"Master Compiler"

[KaraHolly]

“The high teachings of ECK had been scattered to the four corners of the world.
The different masters each had parts and pieces of it, but they attached
little requirements, or strings, to it: You must be a vegetarian, or you have
to meditate so many hours a day if you want to really be a true follower on the
path to God. And this was wrong for our day and age. It was geared for
another culture.”

“Paul gathered up the whole teachings and took the best. Though it may be a
strange thing to say, in this sense I see him as a master compiler. He
gathered the golden teachings that were scattered around the world and made
them readily available to us. So now we don’t have to feel that we must spend
ten or fifteen years in an ashram in India, sitting around in the dust with the
flies, or locked in a walled-up little cell to keep our attention from the
outside world, in order to live the spiritual life.”

“The consciousness here in the twentieth century is a valid one. We have a
family, we go to work, we have recreational activities, we meet with friends
after work, and we take the kids to Little League practice. This is the way of
our society, and it’s a valid consciousness for Soul to gain the experience It
needs on Its way back home to God.”

“All It needs is the linkup with the Light and Sound; and this, of course,
always comes through the ECK teachings, through the Mahanta, the Living ECK
Master. It always comes in this way.”

“As I was trying to write something about the earthquake of 1811, I read a book
about life on the Mississippi. It was a compilation of a series of essays
written by a number of people and edited by one man. But I wasn’t able to find
out who owned the rights to it. No one knew, because as a book gets older,
publishing houses are sold, management changes, and records are lost or thrown
out. This is only one of many problems encountered in doing research.”

“It should have taken more than a lifetime for Paul to gather the ECK
teachings, and yet he put it all together. This is what Paul did.”

From "The Secret Teachings" pg 159, by Harold Klemp,
Copyright (c) 1989 ECKANKAR. All rights reserved

For information about Eckankar:
http://www.eckankar.org
or Phone 1(800) LOVE GOD

[Ram3Ram]

Klemp wrote:

>“The high teachings of ECK had been scattered to the four corners of the
>world.
> The different masters each had parts and pieces of it, but they attached
>little requirements, or strings, to it: You must be a vegetarian, or you have
>to meditate so many hours a day if you want to really be a true follower on
>the
>path to God. And this was wrong for our day and age. It was geared for
>another culture.”
>
>“Paul gathered up the whole teachings and took the best. Though it may be a
>strange thing to say, in this sense I see him as a master compiler. He
>gathered the golden teachings that were scattered around the world and made
>them readily available to us.

But . . . I thought the eck teachings were all to be found in the astral plane
library!

Subject: "Inner-Plane Library System"
From: kara...@aol.com (KaraHolly)
Date: Mon, Apr 20, 1998 15:04 EDT
Message-id: <199804201904...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
“I’d like to conclude by mentioning how the libraries on the inner planes work.
On these planes there are main libraries connected to the wisdom temples. But
there are many branch libraries. The main library of each wisdom temple is
like the Library of Congress, providing the greatest source of all the books
and materials. One particular library I was visiting on the Astral Plane is
adjacent to the Temple of Askleposis. In this place, some of the writings of
the Shariyat, which then are brought here to the physical and translated, are
stored in an archival warehouse. The Astral Plane is an immense world, so the
writings are stored in huge rooms . . .

Why did Paul have to "compile" the eck teachings from all over the world when
he had direct access to them on the inner planes?

>“As I was trying to write something about the earthquake of 1811, I read a
>book
>about life on the Mississippi. It was a compilation of a series of essays
>written by a number of people and edited by one man. But I wasn’t able to
>find
>out who owned the rights to it. No one knew, because as a book gets older,
>publishing houses are sold, management changes, and records are lost or
>thrown
>out. This is only one of many problems encountered in doing research.

Gee, wonder what Klemp is alluding to in this paragraph. That Twitchell can't
be blamed for plagiarism because the works he stole from weren't copywritten?

This is what we were told back in the '80's. The Path of the Masters didn't
have a copyright, so it was okay that Paul took what he wanted from it. This
wasn't true, however.

All of Julian Johnson's works, H. Khan's works, Walter Russell's works, and L.
Ron Hubbard's works had fully legal copyrights well before Paul began stealing
from them.

[Bruce & Denise]

Ram3Ram wrote:

> Why did Paul have to "compile" the eck teachings from all over the world when
> he had direct access to them on the inner planes?

Three words; ease of access.

Bruce

[KMerrymoon]

Joe Wrote:
>But . . . I thought the eck teachings were all to be found in the astral plane
>library!
>

>Why did Paul have to "compile" the eck teachings from all over the world when
>he had direct access to them on the inner planes?

DOUG:
Joe, can you do me a favor? I'd like to share how I see these two quotes of
Harold's that you've posted here. After you read what I wrote, could you go
back and re-read those quotes again? I seem to be interpreting these quotes
very differently from how you, Lane and some others are, and it is such a
dramatically different interpretation that I find it amazing.

Basically, it never even occurred to me that Harold was in any way trying to
suggest that Paul copied his writings from the inner Astral Library, as an
explanation for why Paul's writings are so similar to the writings of others.
Quite to contrary, I've always thought that what Harold was trying to say, in
that quote, was that Harold found evidence even on the inner, in the source
documents, that the writings in the Shariyat, Spiritual Notebook, Far Country,
etc., had their original physical source in the writings of others.

That's why when Paul admits something will have to be done about that, Harold
says, and guess who will have to take care of it. In other words, Harold is
confronting Paul with his plagiarism, and Paul is admitting it is a problem
that will need to be fixed. Harold is saying, yeah, and thanks a lot, since
Harold is the one to clean up the mess.

As to your question, above, once again I think you've misunderstood what Harold
is saying about these inner sources. I'll give you some examples from my own
personal life:

I work with new technologies, usually electronics but sometimes some advanced
sensing technologies as well. I have received about 8 patents on new
inventions, and have about another 5 or 6 that are pending. In all the cases of
these inventions, I've had tremendous help and influence from the inner.

However, this doesn't mean that I just go off into the inner worlds and see
those inventions and then come back and tell everyone how to create these
breakthroughs. It just doesn't work that way. Rather, while working with these
new technologies, and often while talking with others about them, suddenly
these new ideas will jump out and fit together for me, in a new way that offers
new advantages that others haven't seen before.

That moment of discovery is quite exciting. But what I've noticed, is that the
same clues that catch my eye, go right under the noses of engineers who are
working much closer with them than I am, and yet they never see the connection.
What's the difference? They don't see the inner connection that links the
physical clues with the inner, already existing, inventions.

This has been exactly my experience with the inner libraries, as well as
inventions, on the Astral Plane. Seeing them there is only half of the puzzle.
We still must find their physical counterparts and fit the pieces together.

The art of writing, especially as Paul did it, was largely finding ways of
tracing out those inner truths. Sometimes the things of others that he read
jumped out with him and clicked. He recognized them as some of the pieces that
fit in with his writing.

Now, since I've had my own inner experiences with the inner libraries myself, I
may be seeing Harold's quotes based on my own perspective. Also, I happened to
have been talking with Harold about the subject of Paul's plagiarism (actually
he brought the subject up to me) shortly before he gave the talks that you've
quoted. So, naturally, I read those quotes as I imagine Harold meant them,
based upon our talks.

This means I may be too close to these quotes to really judge how they look to
others. I know that Lane has seen fit to cast these quotes in the light of
Harold using them as an excuse. Others have then seen it in the light that Lane
has cast them.

But, Joe, would you go back for me and tell me how they read to you now? I'd
like to know how you see it. Thanks.

Doug.

[DEGibbens]

kmerr...@aol.com:

<<This means I may be too close to these quotes to really judge how they look
to
others. I know that Lane has seen fit to cast these quotes in the light of
Harold using them as an excuse. Others have then seen it in the light that Lane
has cast them.>>

I myself have always interpreted Harold's remarks to mean that Paul copied from
the same Astral library as Johnson. But I see your viewpoint too and it makes
perfect sense to me.

Douglas E. Gibbens
http://members.aol.com/degibbens/

[Ram3Ram]

Doug Marman wrote:

>
>Joe Wrote:
>>But . . . I thought the eck teachings were all to be found in the astral
>plane
>>library!
>>
>>Why did Paul have to "compile" the eck teachings from all over the world
>when
>>he had direct access to them on the inner planes?
>
>DOUG:
>Joe, can you do me a favor? I'd like to share how I see these two quotes of
>Harold's that you've posted here. After you read what I wrote, could you go
>back and re-read those quotes again? I seem to be interpreting these quotes
>very differently from how you, Lane and some others are, and it is such a
>dramatically different interpretation that I find it amazing.
>
>Basically, it never even occurred to me that Harold was in any way trying to
>suggest that Paul copied his writings from the inner Astral Library, as an
>explanation for why Paul's writings are so similar to the writings of others.
>Quite to contrary, I've always thought that what Harold was trying to say, in
>that quote, was that Harold found evidence even on the inner, in the source
>documents, that the writings in the Shariyat, Spiritual Notebook, Far
>Country,
>etc., had their original physical source in the writings of others.

Doug, I've read hundreds of books on spiritual topics. Many thousands remain
that I haven't read. For the most part, the charge of plagiarism just doesn't
come up, even with all the similarities that exist in spiritual teachings. In
other words, it's remarkable that with all the thousands and thousands of
"spiritual books" out there, you rarely hear "plagiarist!" yelled out at
anyone.

Twitchell's writings, judged by accepted definitions of literary integrity, are
definitely plagiarism. The evidence is so clear and so extensive that even
most eckists, from what I can tell, that have seriously gone over the evidence,
accept this to be true.

Most eckists favor a mystical explanation for this plagiarism, however. The
specific reasons vary and sometimes even contradict each other. I found the
two recent posts by karaholly to be quite contradictory: one intimating that
Paul obtained info for the eck teachings from an astral library, the other
maintaining the Paul "compiled" the teachings from all over the world.

Whether one accepts either (or both) explanations as true, some facts remain:

1) Paul DID plagiarize.
2) Paul never admitted to plagiarizing.

(Amazingly, some eckists on a.r.e. take the fact of Paul's never admitting
guilt as proof of his innocence.)

I look at it this way. Since it's established that Paul did plagiarize
extensively, even if he did it for mystical reasons (which I don't believe
btw), his not admitting to it casts serious doubts on his integrity. Even if
he pulled the eck writings from astral plane libraries, his lack of foresight
on the problems this would later cause his chelas casts serious doubt on his
"mastership." Even if he "compiled" the teachings from books and teachers from
around the world, his lack of citing sources was unethical, and casts more
doubt on him--and on the legitimacy of "eckankar" as a unique, ancient
teaching.

>
>That's why when Paul admits something will have to be done about that, Harold
>says, and guess who will have to take care of it. In other words, Harold is
>confronting Paul with his plagiarism, and Paul is admitting it is a problem
>that will need to be fixed. Harold is saying, yeah, and thanks a lot, since
>Harold is the one to clean up the mess.

To clean up the "mess," Harold offers mystical explanations. Really, he hasn't
cleaned up anything, he just offered excuses for Paul's plagiarism. To me,
this only compounds the unethical nature of what Paul did.

Even a kleptomaniac, when caught, is supposed to say he's sorry! And he's
supposed to make restitution for what he's taken! Paul is something, Klemp
argues, of a spiritual klepto who has every right to keep what he's stolen. Or
rather, Klemp and the current eckists have that right.

It may be that's how it worked with Paul. Still, he should have cited his
physical sources accordingly. There just isn't any good reason for his not
having done so.

>
>Now, since I've had my own inner experiences with the inner libraries myself,
>I
>may be seeing Harold's quotes based on my own perspective. Also, I happened
>to
>have been talking with Harold about the subject of Paul's plagiarism
>(actually
>he brought the subject up to me) shortly before he gave the talks that you've
>quoted. So, naturally, I read those quotes as I imagine Harold meant them,
>based upon our talks.
>

>This means I may be too close to these quotes to really judge how they look
>to
>others. I know that Lane has seen fit to cast these quotes in the light of
>Harold using them as an excuse. Others have then seen it in the light that
>Lane
>has cast them.

You have a number of inventions to your name Doug. Do you consider the
standards and proceedures of the patent office fair in protecting your work?

If I came along and stole the ideas of one of your patents, claiming that I saw
the idea on the inner before you did, how many people would take me seriously?
Would you take me seriously? Would you think my claim ethical?

It turns out that I could make use of your patent perhaps, but I'd have to give
you appropriate credit for it.

Paul gave credit to virtually no one in all his writings! Or rather, he
started to, then changed the names of the real people he was crediting to a
line of "eck masters." He took teachings from all over, inner planes or books
or wherever, then TM'd and copyrighted everything to establish that he "owned"
it. When J. R. Hinkins came along to basically "do a Twitchell," eckankar sued
him. So how much does eckankar believe its own take on the "source" of
spiritual teachings?

Now we have all these mystical explanations for what to me and so many others
seems manifestly self-evident: Paul Twitchell knowingly took from many authors
and many books material to start a new religion.

There are good things about eckankar. Twitchell, it can be argued, put out a
unique point of view about religion. Let that be judged on its own. I just
get tired with Klemp's attempts to validate what's obviously wrong about
eckankar, e.g., the plagiarism.

Joe O

[DAVE BARNES]

Dear Ram3Ram,

For me Paul Twitchell is a hero. I feel a great deal of empathy when I think
of all the hardship he went through all his life including doing talks to
help others when he should have been home having his body healed. I will
never forget the time when I was working in a warehouse, had a tumor on
thyroid that I did not even know about, got up after a fifteen minute break
and wondered if I would make it to dinner break. I looked at Paul's picture
in my wallet for inspiration and thought how sad it was that I would never
experience him looking into my eyes ( in Eck, it is considered special when
you look into the eyes of a spiritual master, we call it the darshan) and
the eyes twinkled like two stars right back at me!

Did he plagiarize? I could care less. Why? Because he got through a message
to people like myself that makes it possible to find real meaning and
purpose for all the pain and suffering that happens in our lives. Not
through theories or some feel good, cosmic rationale fad but by individual,
direct experience with God. I have not read many books, nor do I plan to.
Just because a person wrote a book, that a limited, academic minded or
esoteric crowd will read, does not mean that it will help people like me. I
needed his ability to tie all the loose ends together and to promote it in
a way that the average guy can understand and get excited about and then be
able to go forward with on an individual basis. Personally, I would glady
contribute to a royalty settlement for any author that may have been harmed
financially; however, if I ever write a spiritual book, it will be for the
good of helping others. If you or anyone else wants to take my words and
slap their names on it, I'm ok with that, provided that it gets the message
out. You see for me, it would be about the message and helping others find
God and not whether I get the glory or the money or anything else. I suspect
that the alleged authors that have been wronged, if they are the real deal,
are of the same mindset as myself.

My favorite book is the Drums of Eck by Paul Twitchell.

"The sun was a horrid disk in the clear azure sky and the lonely world with
its aged purple mountains loomed mysteriously against the hazy Mexican
horizon on this sultry day of March 26, 1846."

I respectfully agree to disagree with you about Mr.. Paul Twitchell.

Dave Barnes
www.eckankar.org

[charles_sedgewick_kesey]

In article <6hoidk$m...@argentina.earthlink.net>, "DAVE" says...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>out. You see for me, it would be about the message and helping others find
>God and not whether I get the glory or the money or anything else. I suspect
>that the alleged authors that have been wronged, if they are the real deal,
>are of the same mindset as myself.
>
>My favorite book is the Drums of Eck by Paul Twitchell.
>
>"The sun was a horrid disk in the clear azure sky and the lonely world with
>its aged purple mountains loomed mysteriously against the hazy Mexican
>horizon on this sultry day of March 26, 1846."
>
>I respectfully agree to disagree with you about Mr.. Paul Twitchell.
>
>Dave Barnes
>www.eckankar.org
>

Subject: Postures, ethics, and 'reality'
From: sp...@gatezone.com (Spark)
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-ID: <spark-ya02338000...@news.eden.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar

Yea, it's me after two months in semi-retirement...

Resolve anything around here yet? <Giant grin...>

Sometimes I think I'll scream if I hear another contortionist defense of
Paul Twitchell.... For some reason the weird-ass defenses drive me crazier
than the futile attempts to assasinate his character. I think it's because
I don't question his core character and see no reason to defend it. I
experienced it in this very life as well as inwardly.

And as I've said tons of times I think Paul did things that by anyone's
measure could at least *at times* be viewed as being ethically 'challenged'
<g>. I doubt there is a person on the planet who has not at one time or
another done something that is unethical.

We can shift the definition of 'ethics' around forever. It relates to a
sense of right and wrong as it's defined in the dictionary I have in front
of me. I can feel that Paul represented his writing and himself in the way
he did for a 'greater good.' and therefore any of his actions are redeemed
by the greater good that I attribute to his motives. I'm ok with that and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd say that is what the 'defenders' and other 'rationalizers' do. It just
isn't the *only* way for a person who loves life, spirit, and the Eckankar
Masters (as well as other Masters) to view/experience it.

Paul was a profound teacher of mine. I also accept that he made some
very questionable decisions regarding his foot note policies and publishing
practices. (I'm laughing about this wording...) I'm not sure ethics are
quite as flexible as some people here would have us believe. Neither do I
believe that ethics and 'right' and 'wrong' are as rigid and immutable as
others claim.

One of the most difficult things for detractors to deal with is *not*
that Paul concealed aspects of his spiritual sources or that he used
previously published writings and published them under his name... but that
three decades later the priests of Eckankar are still denying it happened
and spinning out rationalization and defense after defense. I say to
detractors and defenders, alike, it happened for God's sake... let's move
on. There's 'work' to be done, mostly and primarily upon ourselves.

