Plagarism and "The Far Country"
Pathapp
Everyone seems to accept that Paul Twitchell did plagarize, especially from
Julian Johnson. I can accept that following the reasoning that he was just
reiterating basic spiritual beliefs. What I can't accept is that in the book
"The Far Country" he attributed exact passages from J.Johnson's book to the
words of Rebezar Tarz. This is not just hearsay. I have personally checked
this out myself, using both books side by side. Does anyone have an answer to
this? Pathapp @AOL.com
Mark Alexander
Pathapp wrote:
Yep, I did too, and you are absolutely right.
By the way...
Did you get into Eckankar because you thought Truth was in a book?
Did you get into Eckankar because you thought Truth was in an external authority?
Or did you get into Eckankar because you thought you could get direct personal
access to Truth?
Remember:
It's the Test of Personality.
It's the Test of Personality.
It's the Test of Personality.
It's the Test of Personality.
It's the Test of Personality.
It's the Test of Personality.
Either the Mahanta is Real or it isn't.
Either you go for that direct experience or you don't.
No one can tell you if it's real. Only you can experience the reality of the
Mahanta.
HU
Mark A.
--
_____________________________________
The Shakespeare Authorship SOURCEBOOK
http://home.earthlink.net/~mark_alex/
The Underground Grammarian
http://members.aol.com/hu4wahz/ug/index.html
arel...@mindspring.com
Mark Alexander wrote:
>
> Pathapp wrote:
>
> > Everyone seems to accept that Paul Twitchell did plagarize, especially from
> > Julian Johnson. I can accept that following the reasoning that he was just
> > reiterating basic spiritual beliefs. What I can't accept is that in the book
> > "The Far Country" he attributed exact passages from J.Johnson's book to the
> > words of Rebezar Tarz. This is not just hearsay. I have personally checked
> > this out myself, using both books side by side. Does anyone have an answer to
> > this? Pathapp @AOL.com
>
> Yep, I did too, and you are absolutely right.
>
> By the way...
>
> Did you get into Eckankar because you thought Truth was in a book?
By the way Mark, I find this question to be manipulative and offensive!
If eckankar doesn't think there are any value to books, why print
them....why sell them?
>
> Did you get into Eckankar because you thought Truth was in an external authority?
>
> Or did you get into Eckankar because you thought you could get direct personal
> access to Truth?
Equally offensive!
Mark, this is real bush league....making the person the issue when
discovering Paul's lies. This is a vulnerable time.
This is straight out of Harji school of answering questions...attack the
questioner's motives or make them feel like their not doing it right or
they're lacking in some way.
I think this person has enough to deal with without listening to your
self-confirming crap. Are you afraid eckankar will loose another to
their own authority or something?
>
> Remember:
>
> It's the Test of Personality.
> It's the Test of Personality.
> It's the Test of Personality.
> It's the Test of Personality.
> It's the Test of Personality.
> It's the Test of Personality.
This is what cults say to help someone bypass unsettling contradictions
that are revealing. They repeat over and over.
<snip>
Keep asking questions Pathapp, your truth will reveal itself.
Slightly agitated,
Lurk
SAMOREZ
In article <34E8E42B...@earthlink.net>, Mark Alexander
<mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>It's the Test of Personality.
>It's the Test of Personality.
>It's the Test of Personality.
>It's the Test of Personality.
>It's the Test of Personality.
>It's the Test of Personality.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Mark a dull boy.
Redrum
Time makes more converts than reason ---- Thomas Paine
Mark Alexander
arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
> Slightly agitated,
>
> Lurk
Sorry to agitate you ;-). All I am doing is pointing out that Eckankar is quite clear
about stating Truth is not found in its books or in external authority. A chela must
sooner or later come to terms with any psychological dependency (conscious or
unconcious) on books, on organizations, or on external authorities...Revelations about
Paul and Eckankar are good for that.
Certainly you would agree with that in a generic sense. In some ways we actually agree.
However, a.r.e. is like Cold Comfort Farm and Sam et al are like Grandma with her
mantra of "I saw something nasty in the woodshed." And so she and those who can't get
past her *stuck point* sit unmoving in their doom and decay and ego, not realizing how
much they have simply exchanged one dependency for another.
