning...the con man
: simply guides the process. Gives new meaning to inner guide. <gg>
You believe it's all about power. That the Eck Master is in it for the
power over the Chela. I can tell you from my experience it's really all
about finding love. And finding that it's all about giving, not getting.
But this is all too simple for you to grasp.
: > I don't look outside myself for a savior. The creator has provided each
: > of us all of the tools we need to survive. It's always up to us,
individually.
:
: Good for you.
:
: >
: > : > Do we scream out shut down the supermarket chain for not
: > : > defending these delicate souls? No, we don't.
: > :
: > : A bogus analogy.
: >
: > Not at all. It was a great point and by sloughing it off, your doing a
: > genuine disservice to the efforts at dialogue Santim was making here.
: > Of course, if you were serious, you would have treated the whole
: > process with a little more effort, wouldn't you?
:
: I don't think the abuse he claims people experience in a supermarket
: line is comparable to the abuse Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp depart
: to their students with their deceptive practices. All he was doing was
: minimizing concerns ex eckist have. At any rate, I did respond seriously.
The delicate soul feeling abuse in the supermarket check-out line is
exactly the same as the abuse some feel because of Eckankar. In
both cases the "abuse" is self inflicted. I don't mean to be insensitive,
but this is the truth. The abuse simply isn't really there, except in the
mind of the victim.
Ken
SantimVah
Anne <alwalton...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:04f312cd...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
> In article
> <TNGM4.31022$WF.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Ken" <ken.st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Not at all. It was a great point and by sloughing it off, your
> doing a
> >genuine disservice to the efforts at dialogue Santim was making
> here.
> >Of course, if you were serious, you would have treated the whole
> >process with a little more effort, wouldn't you?
>
> sorry I didn't see it/understand it sooner.
>
> Love,
> Anne
>
Anne,
Thankyou for your thankyou and your sorry........but I don't understand what
you are referring to?
Would you mind explaining/clarifying what you mean please?
With Love,
Santimvah
Mahavahana
wrote:
>
> <arel...@home.com> wrote ...
>
> :
> Lurk:
> : > : I think you minimize the seriousness of people putting their trust in a
> : > : eck master
> : >
> Ken:
> : > "Minimize"? Come on Lurk, get a grip. The world is full of victims
> : > searching for something to be the effect of.
> :
> : And the world is full of self anointed authorities preying on these victims.
>
>
> <sigh>
Ken sighs. He don't care.
Criticism bad. Non-criticism good.
>
>
>
> : And eckankar fits the bill and provides the perfect forum for such
> : transactions.
> :
> : Like the art of conning people, it is better to become aware of both the
> : con man's methods and the Mark's weakness (greed, lust, etc.).
> :
> : Course, I think where you're having trouble is accepting the con man part.
>
>
> Because Eckankar isn't a con, man! <g>
>
> It's your perception, it's your reality. I can accept that. You however are
> unable to accept that Eckankar adds to my life. Think about it.
'Scuze me....did Lurk come here attacking your choice of religion Ken?
Has Lurk made statements that even suggest he's unable to accept that
you feel that eckankar adds to your life?
Or are you once again confusing criticism of eckankar with criticism of
. . . yourself?
I feel pretty sure that Lurk would agree with me in this sentiment:
IF YOU ENJOY ECKANKAR, I BELIEVE YOU. BY ALL MEANS, BE AN ECKIST IF
YOU WISH TO BE AN ECKIST.
There!
Look at it this way Kenster. If Eckankar has flaws, and these flaws
are given attention by Eck critics such as Lurk and yours truly -- then
it follows that Lurk and I ARE MAKING A BETTER ECKANKAR.
Let's face it gang: criticism HAS improved Eckankar!
Still don't believe me? Well, consider this:
Nathan ain't here no more. Ask yourself why that is, and who (which
eck critic) was responsible for that?
Just joking Nathan. I know you're probably just on vacation!
Lurk And while
> you're thinking, maybe you want to consider my point that you are hurting
> people by catering to the self-victimization aberrations some people carry
> around within themselves.