As a member of Eckankar I am disheartened (I've been downhearted... he
sings in the background...) by what appears to be the inability of those
trained in the spiritual exercises of Eck and the ways of the Light and
Sound of God, to let go of defensive postures and viewpoints. (they don't
have to give up their beliefs or passion for truth, just the postures that
encase their beliefs and passions) Even if only to gain fresh perspective
and renew their posture in the future...

-------------

Taking time off from a.r.e. felt good. I'm not sure I can really refocus
on the newsgroup as I have in times past. It *is* fun to see some of my
old 'friends' here.

Jesus... I can't believe they built a freaking gift shop over there where
Dave R. is floating... what will they think of next. I like the wannabe
guru ejector technology, now *that* is an improvement...<g>.

kentor

[Alana Keres]

In article <6hoidk$m...@argentina.earthlink.net> "DAVE BARNES" <sac...@earthlink.net> writes:

Hmmm. "argentina" eh?

>
>For me Paul Twitchell is a hero. I feel a great deal of empathy when I think

<snippicision>

>
> Did he plagiarize? I could care less. Why? Because he got through a message
>to people like myself that makes it possible to find real meaning and

^^^^^^^^^^^
(Mysti begins to wonder...)

>purpose for all the pain and suffering that happens in our lives. Not
>through theories or some feel good, cosmic rationale fad but by individual,
>direct experience with God. I have not read many books, nor do I plan to.
>Just because a person wrote a book, that a limited, academic minded or
>esoteric crowd will read, does not mean that it will help people like me.

^^^^^^^
(...about the tone she has been noting...)

I
>needed his ability to tie all the loose ends together and to promote it in
>a way that the average guy can understand and get excited about and then be
>able to go forward with on an individual basis. Personally, I would glady
>contribute to a royalty settlement for any author that may have been harmed
>financially; however, if I ever write a spiritual book, it will be for the

(...realizes that it sounds like someone who *wishes* that this
person ['Dave Barnes'] existed...)

>good of helping others. If you or anyone else wants to take my words and

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>slap their names on it, I'm ok with that, provided that it gets the message

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(...then begins to chuckle...)

>out. You see for me, it would be about the message and helping others find
>God and not whether I get the glory or the money or anything else. I suspect
>that the alleged authors that have been wronged, if they are the real deal,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>are of the same mindset as myself.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(...laugh...)

>
>I respectfully agree to disagree with you about Mr.. Paul Twitchell.
>
>Dave Barnes
>www.eckankar.org
>

(...then breaks out into bellychortle...)

Busted, baby! Now take off the mask, put down that spoon before
you hurt yourself with it (being Spoonsman of the Sugmad of course) and
for pity's sake, take *off* the freaking apron. We have enough Saffron in
this dish, thank you very much.

M.

[Ram3Ram]

m writes:

>
>In article <6hoidk$m...@argentina.earthlink.net> "DAVE BARNES"
><sac...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>Hmmm. "argentina" eh?
>
>>
>>For me Paul Twitchell is a hero. I feel a great deal of empathy when I think
>
> <snippicision>

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (...laugh...)

>
>>
> (...then breaks out into bellychortle...)
>
> Busted, baby! Now take off the mask, put down that spoon
before
>you hurt yourself with it (being Spoonsman of the Sugmad of course) and
>for pity's sake, take *off* the freaking apron. We have enough Saffron in
>this dish, thank you very much.
>
>M.

At least Dave Barnes can write an understandable, declarative sentence. And he
presents himself without artifice. When will you do the same for us?

[Jan4litsnd]

MYSTI, while attaching her jade bellybutton ring:

<some snipped>

> (...then breaks out into bellychortle...)

> Busted, baby! Now take off the mask, put down that spoon
before
you hurt yourself with it (being Spoonsman of the Sugmad of course) and
for pity's sake, take *off* the freaking apron. We have enough Saffron in
this dish, thank you very much.

Jan:

I thought that Dave was trying in his own way to express his feelings. At this
stage of his life, he doesn't particularly care too much about what's written
in books, it seems, and he does care quite a lot about the miracle that we have
a chance to participate in via the inner teachings. He believes in the Darshan,
too. And would like to meet Paul. (Listening, Paul?)

He's only interested in the miracles. So what else is more important.
Plagiarism? To each their own, I guess.

(Shoot, just when I vowed to be quiet and good).

Jan

[Alana Keres]

In article <199804240328...@ladder03.news.aol.com> jan4l...@aol.com (Jan4litsnd) writes:
>
>Jan:
>
>I thought that Dave was trying in his own way to express his feelings. At this
>stage of his life, he doesn't particularly care too much about what's written
>in books, it seems, and he does care quite a lot about the miracle that we have
>a chance to participate in via the inner teachings. He believes in the Darshan,
>too. And would like to meet Paul. (Listening, Paul?)

Jan, you are *still* good, just mislead. "Dave" can't express his
own feelings, only those of his Wizard (right, Spoonsman?).

Dear God, what chicanery. Are our vahana efforts *really* reduced
to this?

Yes, "Ram", I too put declarative, straightforward sentences in
the mouths of my creations. Thus:

************************
"For three days I had been holding this line: Kali, the fountain
of craving, held my boy by the hair and the ankle, one fang poised over
his heart. I could feel her seething in his touch, the iron taste
filtered through every caress. I stopped him again and again: 'Renounce
her.' 'I can't,' he replied, breathing against my lips. There was no
going through this gate; if I opened it, She would seize the key and take
both of us hostage. I slowly untangled our limbs, distracted myself by
noting the ratio between heartbeat and breath.
"He looked down at my fingertips on his wrist. 'You're counting,
aren't you?' I nodded. He kissed me again, but this time with no languor,
no enterprise; just the kiss of some small recognition. 'Thank you.'"
***********************

See? Fiction *can be* FUN...

Not*that*jaded...

Penetryst

[Jan4litsnd]

Myst:

>Jan, you are *still* good, just mislead. "Dave" can't express his
own feelings, only those of his Wizard (right, Spoonsman?).

Wow, really???

Jan

[Alana Keres]

Thrice-Ram Riddled:

<< And he
presents himself without artifice. When will you do the same for us?>>

Never.

But only if you're really, *really* good.

"A aged man is a paltry thing
A tattered coat upon a stick
Unless Soul clap its hands and sing
And louder Sing
For every tatter in Its mortal dress.

Nor is there singing school
But studying monuments
of its own magnificence.
Therefore I have sailed the seas and come
To the holy city of Byzantium.

. . .

"Oh sages standing in god's holy fire
as in the gold mosaic of a wall
Stand in the fire
Pern in a gyre
And be the singing masters of my Soul
Consume my heart away
Sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
(it knows not what it is)
and gather me
into the artifice of Eternity."

Willy B. Yeats (by way of Artimyst)

[KMerrymoon]

Kate asked:
>So, what have you invented? Inquiring minds want to know!

DOUG:
Well, let's see, a shock sensor that is powered by the energy of the shock
itself...a sensor that can listen to the sound of breaking glass and
distinguish it from other sounds...a mirror sighting tool used for
alignment...a plastic optical lens pattern for a motion sensor...a smoke
detector that can test itself automatically once a day and tells you when it's
sensitivity is out of range...more smoke detectors that automatically adjust
their sensitivity when they get dirty...a battery saver circuit for fire alarm
systems...a new type of fire sensor that can distinguish flames from smoke and
responds faster to both types of fires...

That covers a bunch of them. Since you asked, I stopped to think of how many
products have been shipped that include these patented inventions. It must be
over 10 Million devices. I'm now working on some internet and interactive voice
systems, as well as some digital video technologies. It's always something new,
which is what makes it interesting.

So what am I typing this message on? A Macintosh Powerbook 170, which was out
of date five years ago (or somewhere back then) when I first bought it. The
last thing I am is a technology geek. It's just fun to work with.

Doug.

[Ram3Ram]

M. wrote:

>
>Thrice-Ram Riddled:
>
><< And he
>presents himself without artifice. When will you do the same for us?>>
>
>
>Never.
>
>But only if you're really, *really* good.

Someone really did a number on you, didn't they?

[Nathan Zafran]

"DAVE BARNES" <sac...@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

Well said. I,too have the greatest respect for the man. In fact, to me
he is one of the greatest spiritual giants of all time, and a truly
remarkable Eck Master at this time, as so many members (and
non-members, as well) of Eckankar continue to testify, as he appesrs
to them in dreams, soul travel, contemplation, and fairly frequently,
in physical body manifestations.

He was a great compiler, but, more important, he wove all the writings
from the thousands of books he was able to absorb in a few short
years, and blended it perfectly with the ancient energy that he was
able to channel, the energy of the path which is the inner teachings
of Eckankar, that which goes back millions of years, long before the
modern foundation of Eckankar in 1965.

That job, in bringing out the ancient teachings the way he did, was so
awesome, that few people, including Eckists, really understand or
appreciate it. The result is, after only 30 years or so, the highest
vibration teaching on the planet.

In the Light and Sound of Eck,

Nathan

[Alana Keres]

Of course, darling. And she has my undying gratitude...

But really, aren't you obfuscating? trying to distract yourself
from how easily "DB" slipped it to *you*? And Zuma must be hailing Mary
on all available frequencies. He fell for the faux sweetvictimlambiechela
even harder than you did.

"You got to tighten up
Tighten up now..."

Archie Bell and the Drells

[KMerrymoon]

Joe Wrote:
>Doug, I've read hundreds of books on spiritual topics. Many thousands remain
>that I haven't read. For the most part, the charge of plagiarism just doesn't
>come up, even with all the similarities that exist in spiritual teachings. In
>other words, it's remarkable that with all the thousands and thousands of
>"spiritual books" out there, you rarely hear "plagiarist!" yelled out at
>anyone.

DOUG:
Joe, I think you may have missed what I was asking. However, in response to
what you wrote above, I guess we've read very different books. I've run across
charges of plagiarism quite frequently. Especially the older texts, which I've
read a lot of. I think this is because basically plagiarism is a new issue,
based upon the desire to make money from the written word. While most writing
in the past was not a very profitable matter. The newer writers don't do as
much of it, however.

JOE:

>I found the
>two recent posts by karaholly to be quite contradictory: one intimating that
>Paul obtained info for the eck teachings from an astral library, the other
>maintaining the Paul "compiled" the teachings from all over the world.

DOUG:
This is what I was asking you about. What I was trying to point out was that
when I read Harold's quote, it does not sound to me at all as if Harold was
trying to give an excuse for Paul's plagiarism. On the contrary, I thought what
Harold was doing was pointing out not only that Paul did copy from others, but
that he personally confronted Paul about it on the inner, and Harold realized
that he would have to set the record straight. Which is why he gave that talk.

But for some reason David Lane interpreted this exactly the opposite to the way
I've read it, and then others have since seen it the same way as David. What I
was asking you, was if you could read why I've interpreted it one way, and then
go back and re-read the quote to see if you still felt that Harold was trying
to offer up an excuse for Paul.

JOE:

> Even if
>he pulled the eck writings from astral plane libraries, his lack of foresight
>on the problems this would later cause his chelas casts serious doubt on his
>"mastership."

DOUG:
Now, come on, Joe, you've got plenty of perfectly good arguments. Why would you
throw something out like this? Does this mean we should say that Jesus was not
a very good savior because he should have seen how his name was going to be
used by Jim Jones and his Koolaide Acid Test in Guyana?

Quite frankly I think that Paul did realize the problems it was going to
create. He also knew it wasn't going to be his problem to clean up.

JOE:

>Even if he "compiled" the teachings from books and teachers from
>around the world, his lack of citing sources was unethical, and casts more
>doubt on him--and on the legitimacy of "eckankar" as a unique, ancient
>teaching.

DOUG:
Now that's better.

JOE:

>To clean up the "mess," Harold offers mystical explanations. Really, he
hasn't
>cleaned up anything, he just offered excuses for Paul's plagiarism. To me,
>this only compounds the unethical nature of what Paul did.

DOUG:
Joe, this is where I think you're mistaken. But I'm not really sure. I just
think that Harold was not suggesting anything mystical at all. Nor was he
suggesting that Paul should be excused. That's the question I was posing to
you. If Harold was really suggesting what you say he was, then why did Harold
say "Thanks a lot" to Paul for leaving the mess behind? That doesn't make sense
to me.

JOE:

>It may be that's how it worked with Paul. Still, he should have cited his
>physical sources accordingly. There just isn't any good reason for his not
>having done so.

DOUG:
Certainly no good reason that we would care for. But then that was Paul, going
on and doing what he wanted. He certainly wasn't one who cared much for social
etiquette or the rules and regulations of modern business. Not that I could
see, that is. Not surprising that so many of us would find it unsettling.

JOE:

>You have a number of inventions to your name Doug. Do you consider the
>standards and proceedures of the patent office fair in protecting your work?

DOUG:
It's really quite humorous to see how the process works. I would not use the
work fair, that's for sure. It just is the way it is. It's a lot stranger than
you might think.

JOE:

>If I came along and stole the ideas of one of your patents, claiming that I
saw
>the idea on the inner before you did, how many people would take me seriously?

>Would you take me seriously? Would you think my claim ethical?

DOUG:
People don't make claims about seeing these things on the inner too often, but
I've heard just about every other type of excuse. The most common one is, "Oh
well, that idea was obvious." Any really good idea seems quite simple after we
hear about it. But it really never comes down to who thought the idea up first,
a patent in based upon who applied for the patent first and put it into
practice first. You can't patent an idea.

And this whole patent subject is not a matter of ethics at all. It simply is
the way the rules of the game are set out to help promote invention, since
invention is one of the few things that truly increase the wealth of a nation,
by making existing resources more useful.

JOE:

>It turns out that I could make use of your patent perhaps, but I'd have to
give
>you appropriate credit for it.

DOUG:
It's not a matter of credit when it comes to patents. The government grants
patents for the purpose of encouraging inventors to make their invention
public. In exchange the government grants a temporary monopoly on the use of
that invention. So you would need to get the patent holder's permission to use
it. Same with copyrights.

On the other hand, people copy and use other people's patents all the time. I
see it extremely frequently. Sometimes they do it out of ignorance, but quite
often they do it because they think they can get away with it.

Joe, these are really only business matters, not spiritual ethics at all. If
someone uses one of my patents in a field that is totally outside of where our
company uses it, we will probably just leave them alone. Why try to stop them,
or spend the money on lawyers to try collecting royalties? That is usually a
waste of time, unless they are using it to take away your own company's
business. These are just business matters.

Copyrights are similar. They were actually originally created to protect the
publisher, not the author, since it was the publisher who had to spend a great
deal of money back then to print and distribute a book or magazine. If a book
became popular, they wanted to reap the rewards for the risks and the
investment that they made.

Like I've said before, I'm not surprised that David Lane would see this matter
in a very different light, since plagiarism is a very different matter to
scholars. This is largely because so much of their reputation is based upon
publishing original ideas and concepts, and also because so much of their
published material is based upon the research of others before them. So, for
them, giving credit is a professional ethical way of honoring each other's
contribution. And they do this so that they will be honored when their work is
recited, in turn.

I'm not trying to offer any excuses for Paul, or what he did. I can't think of
any reason why I would want to do that. I just don't really think the copyright
matter is the real issue. I think it is more the fact that many people who read
what Paul wrote were led to see Paul and his teachings in a certain way, which
they came to discover was not true. They feel misled and deceived.

Lots of these battles back and forth sound to me a lot like the battles that
take place after a divorce. The two sides are so sure the other side took
advantage of them, lied to them, let them down, and they have all sort of
stories to justify their point of view. But when you like both people, and they
are both your friends, you do the best you can to listen to what they have to
say, knowing that this is very important to them, but you also really don't
want to get caught up in the middle of what they are trying to do to each
other.

Paul really wasn't nearly as bad as David Lane has tried to paint him. On the
other hand, he wasn't the perfect saint that others want us to believe either.
I still see him as a very inspiring and creative individual, who awoke the
desire and love for spiritual experience and individual discovery in many. Sure
he wasn't perfect. But do we really have to crucify him? Haven't we already
done that before, like 2000 years ago?

But now there I've gone and gotten myself in the middle of this endless
argument. And so I'm now due to be lambasted by the married couples who are
still karmically involved with each other, so they can't stop fighting.

JOE:

>Paul gave credit to virtually no one in all his writings!

DOUG:
But Joe, didn't Paul humbly give all the credit to Rebazar Tarzs? <ggg>

Your friend,

Doug.

[Ken]

Jan4litsnd <jan4l...@aol.com> wrote ...
:
: Myst:

: >Jan, you are *still* good, just mislead. "Dave" can't express his
: own feelings, only those of his Wizard (right, Spoonsman?).
:
:
: Wow, really???

Hey, if Dave Barns is Nathan ... well if he is, then Nathan oughta 'fess up!
How about it Mr. Zafran?

Of course, if Dave is "real", then Myst owes him an apology. (THAT oughta be
good <ggg>).

Maybe I'll get me a fictional persona too. Looks like fun.

Ken

[Ram3Ram]

M. wrote:

>
>In article <199804240542...@ladder01.news.aol.com> ram...@aol.com
>(Ram3Ram) writes:
>>M. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Thrice-Ram Riddled:
>>>
>>><< And he
>>>presents himself without artifice. When will you do the same for us?>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Never.
>>>
>>>But only if you're really, *really* good.
>>
>>Someone really did a number on you, didn't they?
>
>
> Of course, darling. And she has my undying gratitude...
>
> But really, aren't you obfuscating? trying to distract yourself
>from how easily "DB" slipped it to *you*? And Zuma must be hailing Mary
>on all available frequencies. He fell for the faux sweetvictimlambiechela
>even harder than you did.
>

Witness Pickett in drag.