Sometimes its good to remind someone that it is only a test, that the nature of the
test is dependency on personality, that on the other side of the test in the realm of
direct personal experience are answers that help one see the whole picture. Those
answers can't be discussed here.
They can only be captured by the heart.
Ken
Mark Alexander <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
:
: Sometimes its good to remind someone that it is only a test, that the nature
: of the test is dependency on personality, that on the other side of the test
: in the realm of direct personal experience are answers that help one see
: the whole picture. Those answers can't be discussed here.
:
: They can only be captured by the heart.
:
: HU
Hey, it's about TIME someone turned the lights up in here. Far too gloomy
lately. Thanks.
--
Ken
"A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving."
- Lao Tzu
arel...@mindspring.com
Mark:
> Sorry to agitate you ;-). All I am doing is pointing out that Eckankar is quite clear
> about stating Truth is not found in its books or in external authority.
Lurk:
Yes and many dishonest people start their sentences with, "To be honest
with
you..." <ggg>
And another thing...where is Eckankar quite clear about stating truth is
not found in
its books....in its books? <head spin>
Mark, I'm sure you can find quotes by Paul and Harold that say truth is
within each of us and not in books, but these become mere lip service in
the shadow of the overwhelming reality of eckankar being an
authoritarian guru-based system with its ego-clenching graduated
initiations. It is my observation the focal point in eckankar has always
been THE MASTER KNOWS BEST in words and deeds and is the ultimate
authority.
Mark:
> A chela must
> sooner or later come to terms with any psychological dependency (conscious or
> unconcious) on books, on organizations, or on external authorities...Revelations
> about Paul and Eckankar are good for that.
>
> Certainly you would agree with that in a generic sense. In some ways we actually agree.
Yes, I would agree that it is good for a person to come to terms with a
psychological dependency on eckankar system and its leaders and masters.
I find your view a bit incomplete though and conspicuously lacking
mention of other side of this relational dynamic. I believe eckankar
needs to come to terms with its elements that incite or cultivate such
dependency among people as well.
What's ironic and confusing is any reform eckankar attempts to make
regarding eckists being less dependent will be made from an
authoritarian context. And the masses will, without question, follow the
prescription or dictate that they "need to decide for themselves"
because someone told them they need to. <head spin>
But hold on, let's back up here a minute. You are explaining the meaning
to your comments to Pattapp in terms of it being good for a student to
come to terms with their psychological dependency on eckankar. It
appears you may have jump the gun.
Here's what Pathapp said:
[What I can't accept is that in the book
"The Far Country" he attributed exact passages from J.Johnson's book to
the
words of Rebezar Tarz. This is not just hearsay. I have personally
checked
this out myself, using both books side by side. Does anyone have an
answer to
this? ]
Mark, don't you think it is rather presumptuous of you to imply Pattapp
has a psychological dependency on eckankar because s/he wanted to know
how Julian Johnson's book ended up in Tarz's mouth?
What... when someone believes and trusts what an eck master says, and
finds out that it is not true, that's dependency? I don't know about
Pattapp, but some people may want to feel the disappointment and hurt
upon finding out about eckankar's dirty family secret. It is typical to
feel foolish, like you've been had.
Coming along and saying you shouldn't have relied on the books doesn't
strike me as all that helpful...more an attempt to preserve some kind of
consensus reality.
>
> However, a.r.e. is like Cold Comfort Farm and Sam et al are like Grandma with her
> mantra of "I saw something nasty in the woodshed." And so she and those who can't get
> past her *stuck point* sit unmoving in their doom and decay and ego, not realizing how
> much they have simply exchanged one dependency for another.
<snip>
Something nasty in the woodshed? How about something rotten in the state
of Denmark. <gg>
Lurk
Bruce & Denise
arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Mark, I'm sure you can find quotes by Paul and Harold that say truth is
> within each of us and not in books, but these become mere lip service in
> the shadow of the overwhelming reality of eckankar being an
> authoritarian guru-based system
"Overwhelming"? Are you speaking for yourself here, Lurk? :-/
>with its ego-clenching graduated initiations.
Same question...
> It is my observation the focal point in eckankar has always
> been THE MASTER KNOWS BEST in words and deeds and is the ultimate
> authority.
*Your* focal point?
> Yes, I would agree that it is good for a person to come to terms with a
> psychological dependency on eckankar system and its leaders and masters.
Yes.