Ken...I'm starting to think you're more of a Scientologist than an
Eckist!
You have it all backwards Ken...
And why do I get hungry when the word "catering" is invoked?
>
>
>
> : Just because you don't like
> : > Eckankar is no reason to cater to those kinds of aberrations in people.
> : > It's harmful to them for you to do so.
> :
> : It's not so much a matter of like as a matter of what I see.
>
>
> What you see is your own perception of the truth. What I see is mine.
> The difference between us is that you are unwilling to admit that my
> perception is valid for me.
Yes Ken, very good: everyone's personal perception is "valid" to each
individual perceiver. Jeezoflip!
You guys tout extreme relativism as if were the most lofty profundity
in the cosmos. But you have no idea how insular, contradictory, and
self-serving this Twitchellism really is.
>
>
>
> : > : who builds himself up as an authority and takes advantage of
> : > : their trust via deception.
> : >
> : > "Prove it to yourself". If an Eck Chela fails to perform this one simple
> : > little task, then all the rest of their path is built on a foundation of
> sand.
> :
> : Ken, how does one prove whether your eck master has the highest
> : consciousness or not. Please explain in detail. I'm on the edge of my
> : seat. <g>
>
>
> I have never proved that to myself. I don't care if the Living Eck Master
> has the "highest" consciousness in the world or not. How would I measure
> it, anyway??? <LOL>
Right, you can't.
In other words, the "prove it to yourself" challenge isn't quite as
genuine and straighforward as it first appears.
One can experiment with the *effects* of practicing eckankar, but
that's something else entirely different from proving the ontological
state of any "eck master."
>
> It's not an issue for me. Harold has helped me on many levels of Being.
You still don't quite get it...you feel or believe "harold" has helped
you on many levels of being (here, I assume you mean inner
spiritual/meditational/dream levels aside from the written word,
because you probably have never finished an eck book (joke)), rather
than *know* that Harold, the inner or outer person, has actually
willfully taken action on your behalf.
> That's enough for me right now. If Iever reach the point where this
> teaching no longer has anything to offer me, then I'm gone.
>
>
>
> : > This message is repeatedly emphasized in the written works. How
> : > can any Chela fail to come to grips with this most basic point?
> :
> : Perhaps there are double messages being sent to the Chelas, eh?
>
>
> Maybe you're just seeing what you want to see?
No, there are definitely double messages made Ken. Maybe you're not
seeing them because you're afraid to acknowledge the obvious?
>
>
>
> : > With a "prove it to yourself" approach, there is no unwarranted "build
> : > up of authority" to be disillusioned with later.
> : >
> : > With a "prove it to yourself" approach, it's impossible to be a victim of
> : > one's trust being taken advantage of.
> :
> : If there is really a "prove to yourself" approached employed by eckists
> : there probably wouldn't be any eckists. <g> This goes back to the question
> : above about the consciousness level of the Living Eck Master.
>
>
> You're being very condesending again.
Its condenscending, very condenscending, to suggest the LEM isn't the
most Highly Evolved Spiritual Being on the planet? To suggest he's a
mere mortal like the rest of us? (And he is a mere mortal folks).
>
>
> : > With a "prove it to yourself" approach, the deception the student must
> : > watch for most closely is the self-imposed kind.
> :
> : The "prove it to yourself" approach as taught in eckankar IS the
> : deception which uses a person's own self deceptions, in my opinion.
>
>
> Maybe you fooled yourself for 8 years or however long you were an
> Eckist. I haven't been able to, however. You and me, we're two different
> people. Your insistence that my path match yours is your own myopic
> view. Just because Eckankar didn't work for you has *no* bearing on it's
> validity or usefulness with anyone else.
Again, Lurk isn't here for *you* Ken. But beside that:
We're all connected Ken. All! Connected! We're all interfacing with
each other, and all changing each other, with every word and every
action.
This is my view anyway. I find it more compelling and accurate than
the concept that we're these little hermetically sealed Bubbles of Soul
that have Eternal Static Individidual Being, and that are going to buzz
around the godworlds somehow as individuals forever. That kind of view
is enticing to the ego, but on the whole rather selfish.