>
>
>"You got to tighten up
>Tighten up now..."

Ughhch . . .

[Zaz9 13]

>al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana Keres) wrote:

>snip

>Jan, you are *still* good, just mislead. "Dave" can't express his<BR>
>own feelings, only those of his Wizard (right, Spoonsman?). <BR>
><BR>
> Dear God, what chicanery. Are our vahana efforts *really* reduced<BR>

It seems all is fair in love and missionary zeal. <g> Even if they are called
vahana efforts they are the same actions as the mormons or jehovah witnesses (
or any other) going door to door or on tv, etc. to "save" some ill-informed
souls from them selves.
And is Dave Barnes really fiction? Nathan said in another post he meet him at
the springtime seminar. You don't suppose he was sitting with Fubbi, Gopal or
Rebazar, do you? <g>
z&z

p.s. there are over 20 DB's listed in california but none with the email
address from earthlink.

[Ram3Ram]

Doug wrote:

snip

>JOE:
>>I found the
>>two recent posts by karaholly to be quite contradictory: one intimating
>that
>>Paul obtained info for the eck teachings from an astral library, the other
>>maintaining the Paul "compiled" the teachings from all over the world.
>
>DOUG:
>This is what I was asking you about. What I was trying to point out was that
>when I read Harold's quote, it does not sound to me at all as if Harold was
>trying to give an excuse for Paul's plagiarism. On the contrary, I thought
>what
>Harold was doing was pointing out not only that Paul did copy from others,
>but
>that he personally confronted Paul about it on the inner, and Harold realized
>that he would have to set the record straight. Which is why he gave that
>talk.
>
>But for some reason David Lane interpreted this exactly the opposite to the
>way
>I've read it, and then others have since seen it the same way as David. What
>I
>was asking you, was if you could read why I've interpreted it one way, and
>then
>go back and re-read the quote to see if you still felt that Harold was trying
>to offer up an excuse for Paul.

I don't know exactly how David Lane or anyone else has interpreted HK's quotes.
But as I see it, our differences come down to this:

You begin your interpretation with an a priori assumption -- that Twitchell DID
have some kind of inner access to astral libraries, a spiritual mission to
fulfill, a link with HK on the inner planes, etc. In other words, you assume
from the beginning that Twitchell was exactly who he said he was -- an "eck
master" adept with a divine yet rationally-elusive project on his hands.

My position is that such an assumption is not a good way to investigate the
claims of a self-professed "messia." I'd rather begin with what we can really
know about a person, not from what they claim about themselves.

As far as the charges of plagiarism go, Twitchell is guilty. If Klemp wants to
rectify Twitchell's wrongs, he should give credit where it is due, e.g., tell
the eck membership they owe Julian Johnson some thanks for introducing
Twitchell to HU. Klemp should set an example by simply making amends to those
that Twitchell "borrowed" from, by at least acknowleding the sources.

But Klemp won't do this. Rather, he offers up excuse after excuse for
Twitchell, and all these excuses have one thing in common: they all
unquestioningly begin with the assumption that Twitchell WAS the future eck
master in training, on a mission, and thus everything "wrong" that Twitchell
did was mystically "necessary" for God's Work.

But of course all this begs the question: Is it wrong to plagiarize? Yes.
Mystical explanations aside, what was the most evident reason for Twitchell to
plagiarize?: To start a new religion as quickly as possible, to establish
authority for himself as the Vi-guru, and to sever all ties to other religions
so as to establish the elite uniqueness of his own.

IMO, this is the place to start from in evaluating Twitchell's writings. You
and others have pointed out that you find great value in these writings -- but
simply because you do doesn't necessarily legitimize the man Paul Twitchell and
his plagiarism.

To offer a crude example (you're gonna love this!) Lots of people on death row
find Jesus and Salvation -- but they're still guilty and must "pay for what
they did." They aren't "found innocent" by virtue of their inner conversion!

>JOE:
>> Even if
>>he pulled the eck writings from astral plane libraries, his lack of
>foresight
>>on the problems this would later cause his chelas casts serious doubt on his
>>"mastership."
>
>DOUG:
>Now, come on, Joe, you've got plenty of perfectly good arguments. Why would
>you
>throw something out like this? Does this mean we should say that Jesus was
>not
>a very good savior because he should have seen how his name was going to be
>used by Jim Jones and his Koolaide Acid Test in Guyana?

Not a good analogy Doug.

Paul had all the time in the world to come clean about his plagiarism. He
could have done it in one afternoon, writing a letter to the eck membership,
telling everyone which authors' works he either copied or appropriated.

But somehow he never found the time.

Seems to me, from all available evidence minus mystic explanations, that he
DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW ABOUT HIS PLAGIARISM!

If he had a mystic explanation for it, he could have at least offered that to
the membership. BUT HE DIDN'T! He was . . . too busy? But he had plenty of
time to write about space aliens and moon virus' and such?

>
>Quite frankly I think that Paul did realize the problems it was going to
>create. He also knew it wasn't going to be his problem to clean up.

Kinda the story of his life.

>
>JOE:
>>To clean up the "mess," Harold offers mystical explanations. Really, he
>hasn't
>>cleaned up anything, he just offered excuses for Paul's plagiarism. To me,
>>this only compounds the unethical nature of what Paul did.
>
>DOUG:
>Joe, this is where I think you're mistaken. But I'm not really sure. I just
>think that Harold was not suggesting anything mystical at all.

HK meets Paul at an astral plane library? Not mystical?

Nor was he
>suggesting that Paul should be excused. That's the question I was posing to
>you. If Harold was really suggesting what you say he was, then why did Harold
>say "Thanks a lot" to Paul for leaving the mess behind? That doesn't make
>sense
>to me.

Yes, the story is very ambiguous. Like some others I've read where HK sees
Twitchell on the inner. They never actually have a real conversation, since
Paul is still so very busy! Too busy to talk! <gg> Too busy to sit down for a
minute and explain to the current mahanta about one of the most crucial issues
facing eckankar. When will Paul be able to spare a minute from his busy
schedule to clear this whole matter up?

>JOE:
>>It may be that's how it worked with Paul. Still, he should have cited his
>>physical sources accordingly. There just isn't any good reason for his not
>>having done so.
>
>DOUG:
>Certainly no good reason that we would care for. But then that was Paul,
>going
>on and doing what he wanted. He certainly wasn't one who cared much for
>social
>etiquette or the rules and regulations of modern business. Not that I could
>see, that is. Not surprising that so many of us would find it unsettling.

Particularly since he was the mahanta, the living eck master?

>snip

>I'm not trying to offer any excuses for Paul, or what he did. I can't think
>of
>any reason why I would want to do that. I just don't really think the
>copyright
>matter is the real issue. I think it is more the fact that many people who
>read
>what Paul wrote were led to see Paul and his teachings in a certain way,
>which
>they came to discover was not true. They feel misled and deceived.

I agree. This is the heart of the issue.

>Paul really wasn't nearly as bad as David Lane has tried to paint him. On the
>other hand, he wasn't the perfect saint that others want us to believe
>either.
>I still see him as a very inspiring and creative individual, who awoke the
>desire and love for spiritual experience and individual discovery in many.
>Sure
>he wasn't perfect. But do we really have to crucify him? Haven't we already
>done that before, like 2000 years ago?

I'm not sure that I or anyone else want to "crucify" Twitchell, either
figuratively or literally! I never knew Paul personally. Quite frankly I have
to agree with Steiger - he is an enigma! But not always the charming enigma,
sometimes a very disturbing one.

I'm not for people finding Jesus Now, or hopping the first flight to Beas or
anywhere else. Let eckankar be a positive force in people's lives who find the
positive in it. But I think it can be that to a greater degree if the cultic
nonsense is stripped away. With that gone, all the fear and paranoia will fall
away, and people like Nathan will have to find something else to do.

I like what you've written (up to a point) about the value of Twitchell's point
of view on spirituality, especially how "eck masters" are inner spiritual
archetypes that are a part of us (that was in a distant post). But you and
eckankar lose me in claiming objective reality for these eck masters. Anyway,
to be brief I think eckankar is a mixed bag, like a lot of other religions.
The good things about eckankar, like spiritual experiences through meditation,
are very fine and good indeed.

I lose patience though when these experiences are used to validate countless
articles of eckankar faith that fly in the face of common sense. To cite one
example: Klemp's apologetics for Twitchell's plagiarism.

Joe O

[Alana Keres]

In article <01bd6f7b$79a726a0$LocalHost@default> "Ken" <kens...@erols.com> writes:
>
>Hey, if Dave Barns is Nathan ... well if he is, then Nathan oughta 'fess up!
>How about it Mr. Zafran?
>
>Of course, if Dave is "real", then Myst owes him an apology. (THAT oughta be
>good <ggg>).
>
>Maybe I'll get me a fictional persona too. Looks like fun.
>

Oh, most definitely. And pray tell, why would I owe anyone an
apology. Why, some of my closest friends are incorrible scoundrels,
though for stylistic reasons, Nathan isn't among them.

Today I was reading my favorite hagiography of the consort of Sri
Padmasambhava (the tibetan rootguru of the Nygingmapa tradition...). Her
name was Yeshe Tsyogal. She did all the big Jesus-tricks, the
Milarepazoid miracles, minor & major, initiated thousands of people, was a
living incarnate of what we would call the 'Golden Tongue', and wound up
dissolving her physical body into first rainbow, then pure light. On her
deathbed, her fanclub around her, she had this to say about herself:

"Tell them that this incorrigible woman,
this wanton, uninhibited woman,
This woman has achieved the impossible nine times over.
Tell them that this Daughter of Tibet, unloveable spinster,
is Queen of absolute, open Being.
Tell them this woman, overextended in vanity and deceit,
Is successful in her final deceit, and gone to the Pure Land.
Tell them this passionate woman, repeatedly fallen in her maze of
intrigue,
Through intrigue has vanished into the sphere of inner space.

Tell them that this widow of Tibet, rejected by men everywhere
Has captured the state of Buddhahood!"

You see what company we keep...

So what's a little deception among the incorrigible. I just wish
his fictions weren't so *pious*. (Guffah.)

M.

[zep...@connectexpress.com]

In article <199804240519...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
>
> Kate asked:
> >So, what have you invented? Inquiring minds want to know!
>
> DOUG:
> Well, let's see, a shock sensor that is powered by the energy of the shock
> itself...a sensor that can listen to the sound of breaking glass and
> distinguish it from other sounds...a mirror sighting tool used for
> alignment...a plastic optical lens pattern for a motion sensor...a smoke
> detector that can test itself automatically once a day and tells you when
it's
> sensitivity is out of range...more smoke detectors that automatically adjust

> their sensitivity when they get dirty <snip>

Hey, you know what we *really* need? A smoke detector that can
tell burning toast from a real fire. I'm serious -- lots of people
disconnect their smoke detectors because they're so damned irritating,
going off at the slightest whiff of anything. The noise hurts their
ears, and they stand there flailing at it with a broom or something
until they just get sick of it and take the battery out. And then,
if there's a real fire, the smoke detector isn't working.

Kate

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Alana Keres]

Sorry about the forgotten question marks... as in "why would I owe anyone
an apology'?'"

And this...

"Today I was reading my favorite hagiography of the consort of Sri

Padmasambhava (the tibetan rootguru of the Nygingmapa tradition...)...."

I always forget that Padma was Indian (though possibly Bengali)--NOT
Tibetan. His major consorts were Tibetan & Nepalese, and he is so
important to that area that I have a hard time conceding a non-Tibetan
origin.

M. (one of those semi-academi types so N'gated around here...)

[Ken]

Alana Keres <al...@actlab.utexas.edu> wrote ...
:
: "Tell them that this incorrigible woman,

: this wanton, uninhibited woman,
: This woman has achieved the impossible nine times over.
: Tell them that this Daughter of Tibet, unloveable spinster,
: is Queen of absolute, open Being.
: Tell them this woman, overextended in vanity and deceit,
: Is successful in her final deceit, and gone to the Pure Land.
: Tell them this passionate woman, repeatedly fallen in her maze of
: intrigue,
: Through intrigue has vanished into the sphere of inner space.
:
: Tell them that this widow of Tibet, rejected by men everywhere
: Has captured the state of Buddhahood!"

Nice. Made my heart smile <g>.

Ken

[DAVE BARNES]

Dear Mr. Lane,

I have been to your website and read much of the material there. I
understand that Eckankar is not for you and respect your freedom of choice.
Whenever I read or listen to someone who is anti anything I often wonder
just what does that person believe is good or has value.

Are you a religious person? What religion do you practice? What values and
tenets of your religion of choice do you like the most? What would be a good
choice specifically for most people in terms of their religion?

Do you suffer as I do with the delusion that the New York Knicks will win
the championship this year? Or does a person that lives in California have
similar hopes of the Lakers winning it all? :)

Sincerely,

Dave Barnes

[DAVE BARNES]

Zuma said:

>You are a pure spirit. Even tho' I am not a fan of Eckankar, I am deeply
>moved by your honesty. All I can say is good luck...and if you ever find
>that Eckankar does not meet your needs, you can write to me anytime, and
>ask about the healing powers of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Zuma

Dear Zuma,

Regardless of one's religious beliefs, it is probably times like these when
we can feel the love of God the most.

Sincere thanks,

Dave

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <6hrqqj$1...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:

> Twitchell claims that Rebazar Tarzs talked to him directly (snip)
>
> Twitchell benefits and he benefits by lying. (snip)
>
>
> Why can't Twitchell be upfront and clear and straight with his
> reading audience?
>

Dave . . .

He's dead Dave.

He died 26 years ago.

You benefit more from his faults now than he currently does:)

He's gone;)

You're still here.

Glen

--

[Rich]

Ram3Ram wrote:

> You begin your interpretation with an a priori assumption -- that Twitchell DID
> have some kind of inner access to astral libraries, a spiritual mission to
> fulfill, a link with HK on the inner planes, etc. In other words, you assume
> from the beginning that Twitchell was exactly who he said he was -- an "eck
> master" adept with a divine yet rationally-elusive project on his hands.

And you assume that Doug and many Eckists are assuming this about Paul
Twitchell, when they are not. Many people had direct personal, outer
and inner experiences with Paul which meant that they had to assume
nothing. They see him for what he was, a man who had mastered Eck and
the art of Soul Travel.

--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Ram3Ram]

Glen wrote:

Twitchell gone??

Klemp reports seeing him all the time on the inner planes! Just read his
stories..

According to Nathan, eck masters like Gopal Das have materialized thousands of
times. Why not Paul? Wasn't there a report that someone saw him "in the
flesh" right after his "death"?

Paul can easily come back any time he wants to. And Paul'll be back someday to
straighten out the loose ends. This is all a test to see who the real eckists
are.

MAHA !

[Nathan Zafran]

ram...@aol.com (Ram3Ram) wrote:

>According to Nathan, eck masters like Gopal Das have materialized thousands of
>times. Why not Paul? Wasn't there a report that someone saw him "in the
>flesh" right after his "death"?

>Paul can easily come back any time he wants to. And Paul'll be back someday to
>straighten out the loose ends. This is all a test to see who the real eckists
>are.

There have been many reports that I have personally heard from people
in person, as well as dozens of written testimonials in the Eckankar
journal and other publications of a physical manifestation by Paul
Twitchell, including several stories I heard at the latest seminar in
San Francisco a few weeks ago.

In Eck,

Nathan

[Ram3Ram]

Master Nate wrote:

>
>ram...@aol.com (Ram3Ram) wrote:
>
>
>>According to Nathan, eck masters like Gopal Das have materialized thousands
>of
>>times. Why not Paul? Wasn't there a report that someone saw him "in the
>>flesh" right after his "death"?
>
>>Paul can easily come back any time he wants to. And Paul'll be back someday
>to
>>straighten out the loose ends. This is all a test to see who the real
>eckists
>>are.
>
>There have been many reports that I have personally heard from people
>in person,

"personally heard from people in person"?

Do you work for the Federal government perchance?

as well as dozens of written testimonials in the Eckankar
>journal and other publications of a physical manifestation by Paul
>Twitchell, including several stories I heard at the latest seminar in
>San Francisco a few weeks ago.

This is good news. I'll call Dave and we'll schedule a debate so that Paul can
clear his name and explain a few things. Maybe the Forum in Inglewood would be
a good setting . . . but then there's the Hollywood Bowl which is nice in the
summer . . .

Let us know if Peddar will materialize on stage. We'll adjust ticket prices
accordingly.

THE MAHA VAHANA!
>
>In Eck,
>
>Nathan
>

[KMerrymoon]

Kate Wrote:
>Hey, you know what we *really* need? A smoke detector that can
>tell burning toast from a real fire. I'm serious -- lots of people
>disconnect their smoke detectors because they're so damned irritating,
>going off at the slightest whiff of anything. The noise hurts their
>ears, and they stand there flailing at it with a broom or something
>until they just get sick of it and take the battery out. And then,
>if there's a real fire, the smoke detector isn't working.

DOUG:
Over 30% of all smoke detectors in homes don't work. The number one reason is
that someone has disconnected them because of nuisance alarms. Yeah, it's a big
problem.

But there's already a much better solution. You probably have an Ionization
Type smoke detector. They are cheap, and the most common around. But if you get
a good quality Photoelectric Type smoke detector, you will find that it is far
less sensitive to burned toast. Also, it will be far faster in responding to
smoldering fires, which are responsible for about 75% of fire deaths in homes.
Consumer Reports has recommended this as well. Most smoke detectors installed
in commercial fire systems, or attached to home security systems, are
Photoelectric types.