> I believe eckankar needs to come to terms with its elements that incite
> or cultivate such dependency among people as well.
We've all known guys who mistrust beautiful women because of how they
"make" them feel :-/
> What's ironic and confusing is any reform eckankar attempts to make
> regarding eckists being less dependent will be made from an
> authoritarian context.
If you choose to see Eckankar in an authoritarian
context, your prophecy becomes self-fulfilling.
> And the masses will, without question, follow the
> prescription or dictate that they "need to decide for themselves"
> because someone told them they need to. <head spin>
Relax, Lurk. Deep breaths <g>/
Bruce
Bruce & Denise
radical wrote:
> > > Lurk writes:
> > > And the masses will, without question, follow the
> > > prescription or dictate that they "need to decide for themselves"
> > > because someone told them they need to. <head spin>
> > Bruce replies
> > Relax, Lurk. Deep breaths <g>/
and radical writes:
> I'm interested in this discussion...but Bruce, why don't you engange the
> questions and issues that Lurk has brought, up countering them with your
> own observations about Eckankar and Eckists instead of simply (and
> deftly) turning him back on his own consciousness?
It's a gardener's habit :-) Lurk and I go back a way on this ng.
One of Lurk's habits is to strike a multiplicity of questions
from a single idea. One net effect of this is that his posts
tend to get very long and, as he himself admits, even his own
head starts spinning <g>. Sometimes I get an urge to pare the
shoots back to the root discussion.
> It looks from where I'm sitting that you're simply attempting
> to introvert him/her with your responses. I don't imagine you
> really intend to do that, but that's what your style of response
> is designed to do. It's the old psychic mirror trick...and it
> usually works to silence the person, but doesn't help discourse
> much.
Well, neither does unrestrained imagination :-)
> What's the fallacy here? Is it called the "red herring?"
I call it "the pin in the balloon" :-)
To be specific, I wanted to point out that the anxiety that
Lurk was so ably illustrating was the result of his own
imagination running away with the seed of an idea which
is by itself innocuous. Rather than cursing the weed for what
it becomes (there goes that gardening habit again) a person
can simply pluck it out when it is small. instead, Lurk was
watering and feeding the weed to see how big and ugly and
acary he could make it grow.
> You're treating him/her like a child, finishing off the non-discussion
> by telling him to take deep breaths as if he were experiencing some kind
> of emotional distress.
Well, if you read his post again, you'll see that Lurk himself
indicated that his head was spinning :-/
> Even the light hearted, friendly grin indicator
> doesn't change the basic effect. Is it possible this person is not
> completely delusional? Do you respect this person at all?
Of course I do. I'm not saying he's delusional, just that in
this case he is making a big deal out of something small.
Something he has called me for in the past, by the way <g>.
By the way, where's *your* sense of humour?
But if you want my unadorned argument, it is this; that authority
has only the power that people give to it. Authority can be
good, in that it allows one person to teach another. But
the student must learn to moderate the degree to which he
accepts the authority of the teacher. No authority, no
listening, no learning. Too much authority, no responsibility,
no learning. Eckankar teaches moderation, even regarding
the authority of the Living Eck Master over the student. Lurk
seems to leave that out of his post from time to time <g>.
Bottom line; students who binge on the authority of the teacher
despite the teacher's own warnings do so at their peril.
Bruce
radical
Bruce & Denise wrote:
[all this and then...}
> > What's ironic and confusing is any reform eckankar attempts to make
> > regarding eckists being less dependent will be made from an
> > authoritarian context.
>
> If you choose to see Eckankar in an authoritarian
> context, your prophecy becomes self-fulfilling.
>
> > And the masses will, without question, follow the
> > prescription or dictate that they "need to decide for themselves"
> > because someone told them they need to. <head spin>
>
> Relax, Lurk. Deep breaths <g>/
>
> Bruce
I'm interested in this discussion...but Bruce, why don't you engange the
questions and issues that Lurk has brought, up countering them with your
own observations about Eckankar and Eckists instead of simply (and
deftly) turning him back on his own consciousness? It looks from where
I'm sitting that you're simply attempting to introvert him/her with your
responses. I don't imagine you really intend to do that, but that's what
your style of response is designed to do. It's the old psychic mirror
trick...and it usually works to silence the person, but doesn't help
discourse much. What's the fallacy here? Is it called the "red
herring?"