Of a self that, upon inquiry, doesn't quite exist at all.
Seperation is an illusion. Religions that foster the concept of
eternal seperation promote a comfortable illusion.
So much glib talk here of "divine love." Truly, if anyone had such a
thing, they'd have no concept of themselves as eckist or non-eckist.
>
> Get over yourself already.
>
>
>
> : Harold says, "close your eyes and see me on the inner." Eckists close
> : their eyes and see him on the inner. Eckists read in books how special
> : it is to see the master on the inner and how they have been working
> : lifetimes to be in this situation. Eckists feel special for closing
> : their eyes and seeing Harold on the inner. They have experienced the
> : ominous power of the Living Eck Master. They have proved it to
> : themselves. And so on.
>
>
> That never worked for me. I saw the self deceptive illusion you're
> describing above while I was reading the first Eck book I ever picked up.
> Now here's where you can choose to believe me or not, but it's true. I
> processed all the stuff your talking about above long before I ever finished
> the first book.
Oh, you did finish an eck book! I stand corrected. Or do you mean you
put that book down half read and never read another? <g>
And I told myself that if I didn't get proof that this path was
> valid, I wasn't even going to bother with it. I got all the proof I could
> handle.
That's great Ken!
>
> The experiences that proved what I needed to know I've never found
> printed in any book the way I experienced them. Again, it's your choice
> whether you believe me or not, but what I'm telling you is from the heart.
>
>
>
> : Like any good con, the Mark does most of the conning...the con man
> : simply guides the process. Gives new meaning to inner guide. <gg>
>
>
> You believe it's all about power. That the Eck Master is in it for the
> power over the Chela. I can tell you from my experience it's really all
> about finding love. And finding that it's all about giving, not getting.
A beating? <G>
Seriously, while I do believe all you say about your found favor with
practicing eckankar, so do I believe all who speak of the
satisfactions, experiences, and joys they received from *whatever*
religion that follow.
John Roger, Thakar Singh, Sai Baba followers included.
That's one level of experience. Life however, consists of many levels
of experience, many such levels quite human, dealing with ethics.
To be brief: when people cite the satisfaction of one level as excuse
and justification for the ethical flaws of another level, there's
something not quite right with that.
That IMO is why criticism is important. Criticism separates perversity
from profundity.
Criticism is good.
>
> But this is all too simple for you to grasp.
>
>
>
> : > I don't look outside myself for a savior. The creator has provided each
> : > of us all of the tools we need to survive. It's always up to us,
> individually.
> :
> : Good for you.
> :
> : >
> : > : > Do we scream out shut down the supermarket chain for not
> : > : > defending these delicate souls? No, we don't.
> : > :
> : > : A bogus analogy.
> : >
> : > Not at all. It was a great point and by sloughing it off, your doing a
> : > genuine disservice to the efforts at dialogue Santim was making here.
> : > Of course, if you were serious, you would have treated the whole
> : > process with a little more effort, wouldn't you?
> :
> : I don't think the abuse he claims people experience in a supermarket
> : line is comparable to the abuse Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp depart
> : to their students with their deceptive practices. All he was doing was
> : minimizing concerns ex eckist have. At any rate, I did respond seriously.
>
>
> The delicate soul feeling abuse in the supermarket check-out line is
> exactly the same as the abuse some feel because of Eckankar. In
> both cases the "abuse" is self inflicted.
Really? I guess you could say so, if you subscribe to the extreme
belief that there can be no victims in this world.
Granted, it can be just as extreme to go on the Victimhood Bandwagon.
Yes, there must be a middle ground here. And, I see Lurk suggesting
that there is.
For my part, it's clear that Eckankar is less than honest in its
claims. That means that those coming into Eckankar are doing so under
false pretenses.
I don't mean to be insensitive,
> but this is the truth. The abuse simply isn't really there, except in the
> mind of the victim.
When it's pointed out that Paulji lied in his writings, does that count
as abuse?