The Photoelectric type smoke detector still goes into alarm occasionally to
cooking fumes, but it's much better. However, we're still developing new
technologies to solve this problem. We have some things we think will go a
long way toward completely solving this issue, but they're still a few years
away from production.

This message comes to you from

FIREMAN DOUG

[Ram3Ram]

Rich wrote:

>
>Ram3Ram wrote:
>
>> You begin your interpretation with an a priori assumption -- that Twitchell
>DID
>> have some kind of inner access to astral libraries, a spiritual mission to
>> fulfill, a link with HK on the inner planes, etc. In other words, you
>assume
>> from the beginning that Twitchell was exactly who he said he was -- an "eck
>> master" adept with a divine yet rationally-elusive project on his hands.
>
>And you assume that Doug and many Eckists are assuming this about Paul
>Twitchell, when they are not. Many people had direct personal, outer
>and inner experiences with Paul which meant that they had to assume
>nothing. They see him for what he was, a man who had mastered Eck and
>the art of Soul Travel.

When so much of the "outer experience" of Paul was clearly deceptive (his books
and lectures), why do you put your faith in the "inner experience" as an
all-purpose justification for Paul's deceptions? You do in fact assume all
kinds of things about Twitchell and "what he was." Just because you
experienced . . . well, what did you experience?

The other day I was reading a book by Gandhi. He comments:

"I had discovered that simple people deluded themselves into the belief that I
appeared to them in their distress. I wanted to remove the superstition. I
knew that I appeared to nobody. It was pure hallucination for them to rely
upon a frail mortal." (Ramanama p.8)

People see things. People see Twitchell perhaps. It doesn't change what
Twitchell did.

To suggest that eckists DON'T assume is pretty naive. Even Klemp knows this,
as did Twitchell and even Gross! Why else all the ek talks, the discourses,
the satsangs, the books? All to steer the eck chela in the "right" direction!
Spiritual experience in eckankar is all-sufficient to enable one to KNOW . .
.really?

So Klemp has written stuff like "Master Compiler" and the other one about the
astral library . . . why the second hand spiritual experience? Even Doug, a
seasoned soul traveller, didn't know what to make of them. I pointed out that
he assumed from the git go Klemp's perspective on Twitchell -- that he was an
eck master on a mission.

This is what a lot of eckists do to explain the "unexplainable" (or rather the
unsavory) aspects of eckankar. By a circular route they start out from, and
end at, the same assumption: that Twitchell was the mahanta, the living eck
master. Why did he lie? Because he was the mahanta, the lem. Why did he
plagiarize? He was the mahanta, the lem, and he was in a hurry / copied stuff
from astral library / compiled stuff from musty books without copyrights / is
testing us / it wasn't his choice, but part of his mission / is teaching us a
spiritual lesson about how no one owns the spirit and the words of spirit /
etc. But in any case Twitchell was the mahanta, the lem, and way beyond us
spiritually, so whatever he did is perfectly cool on some (high, and therefore
overriding) level.

Klemp certainly encourages the "pre-authenticating" point of view in all his
stories about Twitchell. If there are eckists who truly are beyond assuming,
it's no thanks to Klemp.

[Nathan Zafran]

ram...@aol.com (Ram3Ram) wrote:

>Let us know if Peddar will materialize on stage. We'll adjust ticket prices
>accordingly.

This is why I don't waste my time carrying on dialogues with
detractors.

In Eck,

Nathan

[DAVE BARNES]

>MR. BARNES CONTINUES:

>
>Are you a religious person?
>

>DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
>I am not entirely sure what you mean by "religious"..... but I will
>say I was brought up Roman Catholic and eventually took initiation
>from the late Charan Singh of Radhasoami Satsang Beas.
>
>If I translate "religious" as a person who feels a sense of the mystery
>or the numinous (or, more simply, "alive!"), then clearly I am quite
>religious.
>
>Indeed, even the most hardcore atheist (given the previous definiton)
>could be defined as religious in the this sense.
>
>Einstein, who was more or less a practical atheist (he didn't think
>there was a Theistic god and he didn't believe in life after death),
>was religious in this sense: a feeling of wonder that permeated his
>being.
>
>But if you mean by religious someone who follows a certain dogma or
>doctrine, then my response is a bit more confused.
>
>I have often called myself an agnostic/mystical/materialist (or any
>combination thereof), which in more simple terms means:
>
but I like to learn more in my unknowingness.
>

Dear Dr. Lane,

One of the sadnesses for me is that very often when institutions and leaders are attempted to be
discredited, the people doing the discrediting leave us with nothing to replace what they have
sometimes spent lifetimes trying to discredit. I am disapointed that a person who has spent so
much time and expertise researching different religions has never found one in all his studies
worth recommending. Through all your research you have never found one whose practice or
membership you would personally ascribe to or publically recommend?
>------------------------------------

>
>DAVID BARNES WRITES:
>
>What religion do you practice?
>

>DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
>Again, like your question concerning religious it depends upon how you
>define your terms.
>
>I don't practice any formal religion, per se, even though I was brought
>up Catholic and aligned with Sant Mat.
>
>If I had to define my spiritual path it would be this:
>
>I have a deep longing and love for my old and deceased friend.

>
>
>DAVID BARNES WRITES:
>
>What values and tenets of your religion of choice do you like the most?
>

>DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
>Since I don't follow any formal religion, per se, and since I am a
>rather unorthodox follower of my deceased guru, I don't know exactly
>how to answer your question since it naturally necessiates an a priori
>understanding of how you define such terms.

Simply, what religion do you have a membership with? What religion do you donate your time and or
money to? What religion would you recommend to a friend if they asked? This is what I meant by
religion, religious etc.
>
>But let me at least say this:
>
>I highly value thinking critically and clearly for one's self.
>
>I highly value the release (versus the concealment) of pertinent
>information.
>
>I deeply enjoy critical exchange and learning more.
>
>hope this helps a bit.

Yes, thank you.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------

>
>DAVID BARNES WRITES:
>
> What would be a good

>Choice specifically for most people in terms of their religion?
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
>Hopefully, before anyone makes such a choice they have as much information
>as possible so that they know exactly what they are getting into before
>they take the plunge.
>
>
>thanks for your questions and say hi to Nathan if you know him.

Thanks for responding! I have never met Mr. Nathan Zafran. Maybe I will meet him at the Eckankar
Philadelphia seminar June 26, 27 and 28.

Dave Barnes
http://www.eckankar.org

[Rich]

Ram3Ram wrote:

> Rich wrote:
>
> >you assume that Doug and many Eckists are assuming this about Paul
> >Twitchell, when they are not. Many people had direct personal, outer
> >and inner experiences with Paul which meant that they had to assume
> >nothing. They see him for what he was, a man who had mastered Eck and
> >the art of Soul Travel.
>
> When so much of the "outer experience" of Paul was clearly deceptive (his books
> and lectures), why do you put your faith in the "inner experience" as an
> all-purpose justification for Paul's deceptions?

You missed my meaning. I was talking about the experience of being in
his physical presence, speaking and listening to him, actually
witnessing the characteristics of the man, one who had mastered the Eck,
and of experiencing the Darshan.

You also missed the point that there is no faith or assumption required
when inner experience, with or without the outer, proves the reality of
it to an individual. Of course this proves nothing to you and it is not
intended to. It is erroneous thinking on your part to try and link this
to my justifying anything. I made no excuses and was only speaking of
recognizing the spiritual force in Paul Twitchell. Just because you
have not seen the divine spark in him does not negate others
experiences.

> You do in fact assume all kinds of things about Twitchell and "what he was.

I do? What would those things be?

> Just because you experienced . . . well, what did you experience?

>From the very first time he looked into my eyes, I *knew* that this man
saw me as Soul, a reality that I barely understood at that time. My
interactions with him were more than enough to prove to myself, many
times over, what he represented. After his death I had a few
astounding inner experiences with him.

> To suggest that eckists DON'T assume is pretty naive.

It's pretty naive of you assume that the readers here can't see that I
did not suggest this. Of course everyone assumes some things but that
was not my point.

> So Klemp has written stuff like "Master Compiler" and the other one

> about the astral library . . .why the second hand spiritual experience?

> Even Doug, a seasoned soul traveller, didn't know what to make of them.

He did know what to make of them and he clearly explained it to you,
twice.

> I pointed out that he assumed from the git go Klemp's
> perspective on Twitchell -- that he was an eck master on a mission.

And again I ask why you assume that Doug assumed anything, rather than
based his perspective on personal factual experience with Paul
Twitchell?

> [Eckists] By a circular route they start out from, and

> end at, the same assumption: that Twitchell was the mahanta, the
> living eck master.

By a circular route you have avoided my point. For _some_ Eckists,
proof has been supplied and there is no more assumption.

> Klemp certainly encourages the "pre-authenticating" point of view in all his
> stories about Twitchell.

Sure, why not. Having mastered Soul Travel, Harold does not need to
assume anything about Paul. It also does not matter _when_ one has
recognized Paul's authenticity, only that they have sufficient proof.
It also doesn't matter if one does not recognize Paul as a Master. He's
dead. The current Living Eck Master has the ability to prove his own
authenticity.

[Alana Keres]

<<
Thanks for responding! I have never met Mr. Nathan Zafran. Maybe I will
meet him
at the Eckankar
Philadelphia seminar June 26, 27 and 28.
>>

Better get your stories straight, boys. Nathan has "met" DB in San
Francisco, but "Dave" has never met Nathan. Awrighty...

[Alana Keres]

[Nathan Zafran]

dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:

>But let me at least say this:

>I highly value thinking critically and clearly for one's self.

>I highly value the release (versus the concealment) of pertinent
>information.

>I deeply enjoy critical exchange and learning more.

The joke of the century. 3 outright lies. Especially the second one.
What can you expect from a heavily biased and unethical writer?

In Eck,

Nathan

[Nathan Zafran]

al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana Keres) wrote:

>Better get your stories straight, boys. Nathan has "met" DB in San
>Francisco, but "Dave" has never met Nathan.

Incorrect. I have never met Dave.

Nathan

[DAVE BARNES]

>>Better get your stories straight, boys. Nathan has "met" DB in San
>>Francisco, but "Dave" has never met Nathan.

Nathan said:

>Incorrect. I have never met Dave.

Nathan and I have never met. I hope to meet him at the Eck Seminar in Philadelphia on June 26, 27
and 28. In an earlier post, Nathan had indicated that he had met an Eckist named David. Not me. I
love my name but it is very common. There are many Daves and Davids as we all know. :)

Dave Barnes
http://www.eckankar.org

[cinder]

>Nathan said:
>
>>Incorrect. I have never met Dave.

Dave says:

>Nathan and I have never met. I hope to meet him at the Eck Seminar in
Philadelphia on June 26, 27 and 28. In an earlier post, Nathan had indicated
that he had met an Eckist named David. Not me. I love my name but it is very
common. There are many Daves and Davids as we all know.

I predict that the two of you will get along very well... I'll wave as I go
by...

csk

[charles_sedgewick_kesey]

In article <6hvd05$khq$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, al...@actlab.utexas.edu says...

>
>(Zaz9 13) writes:
>
>>And is Dave Barnes really fiction? Nathan said in another post he meet him

at he springtime seminar. You don't suppose he was sitting with Fubbi,

Gopal or Rebazar, do you? <g>
>>z&z
>>

Stylistic analysis reveals that Dave Barnes is Kent "I'm ok with that"
Livingston.

Subject: Re: Nathan's Zafran's Perceptual Grin(d)lines
From: eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran)
Date: 1998/04/18
Message-ID: <s1YZ.70$8C3.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar

[Subscribe to alt.religion.eckankar]
[More Headers]

zep...@connectexpress.com wrote:

>Hm-m-m, first you say, "To reply to an earlier thread about
>independent thinking, I find that ECK has allowed me to shed most
>of my belief system." But then you say, "I am thrilled that i have
>not lived around any outer-oriented ECKists, because their beleif
>systems would have gotten in my way."

>You're not really very independent if simply having others around
>who might point out uncomfortable facts would get in your way.

Kate, I'll save you all your pointless speculation about David's
ability to think independently. I met him at the San Francisco
Seminar last weekend and I can tell you (not that I need you or anyone
else to validate this for me) that David is about as independent a
thinker you will find anywhere, in Eckankar or otherwise. He is also a
very happy soul who radiates the holy spirit in profound manner.

It is easy to get confused about the written word, especially when you
have a particular agenda. People tend to read everything the way they
want to to conform to their belief systems. David's energy has
nothing whatsoever to do with his belief system. It is simply the
current that he channels. Similarly, anyone, Eckist or otherwise is
not really the sum total of his thoughts or words, but, more
realistically, the sum total of his energy current.

In Eck,

Nathan

Title: Re: Dave Barnes in conversation with Dr. David Lane
Author: "DAVE BARNES" <sac...@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 08:28:46 -0400

Thanks for responding! I have never met Mr. Nathan Zafran. Maybe I will meet him
at the Eckankar

Philadelphia seminar June 26, 27 and 28.

Dave Barnes
http://www.eckankar.org

In article <6hoidk$m...@argentina.earthlink.net>, "DAVE" says...
>
>Dear Ram3Ram,
>
>For me Paul Twitchell is a hero. I feel a great deal of empathy when I think
>of all the hardship he went through all his life including doing talks to
>help others when he should have been home having his body healed. I will
>never forget the time when I was working in a warehouse, had a tumor on
>thyroid that I did not even know about, got up after a fifteen minute break
>and wondered if I would make it to dinner break. I looked at Paul's picture
>in my wallet for inspiration and thought how sad it was that I would never
>experience him looking into my eyes ( in Eck, it is considered special when
>you look into the eyes of a spiritual master, we call it the darshan) and
>the eyes twinkled like two stars right back at me!
>
> Did he plagiarize? I could care less. Why? Because he got through a message
>to people like myself that makes it possible to find real meaning and
>purpose for all the pain and suffering that happens in our lives. Not
>through theories or some feel good, cosmic rationale fad but by individual,
>direct experience with God. I have not read many books, nor do I plan to.
>Just because a person wrote a book, that a limited, academic minded or
>esoteric crowd will read, does not mean that it will help people like me. I
>needed his ability to tie all the loose ends together and to promote it in
>a way that the average guy can understand and get excited about and then be
>able to go forward with on an individual basis. Personally, I would glady
>contribute to a royalty settlement for any author that may have been harmed
>financially; however, if I ever write a spiritual book, it will be for the
>good of helping others. If you or anyone else wants to take my words and
>slap their names on it, I'm ok with that, provided that it gets the message
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>out. You see for me, it would be about the message and helping others find
>God and not whether I get the glory or the money or anything else. I suspect
>that the alleged authors that have been wronged, if they are the real deal,
>are of the same mindset as myself.
>
>My favorite book is the Drums of Eck by Paul Twitchell.
>
>"The sun was a horrid disk in the clear azure sky and the lonely world with
>its aged purple mountains loomed mysteriously against the hazy Mexican
>horizon on this sultry day of March 26, 1846."
>
>I respectfully agree to disagree with you about Mr.. Paul Twitchell.
>
>Dave Barnes
>www.eckankar.org
>
Subject: Postures, ethics, and 'reality'
From: sp...@gatezone.com (Spark)
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-ID: <spark-ya02338000...@news.eden.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar

Yea, it's me after two months in semi-retirement...

Resolve anything around here yet? <Giant grin...>

Sometimes I think I'll scream if I hear another contortionist defense of
Paul Twitchell.... For some reason the weird-ass defenses drive me crazier
than the futile attempts to assasinate his character. I think it's because
I don't question his core character and see no reason to defend it. I
experienced it in this very life as well as inwardly.

And as I've said tons of times I think Paul did things that by anyone's
measure could at least *at times* be viewed as being ethically 'challenged'
<g>. I doubt there is a person on the planet who has not at one time or
another done something that is unethical.

We can shift the definition of 'ethics' around forever. It relates to a
sense of right and wrong as it's defined in the dictionary I have in front
of me. I can feel that Paul represented his writing and himself in the way
he did for a 'greater good.' and therefore any of his actions are redeemed
by the greater good that I attribute to his motives. I'm ok with that and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd say that is what the 'defenders' and other 'rationalizers' do. It just
isn't the *only* way for a person who loves life, spirit, and the Eckankar
Masters (as well as other Masters) to view/experience it.

Paul was a profound teacher of mine. I also accept that he made some
very questionable decisions regarding his foot note policies and publishing
practices. (I'm laughing about this wording...) I'm not sure ethics are
quite as flexible as some people here would have us believe. Neither do I
believe that ethics and 'right' and 'wrong' are as rigid and immutable as
others claim.

One of the most difficult things for detractors to deal with is *not*
that Paul concealed aspects of his spiritual sources or that he used
previously published writings and published them under his name... but that
three decades later the priests of Eckankar are still denying it happened
and spinning out rationalization and defense after defense. I say to
detractors and defenders, alike, it happened for God's sake... let's move
on. There's 'work' to be done, mostly and primarily upon ourselves.

As a member of Eckankar I am disheartened (I've been downhearted... he
sings in the background...) by what appears to be the inability of those
trained in the spiritual exercises of Eck and the ways of the Light and
Sound of God, to let go of defensive postures and viewpoints. (they don't
have to give up their beliefs or passion for truth, just the postures that
encase their beliefs and passions) Even if only to gain fresh perspective
and renew their posture in the future...