You're treating him/her like a child, finishing off the non-discussion
by telling him to take deep breaths as if he were experiencing some kind
of emotional distress. Even the light hearted, friendly grin indicator
Alana Keres
I know this isn't going to put the issue to rest, but here's another
little detail that some are likely to miss:
*There is no charge for the initiations in Eckankar.*
Quite UNLIKE the invitation I received today from my friends in the New
Kadampa Tradition (Tibetan Buddhist), who are charging $50.00 for a
Vajradakini empowerment. Except for mass empowerments (like when the DL
has the Kalachakra mandala built and dumped out in a given area), they
*always* charge.
I don't think there's anything wrong with charging, but it's an
'accusation' that just doesn't fit the facts.
Hey, did anybody see the Dateline special on the Aquarians in Sedona last
Tuesday? What did you think?
M.
radical
Bruce & Denise wrote:
{manamana and so on...}
By the way, where's *your* sense of humour?
>
> But if you want my unadorned argument, it is this; that authority
> has only the power that people give to it. Authority can be
> good, in that it allows one person to teach another. But
> the student must learn to moderate the degree to which he
> accepts the authority of the teacher. No authority, no
> listening, no learning. Too much authority, no responsibility,
> no learning. Eckankar teaches moderation, even regarding
> the authority of the Living Eck Master over the student. Lurk
> seems to leave that out of his post from time to time <g>.
>
> Bottom line; students who binge on the authority of the teacher
> despite the teacher's own warnings do so at their peril.
>
> Bruce
Now that's that's an answer! Thanks. I'm satisified to hear it. Oh,
and my sense of humor? Let's see...I...have it here somewhere...
Rich
Alana Keres wrote:
> Hey, did anybody see the Dateline special on the Aquarians in Sedona last
> Tuesday? What did you think?
I saw parts of it. While I am reticent to believe the viewpoint and
'facts' that TV expose's present, it seems that even if the guy is
sincere in what he is trying to do, he is probably one of the wanna-bees
that Harold cautioned about.
Not too mystical, huh Myst?
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cinder
In article <34F8A8...@mindspring.com>, arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>
-> Yes, parents say all sorts of things, but who they are, how they behave,
-> feel and interact is by far a more powerful teacher or message than
-> their contrived utterances.
Amen! This is true of every relationship from the most casual to the
most intimate.
I've had the experience of going out with someone recently and I smiled
as I listen to her tell me things that were in direct opposition to her
concurrent behavior. It's part of human nature to be partially
unconscious! That is an important element of the promise of growth and
'enlightenment.'
-> Same with eckankar. The authoritarian hierarchical system of higher and
-> lower with a Guru at the top is a very powerful message that can silence
-> an inner voice of its own authority instead of develop it. I mean, the
-> system has division written all over it and is fundamentally flawed.
-> Eckankar should be arrested and charge with the crime of ego entrapment.
-> <gg>
Think of it as a lateral system, Lurk. The Guru really isn't at the
'top' so much as at an energetic gateway. The Guru doesn't even
necessarily 'control' the gateway, but there is a connection or
association that is compelling. Trying to 'science' it doesn't yield the
answer. Like the energy of being in love is difficult to quantify.
Inner voices are most often silenced by the 'owner' who is in the
throw's of ego conflict and self-inflicted acceptance of peer pressure.
We trap our own egos.
Bruce said:
-> > Bottom line; students who binge on the authority of the teacher
-> > despite the teacher's own warnings do so at their peril.
Lurk:
-> And when teachers binge on the power of helping those adoring eyes, they
-> do so at their own peril?
It's a symbiotic relationship, remember. The adoration goes both
ways. Peril? I dunno 'bout that, but like any high efficiency combustion
the kitchen gets *pretty* hot (but not deep fried hot...<g>).
csk
--
arel...@mindspring.com
Bruce & Denise wrote:
>
> arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Mark, I'm sure you can find quotes by Paul and Harold that say truth is
> > within each of us and not in books, but these become mere lip service in
> > the shadow of the overwhelming reality of eckankar being an
> > authoritarian guru-based system
>
> "Overwhelming"? Are you speaking for yourself here, Lurk? :-/
Nit pic over specific words all you want Bruce, this is one of the great
eckankar paradoxes I just can't seem to quit talking about. If you ask
me, I think it is indicative of something that's being reflected on an
individual level in a collective manner. But that's just a guess.