To me it does.
When someone has declared he's God Major Major Rep, and he's found to
have lied about his experiences with an "eck master" in his bedroom, as
well as to have lied about who he studied under, I think this someone
has abused the trust of his readership--the people he's trying to
attract to take initation from him, and pay him X $ to get his
discourses so they can excape the "wheel of awagawan."
It really seems that simply to me. Gosh.
Frank H. Weeden
Love,
Frank
Anne
<No-spaMS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Anne <alwalton...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote in message
>news:04f312cd...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com...
>> In article
>> <TNGM4.31022$WF.13...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> "Ken" <ken.st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
your
>> doing a
>> >genuine disservice to the efforts at dialogue Santim was
making
>> here.
>> >Of course, if you were serious, you would have treated the
whole
>> >process with a little more effort, wouldn't you?
>>
>> sorry I didn't see it/understand it sooner.
>>
>> Love,
>> Anne
>>
>
>Anne,
>
>Thankyou for your thankyou and your sorry........but I don't
understand what
>you are referring to?
>
>Would you mind explaining/clarifying what you mean please?
>
>With Love,
>
>Santimvah
Well, SV, I was talking about some of the things we spoke about
privatley. I don't know that you want me to bring much of that
up here, except that I feel I failed to be supportive of you when
you really needed it here. That's what I mean.
Love,
Anne
davidbarnes
<gun...@united.net> wrote:
> davidbarnes wrote:
>
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > The old song goes, Too much of anything is just enough. <G>
> >
> > Perhaps one way to avoid the Shark Consciousness as you coined it is to
> > treat each thread as a new beginning.
>
> some guy, every morning, and I say hello, and he spits in my eye, and
> this happens every single morning, is every morning supposed to be a
> new day? Or perhaps, would you simply begin avoiding the person?
> (Providing you didn't just punch his lights out...) <G>
I'd hit him with one of those seminar Pies! That would teach them! <G>
>
> > In this the Year of the HU, maybe
> > we can try to approach each new thread without consideration of any
> > prior threads in most instances. This is my desire for me and what I
> > try to do. This is just my opinion though, and nothing more. Take each
> > post at face value and honor one another as Soul with respect for our
> > unique interpretation of just what it means to be a human being this
> > incarnation.If we disagree, disagree with the post alone not the person
> > posting it. Just my opinion, feel free to do anything one wants of
> > course.
>
> For those who seem genuine and sincere, I give them the benefit of
> the doubt. I see enough of the garbage floating past as I read
> Eckists' replies to the various detractors. Nothing has changed yet,
> and thus far, I have no reason to expect that anything will. *shrug*
> I dearly hope someone proves me wrong. That would be GREAT! :-)
> Honestly!
Here goes: Frank has anyone told you they love you today? No?
Okay then, Frank we love you!
>
> > This past week I took some shots so to speak, yet, when I received
> > loving posts from for example, SantimVah, I felt and feel nothing but
> > love for him. In fact, I feel nothing but love all around.
>
> Yes, we all have times when we have our differences. The ability
> to forgive and to accept each other is a great, courageous, and
> beautiful thing.
>
> > I really believe that friends and family argue sometimes but that it
> > can present us with great opportunities. I firmly believe that with
> > some people, this arguing leads to greater friendships and more loving
> > relationships. Again this is my opinion and has been my experience.
>
> This has been true in my own experience too, Dave. Just the same, I
> also hold that, "Discretion is the better part of valor." There's a
> time to engage in discussion, and a time to let it slide on by. <G>
I agree. All kidding aside, I agree.
>
> > At the risk of getting my self verbally and emotionally beat up so to
> > speak Again! I will now do the following:
> >
> > I hearby give a great loving hug to my a.r.e. Eck family including
> > Anne, Frank, Ken, Rich Smith, Rich Pickett, Michael, Windy, Jackie,
> > Joey, Hawk, Nathan, SantimVah, Spark and Jan. (Anyone else I am not
> > excluding it's just that I have not ever posted with you)
>
> Big ol' hug to you too, Dave. I may not always agree with you, but
> I respect your courage, your candor, and your honesty.