-------------

Taking time off from a.r.e. felt good. I'm not sure I can really refocus
on the newsgroup as I have in times past. It *is* fun to see some of my
old 'friends' here.

Jesus... I can't believe they built a freaking gift shop over there where
Dave R. is floating... what will they think of next. I like the wannabe
guru ejector technology, now *that* is an improvement...<g>.

kentor

[DAVE BARNES]

Dear Kentnor,

I only care about direct experience. While I respect those who choose to live only by the
intellectual in their lives and work to find truth, (Dr. David Lane included) I choose to
determine truth through personal experience. I accomplish this through the spiritual exercises of
Eckankar.

That is my belief, like it or not.

I am expressing my personal Eckankar opinions in a forum that is conducive to do so, an Eckankar
newsgroup. I would prefer to do so without your personal attacks (weird ass etc.) but I am
resigned to continue in order to give others at least the same chance that I have been given
which is to experience the light and sound of God.

I invite anyone bold enough to want to find truth through direct personal experience with God, to
try the spiritual exercises of Eckankar. Perhaps it will be as helpful and uplifting as it has
been for me.

Sincerely,

Dave Barnes
http://www.eckankar.org

[cinder]

Charles Sedgewick Kesey wrote in message <6hvj8s$b...@drn.newsguy.com>...

>Stylistic analysis reveals that Dave Barnes is Kent "I'm ok with that"
>Livingston.

Now that is a scary thought <smile>... for the record all my posts are
under one of the 'csk' designations. If I were to create a new posting
identity it would certainly not be named "Dave" or even "David." Or even
"Sam." I am.

In a totally unhumble moment <rarity or not...> I have to say that some
of my posts get better with time, like fine wine.... I particularly like the
following that Mr. Charles so kindly redistrubuted without any solicitation
on my part. Perhaps I should spam the newsgroup every Saturday like my
co-conspirator Nate... Just kidding.

So who are *you* Mr. Charles Sedgewick Kesey? Where be you from and how'd
you end up in this backwater of c-space?

csk

-------------

csk'ing

[cinder]

Zuma wrote in message <35438D...@bigfoot.com>...

> Go to Infoseek; do a search on "sense of humor" and see if you can
>find one cheap. You need it.

Now you're getting up to your normal level of humor. Couple more and
you'll really be humming.

csk

[cinder]

Zuma wrote in message <35438A...@bigfoot.com>...

>Why don't you guys just bilocate and save some bandwidth here!!

Zuma, man... you're just idling here... come on. You can do so much better.

csk

[KMerrymoon]

Joe Wrote:
>Even Doug, a

>seasoned soul traveller, didn't know what to make of them. I pointed out that

>he assumed from the git go Klemp's perspective on Twitchell -- that he was an
>eck master on a mission.

DOUG:
Joe, I was going to let this slide, but perhaps I should respond. I tried to
ask you a question three times, but for some reason it doesn't seem like you
understood my question. Maybe you did, but you never acknowledged it, so I'm
not sure. But after three times I just figured it's one of those strange
misalignments that come from two people thinking from two different viewpoints.

However, just to answer you here, no I was not assuming that Twitchell was a
master, nor as Rich said was it based upon my personal experience of Paul. I
was simply interpreting what Harold said.

I was pointing out that what Harold said never appeared to me to be anything
close to offering Astral Libraries as an excuse for Paul, like you keep
bringing up. It has always sounded exactly the opposite to me, that Harold was
making the point that Paul was responsible, but that Harold would have to fix
it.

This is probably fruitless bringing it up a fourth time, but I just thought I
should answer you rather than leaving you with a wrong impression. I was not
trying to agree or disagree with what Harold said, nor was I waging into this
discussion of Paul's plagiarism, since I've done that already, and don't have
anything new to add. I was just saying that I think a lot of people are
misinterpreting what Harold said in that quote.

My interpretation is based upon my personal knowledge of Harold, and
conversations we had on that subject shortly before he gave that talk. However,
I might be too close to it, and therefore I might be the one that has the
interpretation wrong.

I do think that what Harold said has turned out to ambiguous. He could have
been clearer. But I don't think that dream experience which he was recounting
is an example of Harold offering up excuses for Paul. Quite the opposite. He
was relating a dream experience where he confronted Paul about it. He was
merely saying that proof of Paul's plagiarism could be found in the Source
documents on the Astral Plane, which are records that can't be altered. I think
you got it backwards.

The odd thing about this is, I remember Harold once mentioning that when Darwin
had been confronted with the similarity between The Far Country and The Path of
The Masters, Darwin had commented that Paul had gotten this material from the
inner with Rebazar Tarzs, and Julian Johnson probably did too. Harold scoffed
at that idea, as a rediculous explanation. Strange that Harold's own words
would get twisted around, because of their ambiguity, to meaning exactly
something he said he didn't believe.

Joe, when we've discussed other topics we've never had this miscommunication,
but for some reason we haven't clicked on this one. Oh well, I still like a lot
of what you write. But I thought I would try one more time here to clarify what
I was saying.

Doug.

[Rich]

Zuma wrote:

> Most of the time, I can't stand the silently pervasive condescension
> that goes on in this group.

Zuma, you being the leading example in this NG of loud belligerent
condescension, that's understandable.

> I can't help but feel that although Eckankar
> is "officially" accepting of all religions, it still considers itself
> the "hub of the wheel" when it comes to the purity of Light And Sound.

It's Spirit(the Eck) that's considered the pure Light and Sound.

> This drives me absolutely crazy...

This is one of those not 'realizing you are looking in the mirror
experiences' from the guy that touts Catholicism as the only 'real'
religion.

> This fellow is so totally non-pretentious and has found Eckankar as a
> way to know God. I may disagree with his choice, but his honesty strikes
> a chord in me that we all have weaknesses and transgressions and that as
> long as we are alive will be subjected to the materialism, greed, and
> avarice of the Earth. Aside from death, we can never totally detach
> ourself from this physical world no matter what "ism" we follow .

It is refreshing to have him in this NG. Obviously a good example for
you.

> Hearing the Light And Sound of God takes time...

My experience is that anyone can, and many do, have direct experience
with the Light and Sound. It is going thru the process of establishing
and maintaining the conscious awareness of It, that "takes time".
That's one of the purposes of the spiritual exercises that are taught in
Eckankar.

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <6hulj3$a...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:

Dave wrote a lengthy reply, stating and restating his oft stated
statements, but totally missed the point:)

Dave!

It was a joke!

Humor!

A twist of logic with a smile and a chuckle.

How can someone be so serious on a beautiful spring afternoon:)

Take a break Dave and go take a walk on the beach:)

Twitchell and I will still be here when you get back:)

Glen

> In article <gft-250498...@199-175-107-36.islandnet.com>,
> g...@pacificcoast.net says...

> >
> >In article <6hrqqj$1...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
> >
> >> Twitchell claims that Rebazar Tarzs talked to him directly (snip)
> >>
> >> Twitchell benefits and he benefits by lying. (snip)
> >>
> >>
> >> Why can't Twitchell be upfront and clear and straight with his
> >> reading audience?
> >>
> >
> GLEN WRITES:
>
> >Dave . . .
> >
> >He's dead Dave.
> >
> >He died 26 years ago.
> >
>

> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> Hmm, nothing like stating the obvious. But lest you forget, the point
> was that Twitchell's writings LIVE on and in THOSE writings he claims
> Rebazar talked to him, when, in point of fact, they are nothing more
> than dressed up plagiarisms from Julian Johnson.
>
> That deception, Glen, is still continuing and it was that deception
> I was addressing.
>
> Additionally, Twitchell's writings (like all writing that has God-claims
> attached to it) deserves our closet scrutiny....
>
> Eckankar itself is based upon it, even as it tries to evolve out of it.
>
> ---------------------------------------------

>
> GLEN WRITES:
>
> >You benefit more from his faults now than he currently does:)
> >
> >He's gone;)
> >

> >You're still here.
> >
>
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> Actually, Eckankar (Twitchell's religion) derives the benefit and
> the seeker gets confused in the exchange.
>
> As for my benefit, let us see:
>
> Not monetarily (lost thousands--see old posts on this)
> Not legally (again, been sued and legally hassled for quite a spell)
> Not via Eckankar (lest we forget, I am the kal child.....)
>
> But I most definitely have derived benefit in the following ways:
>
> 1. learned a lot via detective work.
> 2. Got to meet some very interesting people on this newsgroup and
> elsewhere.
> 3. Nathan and I have become close buddies......
>
> and, most of all,
>
> had a wonderful time exchanging ideas.... (i am serious on this point).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >--
> >

--

[charles_sedgewick_kesey]

In article <6i054q$i30$1...@boris.eden.com>, "cinder" says...

>Charles Sedgewick Kesey wrote in message <6hvj8s$b...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>

>>Stylistic analysis reveals that Dave Barnes is Kent "I'm ok with that"
>>Livingston.
>

> Now that is a scary thought <smile>... for the record all my posts are
>under one of the 'csk' designations. If I were to create a new posting
>identity it would certainly not be named "Dave" or even "David." Or even
>"Sam." I am.
>
> In a totally unhumble moment <rarity or not...> I have to say that some
>of my posts get better with time, like fine wine.... I particularly like the
>following that Mr. Charles so kindly redistrubuted without any solicitation
>on my part. Perhaps I should spam the newsgroup every Saturday like my
>co-conspirator Nate... Just kidding.
>
> So who are *you* Mr. Charles Sedgewick Kesey? Where be you from and how'd
>you end up in this backwater of c-space?
>
>csk

You may deftly and blithely deflect the truth of the matter. It will do you
no good. Our operatives were able to penetrate the Eck gatherings conducted
by you and Mr. Zafran at your respective locations. A careful reverse speech
analysis of the tape recorded speechs made by you and your
aide-de-camp was accomplished in close collaboration with
eaglecreekriverrapidlittleriver:

Forward speech in small letters................................Reverse
speech in large letters
....................................................................
........................." Some members of Eckankar who post on A.R.E. who
have personal problems with Eckankar and wish it to be made over to their
satisfaction. They feel that Eckankar needs to come clean, to air its dirty
laundry, so to speak, and to evaluate all of Paul’s writings wherever
copying took place in terms of giving proper credit to the suppposedly true
authors. These opinions are merely that, and are not the expressed
feelings of the vast majority of members of Eckankar, nor does the
Eckankar Spiritual Centre in Minnesota have any intentions of
following these suggestions. The present Living Eck Master, Sri Harold
Klemp, has already addressed all these issues publicly. Eckankar is a
continually evolving religion.
......................................................
....OUR INTERNET VAHANA EFFORT IS WORKING FLAWLESSLY. WE HAVE CORRALLED MOST
OF THE REGULAR PARTICIPANTS OF A.R.E WITHIN THE GOOD COP/BAD COP POLARIZATION
REPULSION/ATTRACTANT SCHEME AS PAULJI DEVISED AND EXPLICATED IN LETTERS TO
GAIL IV. . . . . . . . RECENTLY, WE INTRODUCED A NEW ELEMENT AIMED
SPECIFICALLY AT SEEKERS. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE DAVE BARNES CHARACTER IS
WORKING THIS NICHE. AN UNEXPECTED SIDE EFFECT OF THIS OPERATION WAS A
FAVORABLE RESPONSE FROM SOME OF THE MORE VIRULENT ESQUAI. ..............LEST
ANYONE SUSPECT A SETUP, WE HAVE TAKEN THE ADDED PRECAUTION OF STAGING AN
ATTACK BY OPERATIVE RED TARA ON THE NEW CHARACTER. THE ADDED DRAMATIC TENSION
SHOULD WORK TO OUR ADVANTAGE. .........THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ASSIGNMENT AND
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE SELECTION OF AN AGENT TO IMPLEMENT
THE ATTACK UPON OUR NEW CHARACTER.
RED TARA WAS, OF COURSE, OUR FIRST CHOICE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE
AUDIENCE OFF BALANCE AND GUESSING AS WE EMPLOY PAULJI'S ESOTERIC TECHNIQUE.
RED TARA IS A TRUE MASTER OF THE ZERO-POINT ENERGY TECHNIQUE. WE ARE
FORTUNATE TO HAVE HER EXPERT PARTICIPATION. AS SHE STATES IN HER DOCTORAL
THESIS FOR HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS:
HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE ALSO UNDERLIES ONE OF THE MOST BIZARRE
ASPECTS OF QUANTUM THEORY. THE VACUUM OF SPACE-TIME IS BY NO MEANS "NOTHING"
IT IS A FOAMING SEA OF CONSTANTLY BUBBLING PARTICLES THAT FLASH INTO
EXISTENCE FOR FLEETING MICROSECONDS ONLY TO BE ABSORBED BACK INTO THE
MOTHER SEA FROM WHICH THEY MOMENTARILY BORROWED THEIR ENERGY.

TIME AND ENERGY, LIKE POSITION AND MOMENTUM, ALSO ARE SUBJECT TO THE
UNCERTAINTY RELATION. IF THE TIME DURING WHICH ENERGY IS MEASURED IS KNOWN
EXACTLY, THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY BECOMES UNCERTAIN. THE SHORTER THE TIME
INTERVAL, THE GREATER THE UNCERTAINTY. WHEN THE INTERVAL IS SHORT ENOUGH,
IT ALLOWS ENERGY TO APPEAR FROM NOWHERE IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE PROVIDED IT
VANISHES FAST ENOUGH BACK INTO THE MOTHER SEA TO PRESERVE THE VACUUM'S
OVERALL ZERO ENERGY.
...........................................................................

So, you see, our covert information gathering team will soon provide us with
enough information to effectively neutralize your operation. We know your
deepest secrets. Sing HU to your God, for we are closing in upon you.
Prepare to meet your doom.

The "Real" CSK,
Charles Sedgewick Kesey

[dl...@weber.ucsd.edu]

In article <gft-260498...@199-175-107-43.islandnet.com>,
g...@pacificcoast.net says...
>

>In article <6hulj3$a...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
>
>Dave wrote a lengthy reply, stating and restating his oft stated
>statements, but totally missed the point:)
>
>Dave!
>
>It was a joke!
>
>Humor!
>
>A twist of logic with a smile and a chuckle.
>
>How can someone be so serious on a beautiful spring afternoon:)
>
>Take a break Dave and go take a walk on the beach:)
>
>Twitchell and I will still be here when you get back:)
>
>Glen
>

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Hmm, you didn't see my ironic laughter in response?

As for the beach, I saw Rebasar today...... in Baja, but he
told me "not to pass."

[dl...@weber.ucsd.edu]

In article <1nI01.875$971.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca says...

DAVID LANE REPLIES:

Hmm, Nathan. Lest you forget, that is why I am on this very newsgroup.

To answer questions that people may wish to ask.

Try reading Dodie's article, or better yet just go ahead and ask
me what you wish.

As for being biased and unethical, don't forget your direct quote
of me wherein I state quite clearly that I have a slant......

I am clearly slanted towards critical thinking....

your #1 fan,

dave
>In Eck,
>
>Nathan
>

[Ram3Ram]

Doug wrote:

>Joe, I was going to let this slide, but perhaps I should respond. I tried to
>ask you a question three times, but for some reason it doesn't seem like you
>understood my question. Maybe you did, but you never acknowledged it, so I'm
>not sure. But after three times I just figured it's one of those strange
>misalignments that come from two people thinking from two different
>viewpoints.

snip

>I do think that what Harold said has turned out to ambiguous. He could have
>been clearer. But I don't think that dream experience which he was recounting
>is an example of Harold offering up excuses for Paul. Quite the opposite. He
>was relating a dream experience where he confronted Paul about it. He was
>merely saying that proof of Paul's plagiarism could be found in the Source
>documents on the Astral Plane, which are records that can't be altered. I
>think
>you got it backwards.

JOE:

Doug: I was trying to be as direct as possible to what I saw as the salient
point here. Klemp's stories do reinforce the notion (and most definitely the
assumption) that Twitchell's written works are "okay." I think they do try to
justify and excuse the plagiarism. Not directly, but ambiguously and
suggestively, by references to Klemp's own authority as LEM, and his supposed
access to higher regions and information other eckists don't have. The man in
question? Paul Twitchell was the mahanta, the lem, and is now an eck master in
Klemp's stories. Paul is never judged as merely a man, but as a man directed
by A Higher Authority (The Highest?) Wouldn't you agree that all these
references are a bit leading? Don't they tend to lead the eckist to a
self-justifying tautology about spiritual authority and the (relative) rights
of literary propriety vs. THE ECK?

(Some here are no doubt crying "where are these references?" All through the
literature of eckankar. Every ek books Klemp wrote calls him "the mahanta, the
lem." Just because they're not all found in one story doesn't mean Harold or
Paul can step out of their identities as the eck masters and all that implies.)

I agree that much of what Harold says in the story is ambiguous. But I think
that's quite deliberate. Twitchell did very much the same thing in much of his
writing. Why can't HK give more direct answers?

Here's the key elements of the story.

Subject: "Inner-Plane Library System"

“I’d like to conclude by mentioning how the libraries on the inner planes work.
On these planes there are main libraries connected to the wisdom temples. But
there are many branch libraries. The main library of each wisdom temple is
like the Library of Congress, providing the greatest source of all the books
and materials. One particular library I was visiting on the Astral Plane is
adjacent to the Temple of Askleposis. In this place, some of the writings of
the Shariyat, which then are brought here to the physical and translated, are
stored in an archival warehouse.

snip
“In the back room . . . are unprocessed manuscripts;
source manuscripts from which writers of the earth world and other places come
and take material.

snip

“There are very few writers who can come to this library. Most of the writers
from earth go to the branch libraries, so they don’t get to use the best
sources. But the good researchers--such as Paul, Julian Johnson, Paul Brunton,
and others--can come in here and select the paragraphs that suit their
audience. A certain key concept will be expressed, such as a certain aspect of
spiritual liberation. Then this one idea is written in eight different
paragraphs, reflecting eight different levels of consciousness.”

snip

“I’m doing all this research in a soundproof booth so it doesn’t disturb the
other people who are doing research. As I look over at a table, I see
Paul--busy as usual, researching and writing. He looks at me and says, kind of
gruffly, ‘What’s that?’

‘Source manuscripts,’ I say.

‘For what?’ he asks.

‘For a lot of the ECK writings to be done on earth, ‘I reply.”

“’Oh,’ he says, ‘Well, we’ll have to do something about that someday.’ Then
he picks up his notebook and leaves, heading out into the stacks.”

“Yeah, I thought to myself, and I know who is going to have to do something
about that someday!”

DOUG WRITES:

I was pointing out that what Harold said never appeared to me to be anything
close to offering Astral Libraries as an excuse for Paul, like you keep
bringing up. It has always sounded exactly the opposite to me, that Harold
was
making the point that Paul was responsible, but that Harold would have to fix
it.

JOE:

I agree that it could be read this way. But I'd have to agree that it could be
read a lot of ways. My point is that the story as a whole really says nothing
in particular! But reinforced all throughout is the authority of author and
subject: eck master Harold meets eck master Paul. To eckists the ambiguity
may be innocuous or meaning-laden; either way, it's just a subterfuge IMO, a
way of shrugging off the charges against Paul without giving any real answers.
Why is it that way to me? Because I don't accept to begin with the idea that
HK or PT are what they claim to be.

But I used to be an eckist and DID accept Paul's claims. I read Paul's books,
had experiences, and inferred from those eksperiences + Paul's claims that he
was the highest spiritual being. Confronted with the plagiarism evidence, I
had to revise what on my part was a definite assumption of one man's spiritual
magnitude.

But before I did that, I had read the plagiarism evidence a year or so before
and had rejected it. I rejected it because I assumed that I didn't understand
the higher meaning of what MUST have been Paul's mission with eckankar. My
assumptions about eckankar and Twitchell -- not my spiritual experiences
themselves -- were the justification for Paul's plagiarism.

These days, I'd rather judge topics such as plagiarism purely by earthly
standards.

It may be that Harold is saying here that Paul was to blame, and that Harold
was somewhat unfairly left to fix things. But he's also strongly implying that
Paul did what he did because he was a man on a mission. It's a very safe
story. Eckists are left on their own to decide the final truth, and so forth .
. . meanwhile no real answers are given. Or rather, one IS given: the Higher
Truth cannot be known but wins out over mere physical evidence, when eck
masters are involved.

DOUG:

I do think that what Harold said has turned out to ambiguous. He could have

been clearer. But I don't think that dream experience . . . .

JOE:

Is a "dream experience" of the LEM the same as soul travel, or is it to be
interpreted as regular dreams are -- as symbolic and self-referential to some
degree? And does Klemp state that this story IS a dream experience?

DOUG:

which he was recounting
is an example of Harold offering up excuses for Paul. Quite the opposite. He
was relating a dream experience where he confronted Paul about it. He was
merely saying that proof of Paul's plagiarism could be found in the Source
documents on the Astral Plane, which are records that can't be altered. I
think
you got it backwards.

JOE:

But he doesn't SAY this Doug! On the contrary, he states that certain authors
from earth can visit this astral library and take stuff for their earthly
books!

If there are statements made by HK flatly stating that Twitchell did knowingly
plagiarize, I haven't seen them yet.

D:

The odd thing about this is, I remember Harold once mentioning that when
Darwin
had been confronted with the similarity between The Far Country and The Path
of
The Masters, Darwin had commented that Paul had gotten this material from the
inner with Rebazar Tarzs, and Julian Johnson probably did too. Harold scoffed
at that idea, as a rediculous explanation. Strange that Harold's own words
would get twisted around, because of their ambiguity, to meaning exactly
something he said he didn't believe.

J:

Again, how do you read this? Do you still say that Harold's words have been
"twisted around"?:

“There are very few writers who can come to this library. Most of the writers
from earth go to the branch libraries, so they don’t get to use the best
sources. But the good researchers--such as Paul, Julian Johnson, Paul Brunton,
and others--can come in here and select the paragraphs that suit their
audience.

It appears, from Harold's own words here, that Darwin was "right"!

Harold is stating that the material in this library is up for grabs. I don't
see any other way of reading this. Paul took stuff from the library . . . J.
Johnson took the same stuff, only some years earlier . . . it all looks like a
regrettable accident in Klemp's account.

Hope this post was more on the money for you.

(the remark about "seasoned soul-traveller" I meant as a compliment, but also
as an example of the limits of spiritual experience in ascertaining knowledge.)

Joe O

[Alana Keres]

Dear Mr. Kesey,

You expostulated:

<< We know your
deepest secrets. Sing HU to your God, for we are closing in upon you.
Prepare to meet your doom.>>

Doom... Doom. why *does* that seem so familiar?

Oh, now I remember...

Please don't forget the infamous Sedgewick Pastures
HyperErotoginated Whipping Creme.

Many thanks,

the QuanYintificator

[Zaz9 13]

>: Charles Sedgewick Kesey wrote:

>So, you see, our covert information gathering team will soon provide us

>with<BR>
>enough information to effectively neutralize your operation. We know your<BR>
>deepest secrets. Sing HU to your God, for we are closing in upon you.<BR>
>Prepare to meet your doom.<BR>
><BR>
>The "Real" CSK,<BR>
>Charles Sedgewick Kesey

In very much the style of RFP

[Ram3Ram]

Rich wrote:

>>
>> >you assume that Doug and many Eckists are assuming this about Paul
>> >Twitchell, when they are not. Many people had direct personal, outer
>> >and inner experiences with Paul which meant that they had to assume
>> >nothing. They see him for what he was, a man who had mastered Eck and
>> >the art of Soul Travel.
>>
>> When so much of the "outer experience" of Paul was clearly deceptive (his
>books
>> and lectures), why do you put your faith in the "inner experience" as an
>> all-purpose justification for Paul's deceptions?
>
>You missed my meaning. I was talking about the experience of being in
>his physical presence, speaking and listening to him, actually
>witnessing the characteristics of the man, one who had mastered the Eck,
>and of experiencing the Darshan.

I knew your meaning Rich. But I was making the point that the outer-experience
of Paul Twitchell was much more than his appearance at eck seminars.

>
>You also missed the point that there is no faith or assumption required
>when inner experience, with or without the outer, proves the reality of
>it to an individual. Of course this proves nothing to you and it is not
>intended to. It is erroneous thinking on your part to try and link this
>to my justifying anything. I made no excuses and was only speaking of
>recognizing the spiritual force in Paul Twitchell. Just because you
>have not seen the divine spark in him does not negate others
>experiences.

I was an eckist for 6 years Rich. Really and truly, as much an eckist as any
of you out there. So I can not only believe you, but I have experienced "the
divine spark" as I perceived it in eck writings, eckists, and the LEM (yes,
Darwin).

Inner experience may prove the reality of inner experience -- but as for
proving anything about the supposed outer source of that inner experience,
that's another matter entirely. This is my point. Because eckists have
experiences they attribute to eck masters doesn't make PT or HK or DG any kind
of master, objectively.

One of the things I disagree in part with David Lane about is his theory of
masters and their relationship to their chela's spiritual experiences. Without
going deeply into this I'll only say that I'm not sure at all how this
relationship really works, or what its limitations are. I'm not trying to
invalidate your experiences, or that of any other eckist. What I'm questioning
is the source of that experience, and the assumptions we make upon the
spiritual experiences we have.

>
>> You do in fact assume all kinds of things about Twitchell and "what he was.
>
>I do? What would those things be?
>
>> Just because you experienced . . . well, what did you experience?
>
>>From the very first time he looked into my eyes, I *knew* that this man
>saw me as Soul, a reality that I barely understood at that time. My
>interactions with him were more than enough to prove to myself, many
>times over, what he represented.

Exactly my experience with Darwin.

After his death I had a few
>astounding inner experiences with him.

>
>> To suggest that eckists DON'T assume is pretty naive.
>
>It's pretty naive of you assume that the readers here can't see that I
>did not suggest this. Of course everyone assumes some things but that
>was not my point.

Maybe what you assumed I meant by assuming you assumed was mutually
presumptive!

I still hold that most every eckist makes assumptions based on what other
eckists think, what the eck literature states, what their personal concepts of
spirituality are, etc. This isn't to put down eckists, but to state a fact
that a lot of spiritual people are resistant to: we're all human, and we all
have minds.

>
>> So Klemp has written stuff like "Master Compiler" and the other one
>> about the astral library . . .why the second hand spiritual experience?

>> Even Doug, a seasoned soul traveller, didn't know what to make of them.
>

>He did know what to make of them and he clearly explained it to you,
>twice.

Well . . .he admitted to me that they were ambiguous. I answered him the best
way I could.

>
>> I pointed out that he assumed from the git go Klemp's
>> perspective on Twitchell -- that he was an eck master on a mission.
>

>And again I ask why you assume that Doug assumed anything, rather than
>based his perspective on personal factual experience with Paul
>Twitchell?

Because the assumption here isn't pointed at Doug's (personal) perception of
Twitchell as a spiritual being -- it's pointed at any eckists perception
ofTwitchell as a spiritual authority who wrote The Far Country in the words of
Julian Johnson for Rebezar Tarzs, who claimed to be the next avatar, the
highest spiritual being, the latest of 970 eck masters, a prophet, etc.
Translator of spiritual scriptures from other planes, way beyond Christ and
Buddha, Krsna . . . and even Lord Rama (utmost blasphemy!)

Because an eckist may have spiritual experiences in eckankar doesn't mean that
those experiences validate the "eck master" and his teaching in all ways.

>> [Eckists] By a circular route they start out from, and
>> end at, the same assumption: that Twitchell was the mahanta, the
>> living eck master.
>
>By a circular route you have avoided my point. For _some_ Eckists,
>proof has been supplied and there is no more assumption.

You may be right. But I'd argue that these eckists have found something
they're satisifed with, and high personal inner experiences -- which isn't the
same thing as proving Paul Twitchell was who he said he was.

>
>
>> Klemp certainly encourages the "pre-authenticating" point of view in all
>his
>> stories about Twitchell.
>
>Sure, why not. Having mastered Soul Travel

RED FLAG!

Harold does not need to
>assume anything about Paul.

"Having mastered Soul Travel"? And you know this from your own, personal
experience -- you know of HK's complete mastery of the inner realms -- or does
this statement arise from your assumption that HK is the mahanta, the LEM?

Perhaps you might call it an "informed assumption," but isn't it still a mighty
big leap?

[Ken]

Charles Sedgewick Kesey wrote ...
:
: You may deftly and blithely deflect the truth of the matter. It will do you

: no good. Our operatives were able to penetrate the Eck gatherings conducted

: by you and Mr. Zafran at your respective locations. <snip>

So, ahhh. Does this mean Sam will be joining us soon also?

nek

[Ken]

dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote ...
:
: Hmm, Nathan. Lest you forget, that is why I am on this very newsgroup.

:
: To answer questions that people may wish to ask.

:

Hey Dave, how is your legal action going (gone?). I guess that since you have
returned to a.r.e. it has reached some kind of resolution . . . would you care
to recap and share the outcome?

Ken

[wall...@om.com.au]

In article <gft-250498...@199-175-107-36.islandnet.com>,

g...@pacificcoast.net (GLEN STEVENS) wrote:
>
> In article <6hrqqj$1...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
>
> > Twitchell claims that Rebazar Tarzs talked to him directly (snip)
> >
> > Twitchell benefits and he benefits by lying. (snip)
> >
> > Why can't Twitchell be upfront and clear and straight with his
> > reading audience?
> >

> Dave . . .
>
> He's dead Dave.
>
> He died 26 years ago.
>

> You benefit more from his faults now than he currently does:)
>
> He's gone;)
>
> You're still here.
>

> Glen
>

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah... Cheech and Chong... "Dave's not
here!"

I guess they were right! <VBG>

But Dave old mate... I *have* met Rebezar... In the physical, in the HERE and
NOW. Maybe Paul didn't lie about everything??

Glen... What can I say. Your reason and logic has yet again astounded me.
Yeah THAT's the reason why Paul doesn't get on here and defend himself,
because he is dead! Why didn't I ever think about it?

Of course... If he were a *real* Master, he would come back from the grave
now, wouldn't he <VBG> (Mind you, how would he reinject life into those
ashes?... But of course, this wouldn't me a concern for a REAL Eck Master)

Would it?

Love

Michael

>
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <01bd7193$f91cfe40$LocalHost@default>, "Ken"
<kens...@erols.com> wrote:

Do you actually believe he ever left?

--

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <6i18sf$b...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:

>
> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> Hmm, you didn't see my ironic laughter in response?
>
> As for the beach, I saw Rebasar today...... in Baja, but he
> told me "not to pass."

It's Rebazar Dave.

By the way . . . I live quite close to a Dave Lane (as in cul de sac) .
But the fact that there are similarities (or in your case identical) does
not mean you or Rebazar do not exist.

--

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <01bd71d5$ef7c10a0$LocalHost@default>, "Ken"
<kens...@erols.com> wrote:

>
> Hey Dave, how is your legal action going (gone?). I guess that since you have
> returned to a.r.e. it has reached some kind of resolution . . . would you care
> to recap and share the outcome?
>
>
> Ken

Now do you mean his pal's threatened suit against Richard (who has
disapeared now) or are you talking about his ongoing conflict with JR?

--

[Bill Ramsey]

ram...@aol.com (Ram3Ram) wrote:

>Maybe what you assumed I meant by assuming you assumed was mutually
>presumptive!

I gota sit down, I'm getting dizzy!

Bill

[cinder]

Charles Sedgewick Kesey wrote in message <6i0s8s$c...@drn.newsguy.com>...

>You may deftly and blithely deflect the truth of the matter. It will do you
>no good. Our operatives were able to penetrate the Eck gatherings conducted

>by you and Mr. Zafran at your respective locations. A careful reverse
speech
>analysis of the tape recorded speechs made by you and your
>aide-de-camp was accomplished in close collaboration with
>eaglecreekriverrapidlittleriver:

ROFLMAO....

>So, you see, our covert information gathering team will soon provide us

with enough information to effectively neutralize your operation. We know
your

>deepest secrets. Sing HU to your God, for we are closing in upon you.

>Prepare to meet your doom.
>

>The "Real" CSK,
>Charles Sedgewick Kesey

Hilarious... smashing... if I didn't know better I'd suspect Mr. Radical
(or yes, mr. pickett) of being back amongst us.

The other,

csk

[Ram3Ram]

Michael wrote:

snip

>Glen... What can I say. Your reason and logic has yet again astounded me.
>Yeah THAT's the reason why Paul doesn't get on here and defend himself,
>because he is dead! Why didn't I ever think about it?
>
>Of course... If he were a *real* Master, he would come back from the grave
>now, wouldn't he <VBG> (Mind you, how would he reinject life into those
>ashes?... But of course, this wouldn't me a concern for a REAL Eck Master)
>
>Would it?

Why not?

Eck lore tells us Paul was seen by other eckists, in the physical, after he had
"died."

Gopal Das and other eck masters, physically "dead," make appearances in the
physical according to the eck mata journal.

Whether physical appearances are a concern or not for a "real eck master" is
speculation. Or a dodge. What's interesting is the easy convienience some
eckists display when confronted by challenges regarding the amazing powers of
their eck masters.

[Bruce & Denise]

Ram3Ram wrote:

> Paul is never judged as merely a man, but as a man directed
> by A Higher Authority (The Highest?)

In seeking justice, one always takes into account the
intent of the judged. To ignore intent leads to injustice.

Besides, the argument as I see it is about about more than intent.
It is about consequences, the ones we make for ourselves and the
ones we allow others to make in our lives.

Whether or not you accept the "higher authority" defence -- which
some brandish as a trump card -- it cannot be denied that many
students of Eckankar and of Paul Twitchell view their experience
with gratitude and love. It is clear from reading the posts here
during the past three years or so that the legacy of Paul
Twitchell amounts to much more than a few financial transactions
and hurt feelings.

Bruce

[arel...@mindspring.com]

Doug M. Wrote:
Now, since I've had my own inner experiences with the inner libraries
myself, I
may be seeing Harold's quotes based on my own perspective. Also, I
happened to
have been talking with Harold about the subject of Paul's plagiarism
(actually
he brought the subject up to me) shortly before he gave the talks that
you've
quoted. So, naturally, I read those quotes as I imagine Harold meant
them,
based upon our talks.

Lurk Responds:
You know I remember being concerned about the ambiguity of those
comments of Harold's back in the early eighties. I also vividly remember
asking Harold on the inner what it was he was trying to say in that
talk. That night, Harold came to me in his light body and began
addressing my questions. He said, "Lurk, I am concerned for the welfare
of eckankar. I've just gone through a lengthy battle with Darwin that
was worst than a messy divorce and right now I don't need to have half
the membership leave upon finding out about Paul's plagiarism" (Yes, he
actually used the "P" word with me).