>
> > I also give a great big loving hug to my non-Eck family here on a.r.e.
> > including Sharon, Lurk and the Mahavahanna (this includes most likely
> > Jim, DaveAmerican Pie, the Crunchy Frog and more, many more I think),
> > G. Michael Turner and others.
>
> I'll join you in that, even though I think most of them will be like
> the guy I used in my analogy above, and spit right in our eye,
True, but fortunately I wear glasses. Shields up, Tuvac!!! <G>
but
> what the heck... I've been spit on by worse people, and I've been
> spit on by better people. Just more rain in the storm of life? :-)
> Or perhaps, like water off the back of a duck. *wink*
>
> Love,
> Frank
Reading your words sincerely and noting that they are coming through
loud and clear Agent Frank. <G>
Love,
Agent Barnes
Soul = Soul
Anne
stop talking to them and stop reading their posts. We have other
things to do here, so it's not like we can't use the energy that
goes into dealing with detractors more purposefully.
davidbarnes
<alwalton...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <3903B4CE...@united.net>, "Frank H. Weeden"
> <gun...@united.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'll join you in that, even though I think most of them will be
> like
> >the guy I used in my analogy above, and spit right in our eye,
> >what the heck... I've been spit on by worse people, and I've
> been
> >spit on by better people. Just more rain in the storm of life?
> :-)
> >Or perhaps, like water off the back of a duck. *wink*
> >
> >Love,
> >Frank
> >
>
> patience. No one here is actively refusing. There is some
> willingness. Stick out what you can and rest when you need to,
> there's no rush. It's worth the effort for all of us to learn to
> communicate with respect. No one refused. None of us can learn
> over night and we will regress and need to do it again, I am
> certain. Sorry to be corny, but it's the path/the process, not
> the journey's end that matters. <Smile>
>
> Lots of love to you,
> Anne
Lots of love to you Anne also!
Frank H. Weeden
> My 2 cents Frank? I think it's worth the struggle and a lot more
> patience.
Well, then I wish you well, Anne. As for me, I am simply too
weary, and I've got better things to do than to hang my ass out
in the wind to be just another target. Having doubled as a door-
gunner on Hueys, (in addition to being a medic, ironically enough),
I quickly found that it was a very good idea to sit on my flak vest,
rather than wearing it on my body. Seems like this also applies to
a.r.e., as well. <G>
> No one here is actively refusing. There is some
> willingness. Stick out what you can and rest when you need to,
> there's no rush. It's worth the effort for all of us to learn to
> communicate with respect.
I never doubt that, and like I said, I dearly hope I am proved wrong,
but I've seen too many sincere people get drawn into discussions with
disingenuous people, and these sincere people, having gone in with
complete vulnerability, come out battered and bruised. And for what?
Nothing but providing a bit of entertainment for those who get their
rocks off on abusing and bullying others.
In Ancient Rome: "Aw... The lion's really just a li'l ol' pussycat.
Toss another gladiator to him. In time, I'm sure he'll learn how to
behave with respect." LOL
> No one refused. None of us can learn
> over night and we will regress and need to do it again, I am
> certain. Sorry to be corny, but it's the path/the process, not
> the journey's end that matters. <Smile>
Well, I give people the benefit of the doubt, time and again. I
forgive others over and over, and I'm constantly in the process
of learning, myself. Still, there are times when I can look at
a situation and say, "Yes, there's some benefit to be had in this,
and yes, there's a reason for me to do this, and yes, there's something
I need to learn here." Other times, I can look at a situation and see
that getting involved with it is nothing more than masochism. We each
have to choose that for ourselves, I guess. Myself, I choose to
exercise my personal discernment here. I have no need to be crucified,
so there's no reason for me to hurl myself into the middle of the
detractors. I'm not here to save anyone or teach anyone anything.
(I'm still holding out hope of winning the distinction of
"asswipe" though. <G>)
> Lots of love to you,
> Anne
And much love to you, Anne.
Love,
Frank
Frank H. Weeden
> I'd hit him with one of those seminar Pies! That would teach them! <G>
LOL... "Three Stooges" memories, here... :-)
> Here goes: Frank has anyone told you they love you today? No?
>
> Okay then, Frank we love you!
I love you too, my dear brother and friend. Thank you...
> > > I also give a great big loving hug to my non-Eck family here on a.r.e.
> > > including Sharon, Lurk and the Mahavahanna (this includes most likely
> > > Jim, DaveAmerican Pie, the Crunchy Frog and more, many more I think),
> > > G. Michael Turner and others.
> >
> > I'll join you in that, even though I think most of them will be like
> > the guy I used in my analogy above, and spit right in our eye,
>
> True, but fortunately I wear glasses. Shields up, Tuvac!!! <G>
LOL! Pardon me whilst I don me spiritual-eye blackout glasses,
courtesy of "Kal & Maya Insurance Company Ltd." LOL
> Reading your words sincerely and noting that they are coming through
> loud and clear Agent Frank. <G>
Thanks, Pal. :-)
Love,
Frank
Anne
Well, as I have said in other posts today, I am leaning more in
this direction this morning. Enough is way, way past enough and
I just don't see the point in doing the same things over and over
and setting ourselves up for the same abuse again. Or worse,
falling into behaving like them. Since we have other purposes for
being here, our energies don't need to be drained by the
obviously unwilling.
davidbarnes
<alwalton...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote:
> Today, I'm leaning more toward Windy's suggestion that we just
> stop talking to them and stop reading their posts. We have other
> things to do here, so it's not like we can't use the energy that
> goes into dealing with detractors more purposefully.
>
> Love,
> Anne
Anne, are you suggested we apply the "Killfile" technique? <G>
As a member of the ACC I find this to be a viagric zepplin of an idea.
<G>
I have no idea what viagric zepplin means either <G>
LOL,
LOve,
Barnes
Soul = Soul
Frank H. Weeden
davidbarnes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:08:48 -0700 Anne
> <alwalton...@uswest.net.invalid> wrote:
> > Today, I'm leaning more toward Windy's suggestion that we just
> > stop talking to them and stop reading their posts. We have other
> > things to do here, so it's not like we can't use the energy that
> > goes into dealing with detractors more purposefully.
> >
> > Love,
> > Anne
>
> Anne, are you suggested we apply the "Killfile" technique? <G>
>
> As a member of the ACC I find this to be a viagric zepplin of an idea.
> <G>
>
> I have no idea what viagric zepplin means either <G>
>
> LOL,
>
> LOve,
>
> Barnes
A viagric zepplin? Well... (Takin' a stab at it, here) If you were
to take one of those sausage-shaped airships, (Zepplins), and stand
them on end, they could look quite phallic. And since they were inflated
with helium, well, they would be positively viagric! Yes? <GGG>
Frank-o-Matic
Windy
>
> Windy wrote:
> >
> > Frank H. Weeden wrote:
> > >
> > > When you hurt people, it's not a game, Lurk.
> > >
> > > "arel...@home.com" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "arel...@home.com" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yet another colorful expression of a victim consciousness on the path of
> > > > > > eckankar...the path of total responsibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lurk
> > > > >
> > > > > Lurk, even after you know you have hurt someone, you just
> > > > > keep right on rubbing it in, don't you? You're a real piece
> > > > > of work, man... There are times that Eckists are not loving,
> > > > > and there are times when Eckists get angry. This is not due
> > > > > to some shortcoming of our path.
> > > >
> > > > Vampirism to characterize my disagreeing exchange with SantimVah.
> > > >
> > > > > beings. So I guess this is, in reality, "another colorful
> > > > > expression" of the shark consciousness? When the person you
> > > > > have attacked is bleeding, you go in for the kill? Standing
> > > > > ovation... Really, you should be so proud of yourself, Dear.
> > > >
> > > > responded to me calling me a Psychic Vampire.