"So what I chose to do was to make up this story with Doug's help about
how astral libraries work and how great authors go there for
inspiration. I told the chelas in such a way as to leave them with the
impression that Paul must have use the same source material as Julian
Johnson. I know those chelas will believe anything....cause I'm the
Mahanta, Living Eck Master, the creator of all universes. It really is
for the spiritual welfare of the chelas that I did not directly tell
them about the extent of Paul's plagiarism. That would have stopped
their spiritual growth by telling them the truth. My chelas can't
possibly handle the truth, yet. Someday they will be able to see and
speak the truth like me as they gently unfold in their initiations.
Please promise me you'll keep this to yourself...this is part of the
secret teachings"

So anyway, I've struggled many years with whether to bring this up at
all and break my word with Harold. But I just can't keep this secret any
longer. I got inner validation of his obfuscation.

Now it's out and I feel better.

Lurk

[Rich]

Ram3Ram wrote:

> Inner experience may prove the reality of inner experience -- but as for
> proving anything about the supposed outer source of that inner experience,
> that's another matter entirely. This is my point.

So you are saying that there is no way to link an inner experience to an
outer source? That the subjective world cannot be connected to the
outer world? That the outer world is separate and the only way to judge
reality? And when your body dies and there is no more outer
connection....

> Maybe what you assumed I meant by assuming you assumed was mutually
> presumptive!

Not at all. Your conjecture that I assumed what you meant by assuming
that you assumed that I said that all Eckist assume is purely
hypothetical speculation on your part and I'll have no more of it!!

> But I'd argue that these eckists have found something
> they're satisifed with, and high personal inner experiences -- which isn't the
> same thing as proving Paul Twitchell was who he said he was.

OK, Assuming<g> for a moment that Paul did have conscious experience
with greatly expanded spiritual realization, how would _you_ or anyone,
go about proving it? What is the subjective yardstick that can be held
up that others will recognize? Conversely how can you prove that inner
experiences with _anyone_ are not connected to the outer manifestation
of that being?

[Ken Stoltz]

Glen wrote:
:

"Ken" <kens...@erols.com> wrote:
: > Hey Dave, how is your legal action going (gone?). I guess that since you have
: > returned to a.r.e. it has reached some kind of resolution . . . would you care
: > to recap and share the outcome?

: >
:
: Now do you mean his pal's threatened suit against Richard (who has

: disapeared now) or are you talking about his ongoing conflict with JR?

Yikes, I had completely forgotten about that little fracas with Richard <g>.
I was asking about the JR thing. Lane had mentioned a while back that one of
the reasons he wasn't posting much was due to the time involved with the suit,
so since he was back, I was just wondering if it had been resolved.

Ken

[Ken Stoltz]

Glen wrote:

"Ken" <kens...@erols.com> wrote:
: > So, ahhh. Does this mean Sam will be joining us soon also?
:
:
: Do you actually believe he ever left?

I guess you've exposed my naive side. I really thought Sam hadn't been
posting. If you think he has been, what name's he using?

BTW, I really don't know if Charles Sedgewick Kesey is rfp. It just seemed
to be very much in his style <g>.

Ken

[wall...@om.com.au]

In article <6i0s8s$c...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Charles Sedgewick Kesey wrote:
>
Snip snip snip>

> IT ALLOWS ENERGY TO APPEAR FROM NOWHERE IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE PROVIDED IT
> VANISHES FAST ENOUGH BACK INTO THE MOTHER SEA TO PRESERVE THE VACUUM'S
> OVERALL ZERO ENERGY.
> ...........................................................................
>

> So, you see, our covert information gathering team will soon provide us with
> enough information to effectively neutralize your operation. We know your
> deepest secrets. Sing HU to your God, for we are closing in upon you.
> Prepare to meet your doom.
>

Wow... Pretty impressive typing.

Have you considered writing grant applications? That last one is a sure fire
winner with the Anti-One World Conspiracy Theory Group That Advocates The Use
of Semantics to Wear Down the Populace .

When I grow up I wanna be able to type like this... <G>

[wall...@om.com.au]

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <01bd7246$a6089760$LocalHost@default>, "Ken Stoltz"
<kens...@erols.com> wrote:

>
> BTW, I really don't know if Charles Sedgewick Kesey is rfp. It just seemed
> to be very much in his style <g>.
>

I do not think Richard is posting here, I do not think Samorez ever left.

--

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <01bd7246$96493820$LocalHost@default>, "Ken Stoltz"
<kens...@erols.com> wrote:

> Yikes, I had completely forgotten about that little fracas with Richard <g>.
> I was asking about the JR thing. Lane had mentioned a while back that one of
> the reasons he wasn't posting much was due to the time involved with the suit,
> so since he was back, I was just wondering if it had been resolved.
>
>
> Ken

Well did you notice that about the same time Dave disappeared so did Richard?

Hmmmmmmmm

--

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <6i3bkc$9...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:

> In article <01bd71d5$ef7c10a0$LocalHost@default>, "Ken" says... > >

> >dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote ... >: >: Hmm, Nathan. Lest you forget, that
is why
> I am on this very newsgroup. >: >: To answer questions that people may
wish to

> ask. >: > >Hey Dave, how is your legal action going (gone?). I guess

that since
> you have >returned to a.r.e. it has reached some kind of resolution . .
. would

> you care >to recap and share the outcome? > > DAVID LANE REPLIES: No, the
> lawsuit is still going on........

Dude!

Pay for a newsreader man . . . this freebie crap sucks:)

BTW

Are you paying for this ISP yourself or does the College pay for your
internet access?

--

[TheWalrous]

Ram3Ram wrote:

"I..BURIED...PAUL"

I Write:

I gotta love someone who makes a blatant Beatles reference!

"Ram on.."

--
Darren
jpage<arg $pam>@gte.net = my real E-mail (remove <arg $pam>)

[Ram3Ram]

Rich wrote:

>
>Ram3Ram wrote:
>
>> Inner experience may prove the reality of inner experience -- but as for
>> proving anything about the supposed outer source of that inner experience,
>> that's another matter entirely. This is my point.
>
>So you are saying that there is no way to link an inner experience to an
>outer source? That the subjective world cannot be connected to the
>outer world? That the outer world is separate and the only way to judge
>reality? And when your body dies and there is no more outer
>connection....

No, I'm saying that just because I have a spiritual experience with "someone,"
it doesn't prove that that "someone" had anything to do with producing my
experience.

I've seen in eck literature and also in that radio interview that Doug posted
awhile ago the phrase: "Harold Klemp is a spiritual adept who has the ability
to meet with eck chelas on the inner." Or words to that effect. "Has the
ability to"? I don't think so. I think it's more likely that eckists view
Klemp as an inner icon, a focus for their attention, and whatever results occur
. . .result from that.

I'm willing to correct myself if someone can offer me proof that HK has
thorough knowlege of the inner experiences of all his chelas.

BTW, I seriously doubt whether any Sant Mat masters "have the ability to"
either. All evidence I've seen suggests just the opposite.

>
>> But I'd argue that these eckists have found something
>> they're satisifed with, and high personal inner experiences -- which isn't
>the
>> same thing as proving Paul Twitchell was who he said he was.
>
>OK, Assuming<g> for a moment that Paul did have conscious experience
>with greatly expanded spiritual realization, how would _you_ or anyone,
>go about proving it?

By judging his words (e.g., The Tiger's Fang and The Far Country) to see
whether his experiences are really his or whether he's using someone else's
words.

By judging his actions, whether or not he is acting the way a realized person
would act.

By judging him by the peace you find in his presence.

But on the other hand spiritual greatness shouldn't have to be proven, it
should speak for itself. HOW it speaks for itself is IMO a very debatable
issue. (More on this someday.)

What is the subjective yardstick that can be held
>up that others will recognize?

You're right, it IS subjective -- but not wholly subjective!

I think it's essential to be aware of the tension between literalism and
relativism. IOW, not to get bound up in "the law" or orthodoxy, but neither to
say that all that really matters is "the inner," or subjective experience.

Conversely how can you prove that inner
>experiences with _anyone_ are not connected to the outer manifestation
>of that being?

I think there is a connection, but again I don't think "the master" is the
principle active agent of the experience. God is, through attention and
surrender, and I think this is the essential point that is sometimes lost in
Shabda/Path of Return/Master paths. But this is all a gross
oversimplification, indeed speculation on my part.

As far as "proof" goes, if grand claims are made, it's up to those making the
claims to provide the proof. Until that proof arrives it's best to remain
skeptical to those things that haven't been proven. All being "skeptical"
means is keeping an open mind.

[Rich]

Ram3Ram wrote:

> As far as "proof" goes, if grand claims are made, it's up to those making the
> claims to provide the proof.

Why is that? This is repeated often in discussion here and it seems
like a cop out to demand that anothers' subjective experiences could be
proof for someone else. Neither side of this debate believes that this
is possible. Yet it gets repeated here as if this unanswerable demand
is a proof that negates the validity subjective experiences.

Proof of the claims has been provided to me by those that represent the
Mahanta consciousness. I can Soul travel. I have experienced the
transformation opportunity that initiation provides. I have experienced
many of the things that Paul wrote and spoke about. He claimed it, I
experienced it -> proof. You did not experience it <- not proof that I
didn't. Of course it's all subjective and of course subjectivity is not
all that matters... until you die that is.....;-)

> Until that proof arrives it's best to remain
> skeptical to those things that haven't been proven. All being "skeptical"
> means is keeping an open mind.

I agree and even after it arrives it is best to keep reviewing it.
While I have experienced those things I just spoke about, I am
skeptical as to my interpretation of what they are and how much of my
expectations and preconceptions have embellished or limited the
experiences. But I keep peeling off the layers of those onions, when it
suits me to do so. But underneath the layers is the knowingness that I
continue to have the experiences and _that_ is the proof no matter how
my mind manipulates IT.

If you regard your experiences as merely the workings of an "inner
icon", then that is your proof. But don't expect others to find that as
proof for themselves. IOW, it seems an extraordinary claim to me that
there is no direct connection between inner and outer experiences and
the inner and outer manifestations of individual beings.<GGG> Just
kidding here, but you get my point.

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <6i55ij$e...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:

>
> Hmm, three funky posts with screwed type and you get weird<g>?

How sweet of you to imply that I have only recently gotten weird:) I
believe many here would say that happened 24 years ago<VBG>
>
> Actually, when i use my lynx via my weber account it is difficult to type.
>
> But when I use netscape or microsoft all is okay.
>
> Sorry, but newsguy is not free. 19 dollars a year.
>
> And yep I pay for it.

I am so pleased to hear you are not freeloading and simultaneously
saddened to see you are getting such miniscule value for your dollar.

Yes I know I am leaving myself wide open . . . go ahead Dave . . .
everyone deserves a free hit once in a while:)
Glen

--

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <6i55n8$f...@drn.newsguy.com>, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:

> DAVID LANE REPLIES:
>
> I think you got your Richards confused, Glen......

Or perhaps you have mistakenly assumed that the 2 Richards are in reality
2 people, when I happen to know for a fact, that all Eckists posting here
with the name Richard are indeed one and the same person:)

--

[Red Tara]

In article <6i4b37$i8k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> wall...@om.com.au writes:

>
>Wow... Pretty impressive typing.
>
>Have you considered writing grant applications? That last one is a sure fire
>winner with the Anti-One World Conspiracy Theory Group That Advocates The Use
>of Semantics to Wear Down the Populace .
>

Well if he's like most academics I know, doubtless he has written
a few. How astute of you, my love.

Have I really been conversing with <shudder> the Grim Reader
himself? However shall I bear the shame?

Off to do My Penance...

Peccatamyst

[TheWalrous]

cinder wrote:

> I'll wave as I go by...

Let's just hope that you're using all of your fingers :)

[TheWalrous]

Rich wrote:

> Ram3Ram wrote:
>
> > As far as "proof" goes, if grand claims are made, it's up to those making the
> > claims to provide the proof.
>
> Why is that? This is repeated often in discussion here and it seems

Because that is the way the 'scientific' world works. Consider it part of the
'scientific method' or logic or whatever you want. The christians are worse off
than eck when it comes to proving cosmologies.

[Ram3Ram]

Rich wrote:

>
>Ram3Ram wrote:
>
>> As far as "proof" goes, if grand claims are made, it's up to those making
>the
>> claims to provide the proof.
>
>Why is that? This is repeated often in discussion here and it seems

>like a cop out to demand that anothers' subjective experiences could be
>proof for someone else.

But we're not talking of just subjective experiences. We're talking of
eckankar's objective claims -- dozens and dozens of them. The powers of the
lem, a line of eck masters no one ever heard of, some hundreds of years old,
prophecies that never came true, a laughable "history" intending to prove
eckankar is the original and purest religion. Eckankar is a religion that
makes THE grandest objective claims about itself.

And it's up to those that make grand claims to provide proof! This a just a
basic of logic.

In attempting to prove its objective claims, eckankar has failed miserably.
Its eck masters don't exist, its lem doesn't have any special powers, and its
"history" is an embarrassment.

If you want to argue that eckankar is really only about subjective experience,
about linking up to light and sound, fine. If that's so, then eckankar should
drop all its elitist pretenses. They serve no one.

Neither side of this debate believes that this
>is possible. Yet it gets repeated here as if this unanswerable demand
>is a proof that negates the validity subjective experiences.

Subjective experiences DO happen, I've never maintained that they don't. How
valid they are depends on how they're interpreted.

Consider though: there are dozens (hundreds maybe) of shabd/light paths around
right now. For the most part, each of them claims explicitly or implicitly
that THEIR lineage is the only true one, THEIR master had the highest
experience and all the rest stopped at a lower plane. Chelas on these paths,
for the most part, have spiritual experiences, and thus believe that their path
and master GAVE THEM the experience, and that this proves their path is
ultimately not only right for them, but the highest of em' all.

So are all the grand claims of all these paths all true at the same time? For
subjective experience, maybe. The problem is that most all of them make the
fallacious leap: subjective experience somehow PROVES objective supremacy.

It don't.

>
>Proof of the claims has been provided to me by those that represent the
>Mahanta consciousness. I can Soul travel. I have experienced the
>transformation opportunity that initiation provides. I have experienced
>many of the things that Paul wrote and spoke about. He claimed it, I
>experienced it -> proof.

You proved to yourself that subjective "spiritual" experiences can occur,
though your experience in eckankar. You didn't prove to anyone that Paul
Twitchell or eckankar is the most ancient, highest, most perfect religion, that
Rebezar is alive in the Himalayas, or any of the other grand claims.

You did not experience it <- not proof that I didn't.

Of course it's all subjective and of course subjectivity is not
>all that matters... until you die that is.....;-)

Really? I imagine if we all believed that we'd be meditating a lot more than
we do.

>
>> Until that proof arrives it's best to remain
>> skeptical to those things that haven't been proven. All being "skeptical"
>> means is keeping an open mind.
>
>I agree and even after it arrives it is best to keep reviewing it.
>While I have experienced those things I just spoke about, I am
>skeptical as to my interpretation of what they are and how much of my
>expectations and preconceptions have embellished or limited the
>experiences. But I keep peeling off the layers of those onions, when it
>suits me to do so. But underneath the layers is the knowingness that I
>continue to have the experiences and _that_ is the proof no matter how
>my mind manipulates IT.
>
>If you regard your experiences as merely the workings of an "inner
>icon", then that is your proof. But don't expect others to find that as
>proof for themselves. IOW, it seems an extraordinary claim to me that
>there is no direct connection between inner and outer experiences and
>the inner and outer manifestations of individual beings.<GGG> Just
>kidding here, but you get my point.

I do get your point. Do you get mine? The human tendency towards spiritual
experience is to deify (tip o' hat to Rad), hagiographie, elitify, and overall
cultiographie that experience so that it becomes a warm and cushy blanket to
curl up into. IT doesn't play like that, which is why pesky detractors like
myself won't go away.

If it's any consolation, I've got my own set of detractors. We all do sooner
or later, til the leaf falls off the tree.

[Rich]

TheWalrous wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
>
> > Ram3Ram wrote:
> >
> > > As far as "proof" goes, if grand claims are made, it's up to those making the
> > > claims to provide the proof.
> >
> > Why is that? This is repeated often in discussion here and it seems
>

> Because that is the way the 'scientific' world works. Consider it part of the
> 'scientific method' or logic or whatever you want.

I am quite familiar with and understand that. What you seem to be
missing is that it not always the way the 'spiritual' world works. It
can be the 'direct perceptiom method' or supercede logic or whatever.

[joseph_wendy]

In article <199804291918...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ram...@aol.com
says...

>I do get your point. Do you get mine? The human tendency towards spiritual
>experience is to deify (tip o' hat to Rad), hagiographie, elitify, and overall
>cultiographie that experience so that it becomes a warm and cushy blanket to
>curl up into. IT doesn't play like that, which is why pesky detractors like
>myself won't go away.
>
>If it's any consolation, I've got my own set of detractors. We all do sooner
>or later, til the leaf falls off the tree.

Thou? Detractors? Say it ain't so "Joe." What religion did you found to
warrant a detractive following?

Falling leaf? But, you were a Second Initiate, right? What is this leaf
business?

Throw away your grigri. Learn to tie a bowline hitch single-handed.

Joe

[Rich]

Ram3Ram wrote:

> Rich wrote:

> >Ram3Ram wrote:

> >> As far as "proof" goes, if grand claims are made, it's up to those making
> >the
> >> claims to provide the proof.
> >
> >Why is that? This is repeated often in discussion here and it seems
> >like a cop out to demand that anothers' subjective experiences could be
> >proof for someone else.
>
> But we're not talking of just subjective experiences.

Actually, if you check back thru the last four posts that _is_ what we
were talking about. It seems that in most discussions you are compelled
to always fall back into the mundane. That's fine. I am just more
interested in the study and discussion of the subjective experience
since it is much illusive. For the most part the logical proof
arguments reminds me of high school.

> In attempting to prove its objective claims, eckankar has failed miserably.

Well OK, but that is not the main purpose of Eckankar.

> Its eck masters don't exist,

Prove that to those that have been with them in the flesh!<GG>

> its lem doesn't have any special powers,

That you have experienced.

> and its "history" is an embarrassment.

To those that expect perfection.

> If you want to argue that eckankar is really only about subjective experience,

I haven't and don't want to.

> ... eckankar should

> drop all its elitist pretenses.

That how you view it.

> They serve no one.

They don't serve you. Although it may seem foolish to some of us, many
people may initially need to approach spiritual understanding with an
absolutist viewpoint.

> Subjective experiences DO happen, I've never maintained that they don't. How
> valid they are depends on how they're interpreted.

Are you saying that the actual experience can be invalidated by a mental
concept of what it was? OH, yes, of course you are. That's what you
have been saying all along. OK. I guess we'll have to agree to
disagree on this. I think the experience of itself is still valid no
matter how it is perceived. So if we both have the _same_ inner
experience and I have discourse with the Mahanta consciousness and you
see merely an icon, who's subjective experience isn't valid?<GG>

> Consider though: there are dozens (hundreds maybe) of shabd/light paths around
> right now. For the most part, each of them claims explicitly or implicitly
> that THEIR lineage is the only true one, THEIR master had the highest
> experience and all the rest stopped at a lower plane. Chelas on these paths,
> for the most part, have spiritual experiences, and thus believe that their path
> and master GAVE THEM the experience, and that this proves their path is
> ultimately not only right for them, but the highest of em' all.
>
> So are all the grand claims of all these paths all true at the same time? For
> subjective experience, maybe. The problem is that most all of them make the
> fallacious leap: subjective experience somehow PROVES objective supremacy.

What you keep calling for is for it to be proof for you when it is only
proof for them. You set up your own conditions for proof and then knock
then down.

> You proved to yourself that subjective "spiritual" experiences can occur,

> though your experience in eckankar. You didn't prove to anyone...

Right, now you get it. I am not attempting to 'prove' anything to
anyone. You just keep trying to disprove what I Know to be Truth for
me.

> Of course it's all subjective and of course subjectivity is not
> >all that matters... until you die that is.....;-)
>
> Really? I imagine if we all believed that we'd be meditating a lot more than
> we do.

Oh, I don't know... Once the fear of death is gone there may be less
need to, as one tends live more in the moment.

> The human tendency towards spiritual
> experience is to deify (tip o' hat to Rad), hagiographie, elitify, and overall
> cultiographie that experience so that it becomes a warm and cushy blanket to
> curl up into.

I agree. For most it is a necessary step.

Speaking of Rad, I saved this.

Radical wrote:

> How about this. Don't deify. Period. It's possible we carry around a
> great deal of mystical crappola when it comes to what we think a
> "Spiritual" being is supposed to be. Fact is most of the moral
> rectitude we've come to insist on, is culturally and historically
> conditioned. That's why PT came off in one breath relegating all world
> religions and paths to the domain of the negative power. Of course, he
> was full of bluster and loved to make sweeping generalizations. It's a
> relative truth. Shouldn't be taken out of context. But at some point,
> hopefully later than sooner, the student must face devestatingly
> powerful repressed energies of the collective and personal psyche. I
> might suggest this experience is an aspect of the rending and tearing
> that happens in those dynamics that are called Parushas.
>
> The guru or teacher at worst is far worse than we, at best he/she is an
> individual who has moved into a vaster resonance of some kind, at least
> a vaster one than the student. Whatever the case, the relationship that
> we engender with this individual will always serve to set up conditions
> where we confront those parts of our being that are in the process of
> transformation. At some point we are confronted with every unresolved
> energy in our personal (and later, collective)psyche. We're not going
> to be able to sidestep the tyrannies of morality, of every kind of evil,
> every repressed aspect of our humanity. Until the student faces,
> confronts and surrenders into these very things in themselves, (and they
> are there) they will continuously oscilate between the polarities of
> consciousness.
>
> Surrender to the teacher is not the same as capitulation. It is far
> different in fact. As I see it, there is no once-and-for all
> surrender. There is only the moment in which we find ourselves reacting
> powerfully in some way, and then with attention on Spirit, or whatever
> you choose to call it, surrender into the vaster, inclusive resolution
> that we call love. As we go, these moments become more frequent. But
> this is the thing that actually has nothing at all to do with the guru,
> but with each of us when we confront the reality of our (chosen)
> relationship with him/her.
>
> Somebody once said, we're not through with something until we honor it.
> We're not through with our parents 'till we honor them. We're not
> through with a relationship until we honor it. We aren't through with a
> path or a guru until we honor it. Blow off the teacher you've chosen
> and you will continue with the same teacher in other circumstances.
>
> I don't see what difference it makes. You pay your money, you take your
> chances. For those who are magnetized to transformation at the astral
> or emotional level, there will be immense issues of power to be
> resolved. So we go to the teacher who teaches power. For those who are
> at the stage of the heart and cannot surrender the ego structure to the
> direction of Spirit, they will go to the teacher who teaches surrender.
> I find it remarkable that often (not always) these are the same teacher.

[Rich]

Joseph, Wendy wrote:

> Learn to tie a bowline hitch single-handed.

FYIRFP a bowline is not a hitch. Took me 10 seconds as opposed to 3 or
4 with both hands.

[Rich]

Zuma wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I can't help but feel that although Eckankar
> > > is "officially" accepting of all religions, it still considers itself
> > > the "hub of the wheel" when it comes to the purity of Light And Sound.
>
> > It's Spirit(the Eck) that's considered the pure Light and Sound
>
> Then as "ECK" the pure Light and Sound, the center of the wheel, IT
> condescends itself with respect to all other religions proposing that IT
> is the essence of all reality, then binds Itself to the outer
> organization known as Eckankar, thus creating a system with a very
> distinct religious character with its own brand of saints, gurus, and
> attainments which invites It's followers to reject all other paths
> (these are Paul's admissions) and follow the one true path known as
> Eckankar! I don't think that Mr. Twitchell had in mind that there was
> any room for any thoughts outside of Eckankar, and that there is an
> implicit condescension among the followers of Eckankar that THEY know
> the true Light and Sound and any other variants are diluted or weak.

I tried _real_ hard to find one phrase or idea that I could agree with
in your diatribe above, and I did!<g> It's how Spirit(Eck) works with
all religions-> "thus creating a system with a very distinct religious
character with its own brand of saints, gurus, and attainments..."

> > > This drives me absolutely crazy...
> >
> > This is one of those not 'realizing you are looking in the mirror
> > experiences' from the guy that touts Catholicism as the only 'real'
> > religion.
>
> Au contraire. I don't say it the only "real" religion. I am quite
> respectful towards Hassidic Jews. I am in awe of their reverence and
> morality. I am fascinated by Hinduism with the glorious battles with
> Arjuna and Krishna; I am humbled by the Islamic devotion to Allah and I
> think that the Southern Baptists are doing their thing but MOST OF ALL,
> their God and MY God have been around since time immemorial. I respect
> their "names" for God and their mythologies that bring them joy and
> meaning in an indifferent universe.

Oh, and you believe that without Jesus, these Souls will also be able to
go to Heaven with the Catholics?<GG>

> I cannnot appease my heart with a religion that has been founded by
> just ONE suspicious man who has never demonstrated to anyone that he
> had any special divinations that qualifies him as a Master.

Why do you spew this kind of pious fraud when it reveals so clearly that
you are a sophist? You have read plenty posts by numerous Eckists here
who _have_ had decades of demonstrations of the qualities of the
Masters.

> Nice logo, Rich. It's one of the best ones I've ever seen.....

o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why thanks! It went thru a few modifications before I settled with this
final result.

[jerry_garcia]

In article <199804300334...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ram...@aol.com
says...

>
>Joseph Wendy wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <199804291918...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ram...@aol.com
>>says...
>>

>>>I do get your point. Do you get mine? The human tendency towards spiritual

>>>experience is to deify (tip o' hat to Rad), hagiographie, elitify, and
>>overall
>>>cultiographie that experience so that it becomes a warm and cushy blanket to

>>>curl up into. IT doesn't play like that, which is why pesky detractors like
>>>myself won't go away.
>>>
>>>If it's any consolation, I've got my own set of detractors. We all do
>>sooner
>>>or later, til the leaf falls off the tree.
>>
>>Thou? Detractors? Say it ain't so "Joe." What religion did you found to
>>warrant a detractive following?
>>
>>Falling leaf? But, you were a Second Initiate, right? What is this leaf
>>business?
>>

>>Throw away your grigri. Learn to tie a bowline hitch single-handed.
>
>
>Hi Richard! Welcome back.
>

"He's Gone"
Words by Robert Hunter; music by Jerry Garcia
Copyright Ice Nine Publishing; used by permission

Rat in a drain ditch
Caught on a limb
You know better but
I know him
Like I told you
What I said
Steal your face
right off you head

Now he's Gone
Lord he's gone
Like a steam locomotive
rolling down the track
He's gone
He's gone
and nothing's gonna bring him back
He's gone

Nine mile skid
on a ten mile ride
Hot as a pistol
but cool inside
Cat on a tin roof
Dogs in a pile
Nothing left to do but
smile, smile, smile

Now he's gone
Lord he's gone
Like a steam locomotive
rolling down the track
He's gone
He's gone
and nothing's gonna bring him back
He's gone

Going where the wind don't blow so strange
Maybe on some high cold mountain range
Lost one round but the price wasn't anything
Knife in a back and more of the same
Same old rat in a drain ditch
Out on a limb
You know better but I know him

Now he's gone
Lord he's gone
Like a steam locomotive
rolling down the track
He's gone
He's gone
and nothin's gonna bring him back
He's gone....

[Ram3Ram]

[KMerrymoon]

Joe,

I just around to reading your post.

You wrote:
>Hope this post was more on the money for you.

DOUG:
Yes, it was. Thanks.

JOE:
(the remark about "seasoned soul-traveller" I meant as a compliment, but also
as an example of the limits of spiritual experience in ascertaining knowledge.)

DOUG:
I appreciate that...especially the later part. Thanks again for the feedback.

[TheWalrous]

Rich wrote:

> I am quite familiar with and understand that. What you seem to be
> missing is that it not always the way the 'spiritual' world works. It
> can be the 'direct perceptiom method' or supercede logic or whatever.

Define for me, please, the 'spiritual' world. To me this is what goes on in our
imagination.

[Ram3Ram]

Rich wrote:

>
>> >Ram3Ram wrote:
>
>> >> As far as "proof" goes, if grand claims are made, it's up to those
>making
>> >the
>> >> claims to provide the proof.
>> >
>> >Why is that? This is repeated often in discussion here and it seems
>> >like a cop out to demand that anothers' subjective experiences could be
>> >proof for someone else.
>>
>> But we're not talking of just subjective experiences.
>
>Actually, if you check back thru the last four posts that _is_ what we
>were talking about. It seems that in most discussions you are compelled
>to always fall back into the mundane.

No Rich, that's what YOU wanted to talk about. From the beginning, I've been
talking about the relationship BETWEEN the outer and inner. What began this
thread's discussion was the Klemp stories about Twitchell being the "master
compiler" and having access to astral libraries. I say these are all excuses
for Twitchell's plagiarism, and they all assume that Twitchell was a divine eck
master on a mission--an a priori assumption that begs the ethical questions
surrounding his plagiarism.

My point is that I DON'T want to reduce the argument for a spiritual teacher's
legitimacy to purely subjective standards. To do so is extremely problematic
for a number of reasons.

Many years ago I heard that "the successor to Kirpal Singh" was coming into
town. I was told his name was Thakar Singh, and everyone was saying all these
great things about him -- another "perfect master" and all that. So I checked
it out, went to a few of his talks. He was offering initiation -- the line was
that the test of a real master was whether or not he could give you "spiritual
experience" (light and sound) first hand.

Being young and naive I went for the initiation. I had no real feeling for
Thakar Singh at that time. He didn't really impress me, but on the other hand
I didn't really have anything against him. I was pretty neutral. So I went
for the initiation, and I did see light to some degree, in a way I hadn't ever
before. But I didn't hear the sound.

The next day I was in Thakar satsang -- and for the first time heard the bell
sound, just as it was described in the Sant Mat books.

So there I had the experience, and from that I was supposed to accept "the rest
of the story"! The master's perfection, all he had to say about anything and
everything, etc.

My interest waned however, which was a good thing. Thakar Singh has been
revealed to be one of the most unethical gurus of all time. But "he" did
"give" me the experience. Or so I assumed.

From that experience, and from all the investigations I've done of all the
others who have left spiritual paths, despite having intense spiritual
experiences under rotten gurus, the conclusion is clear. Inner experience does
not outer legitimacy make!

With eckankar, the point isn't whether Twitchell was perfect in the sense of
the traditional notions of a "perfect master." We all know he didn't claim to
be such. But all the claims he did make for outer "stuff" in eckankar have
fallen flat: his eck master lineage, his personal history, eckankar's history,
his prophecies -- everything.

Don't you find it remarkable that Twitchell could be wrong or dishonest about
all the outer stuff, yet his "inner teachings" somehow "prove" he was the
highest Godman?

That's fine. I am just more
>interested in the study and discussion of the subjective experience
>since it is much illusive.

I agree it can be VERY illusive (illusory -- Websters).

>
>> In attempting to prove its objective claims, eckankar has failed miserably.
>
>Well OK, but that is not the main purpose of Eckankar.

Then eckankar should completely revamp itself, take everything that Twitchell
falsified or fancified, and chuck it for the sake of honesty.

>
>> Its eck masters don't exist,
>
>Prove that to those that have been with them in the flesh!<GG>

Let just one of them prove it to me!

You know, I find it interesting that all the time I was an eckist ('76 - 82)
there were hardly any stories floating around about physical manifestations of
eck masters. Then Lane's research comes around -- now there are thousands of
testimonials apparently. But still not a shred of empirical evidence.

>
>> its lem doesn't have any special powers,
>
>That you have experienced.

What have others experienced? I haven't heard of him doing anything.

>
>> and its "history" is an embarrassment.
>
>To those that expect perfection.

PERFECTION??? Oh, come on! That whole "Rama's Mission" and all the rest of it
-- Gakko, et al -- out comicbooks comic books!

>
>> If you want to argue that eckankar is really only about subjective
>experience,
>
>I haven't and don't want to.

??? . . . I thought this was your whole point Rich! I thought your position
was that Twitchell and eckankar and Klemp are fully and solely legitimized by
inner experiences!

>
>> ... eckankar should
>> drop all its elitist pretenses.
>
>That how you view it.

How can I, or anyone, not? Has eckankar dropped all its hundreds of references
to being the purest, most ancient religion?

>
>> They serve no one.
>
>They don't serve you. Although it may seem foolish to some of us, many
>people may initially need to approach spiritual understanding with an
>absolutist viewpoint.

What, spiritual despotism? The master, inner and outer, is God? Yes, some
people may need that, or rather want that. I think though that you find the
real masters debunk those notions from their chelas. Eckankar, on the other
hand, keeps pumping out the outer supremacist rhetoric.

>
>> Subjective experiences DO happen, I've never maintained that they don't.
>How
>> valid they are depends on how they're interpreted.
>
>Are you saying that the actual experience can be invalidated by a mental
>concept of what it was? OH, yes, of course you are.

No, nothing can invalidate experience. An experience is a fact. It happened;
nothing can change that. But HOW that experience is interpreted, the judgments
and assumptions that arise from that experience -- that's another matter.

You seem to be arguing that certain experiences are beyond judgment, in respect
to eckankar. Funny how many of the thousands that have left eckankar would now
disagree with you.

That's what you
>have been saying all along. OK. I guess we'll have to agree to
>disagree on this. I think the experience of itself is still valid no
>matter how it is perceived.

Yes, it's absolutely your choice how you evalutate your experiences. But light
and sound and peace and love in any degree cannot change outer facts. In
respect to the facts about eckankar, they still glare garishly. And obviously
this is important to us all because it says something about the relative nature
and validity of "inner spiritual experience."

So if we both have the _same_ inner
>experience and I have discourse with the Mahanta consciousness and you
>see merely an icon, who's subjective experience isn't valid?<GG>

If we did have the same inner experience, by your argument I'd be a higher
initiate by now, rather than a "detractor." But your example just proves my
point: people can have the same inner experiences and evaluate them in
different ways.

snip

>
>Right, now you get it. I am not attempting to 'prove' anything to
>anyone. You just keep trying to disprove what I Know to be Truth for
>me.

No, I'm only providing the point of view of the thousands that have left
eckankar after examining their apparent inner "proof" against real research and
real facts.

I'm not out to get you Rich <g>.

[Rich]

TheWalrous wrote:
>
> Define for me, please, the 'spiritual' world. To me this is what goes on in our
> imagination.

world - as you used it in "scientific world", to mean the people, places
or things that are in that realm or sphere of experience.

Spiritual - of or in spirit

Spirit - (from my pocket webster) vital principle in man

Spirit - (1973 Eckankar dictionary) the feeling or energy that God gives
off to make the world function; the sustaining power of God; the ECK,
which is not God, Itself, but that which flows out of it, being in the
whole of all things, here and now; True reality. (I substituted God for
Sugmad)

It is my experience that imagination is the creative force. It is Soul
individualizing Spirit.
--

[Michael Turner]

"In the secret space of dreams
Where I dreaming lay amazed
Where the secrets all are told
and the petals all unfold
When there were no dreams of mine
You dreamed of me."

- Hunter/Garcia

nothing left to do but smile, smile smile

Michael T.

:-)