> > > >
> > > > Get a grip. Anne strikes me as one who can take care of herself.
> > > >
> > > > She got game. <g>
> > > >
> > > > Lurk
> >
> > Isn't it ridiculous how some people think it is so cool to keep pushing
> > others against the wall. Isn't that called bullying. And then when the
> > arrow hits the mark they go skipping off to another area to see who they
> > can hurt. But hey, we do not bleed. We're just pixels to them.
>
> Are you going for an oscar there sweety.
>
> Lurk
davidbarnes
Exactly!!! and as a member of the ACC (the anti cone coalition) we will
have none of that here! <G> And that's an order! (perhaps a viagric
pizza would be okay though, I'm gettin' hungry! <G>
LOve,
Barnes
Soul = Soul
davidbarnes
LOve,
Barnes
Soul = Soul
Frank H. Weeden
> > A viagric zepplin? Well... (Takin' a stab at it, here) If you were
> > to take one of those sausage-shaped airships, (Zepplins), and stand
> > them on end, they could look quite phallic. And since they were inflated
> > with helium, well, they would be positively viagric! Yes? <GGG>
> >
> > Frank-o-Matic
>
> Exactly!!! and as a member of the ACC (the anti cone coalition) we will
> have none of that here! <G> And that's an order! (perhaps a viagric
> pizza would be okay though, I'm gettin' hungry! <G>
>
> LOve,
>
> Barnes
No cones? I'm reminded of those torpedo-like things that Madonna
wears on her breasts...
"How about a hug?"
"uh... er... no thanks... I'm not into body-piercing."
Love,
Franko <G>
Windy
>
> Truly, you had a great deal more of my respect before you began writing
> of "the lies of the detractors" and calling Lurk a "psychic vampire."
And that of course is something important to strive for? So why would
anyone feel privileged to have your respect?
This sort of guilt trip might work with a loved one or a child.
davidbarnes
Hmmm... Madonna? Cones? ...... Madonna and Cones?
I hereby resign from the Anti Cone Coalition!!! <G>
LOve,
Barnes
Soul = Soul
Frank H. Weeden
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:37:00 -0500 "Frank H. Weeden"
> <gun...@united.net> wrote:
> > davidbarnes wrote:
> >
> > > > A viagric zepplin? Well... (Takin' a stab at it, here) If you were
> > > > to take one of those sausage-shaped airships, (Zepplins), and stand
> > > > them on end, they could look quite phallic. And since they were inflated
> > > > with helium, well, they would be positively viagric! Yes? <GGG>
> > > >
> > > > Frank-o-Matic
> > >
> > > Exactly!!! and as a member of the ACC (the anti cone coalition) we will
> > > have none of that here! <G> And that's an order! (perhaps a viagric
> > > pizza would be okay though, I'm gettin' hungry! <G>
> > >
> > > LOve,
> > >
> > > Barnes
> >
> > No cones? I'm reminded of those torpedo-like things that Madonna
> > wears on her breasts...
> > "How about a hug?"
> > "uh... er... no thanks... I'm not into body-piercing."
> >
> > Love,
> > Franko <G>
>
> Hmmm... Madonna? Cones? ...... Madonna and Cones?
>
> I hereby resign from the Anti Cone Coalition!!! <G>
ROFL! Just be careful out there, Dave. People have to
duck when she turns too quickly. Or maybe, some other
examples of cones would be those women in "Austin Powers,"
who had guns in their uh... er... Anyway, always treat
weapons as though they are loaded. *cough* <G>
Love,
Frankster
Mahavahana
Mahavahana
> Joe? Are you going to respond to the rest of this thread, it
> went through some changes and I'd like to hear your comments on
> the rest of it, please. Thanks.
>
> Huuuuuuuuu,
> Anne
Who's "Joe"?
David Lane's research on Eckankar:
http://www.iguild.com/homes/eckcult
Frank H. Weeden
This is because Joe doesn't have any of his own
research.
Windy
As Mahavahana (Joe) would say, who's Joe. He is having an identity
crisis. Someone broke his mirror and he can't find himself now.