> >with its ego-clenching graduated initiations.
>
> Same question...
Sure Bruce...When I first started, I lusted in my heart for the next
initiation. <g> I just wanted to BE somebody, I wanted to BE somebody
special!
Was I the only one that experienced initiations that way? <gg>
>
> > It is my observation the focal point in eckankar has always
> > been THE MASTER KNOWS BEST in words and deeds and is the ultimate
> > authority.
>
> *Your* focal point?
In all the years I was in eckankar, I never once heard one single person
disagree with something Harold said. I mean, he says some interesting
things, but nobody hits 100%.
But at the same time these eckists would quickly and proudly proclaim
he's not to be worshiped. It seemed like this pronouncement came from a
place of we don't worship him because we're not suppose to, you know....
so that nasty Darwin situation-thingy never happens again. <g> Actions
contradicted the no worship pronouncement.
Mosts eckists I've been around seem to have the attitude that THE MASTER
KNOWS BEST and hung on his every word. Now as to whether this is
universally true, I can only guess. But the interesting question is:
Where do eckists get such a notion? Hmmmm. From the master himself?
Mother of all ironies, don't you think?
>
> > Yes, I would agree that it is good for a person to come to terms with a
> > psychological dependency on eckankar system and its leaders and masters.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I believe eckankar needs to come to terms with its elements that incite
> > or cultivate such dependency among people as well.
>
> We've all known guys who mistrust beautiful women because of how they
> "make" them feel :-/
Bruce, I think it is useful to take an honest look at how eckankar
seduces or cultivates such dependency and define exactly what its role
might be. How does it contribute to this dynamic? I suspect this won't
happen since these elements are deeply embedded in the doctrines and
structure itself, in my opinion. It's easier just to make anyone who
objects the problem. <g>
>
> > What's ironic and confusing is any reform eckankar attempts to make
> > regarding eckists being less dependent will be made from an
> > authoritarian context.
>
> If you choose to see Eckankar in an authoritarian
> context, your prophecy becomes self-fulfilling.
So you think this authoritarianism is something I'm making up or it's a
matter of my selective perception?
The point I was trying to make is the similar type contradiction that is
seen in an alcoholic father who advises his Son that he drinks too much
and needs to stop... as they head off to the bar to tie one on.
>
> > And the masses will, without question, follow the
> > prescription or dictate that they "need to decide for themselves"
> > because someone told them they need to. <head spin>
>
> Relax, Lurk. Deep breaths <g>/
(Lurk takes deep breath) You've got to admit it's an interesting
question, no?
Bruce, good to see you back here setting me straight. Now if you'd only
debate the issues.... <g>
Lurk
arel...@mindspring.com
Bruce wrote:
> But if you want my unadorned argument, it is this; that authority
> has only the power that people give to it.
Yes, but people who empower spiritual authorities do so based upon what?
What they write (or copy), what they say in books about who they are (In
MY Soul..), descriptions in books and tapes about what their titled
position? These are a few, I'm sure there are countless other variables
people use.
> Authority can be
> good, in that it allows one person to teach another. But
> the student must learn to moderate the degree to which he
> accepts the authority of the teacher. No authority, no
> listening, no learning. Too much authority, no responsibility,
> no learning.
I agree.
> Eckankar teaches moderation, even regarding
> the authority of the Living Eck Master over the student. Lurk
> seems to leave that out of his post from time to time <g>.
I didn't leave it out, I called it lip service. I like to compare it to
the parent that reads all the parenting books on how to engineer their
child's psychological upbringing. They say all the right things, and try
so hard to build the child's self-esteem with techniques, never
realizing the underlying message that is being sent to the child is
there is something wrong with them, thus further justifying the parents
engineering attempts.
Yes, parents say all sorts of things, but who they are, how they behave,
feel and interact is by far a more powerful teacher or message than
their contrived utterances.
Same with eckankar. The authoritarian hierarchical system of higher and
lower with a Guru at the top is a very powerful message that can silence
an inner voice of its own authority instead of develop it. I mean, the
system has division written all over it and is fundamentally flawed.
Eckankar should be arrested and charge with the crime of ego entrapment.
<gg>
>
> Bottom line; students who binge on the authority of the teacher
> despite the teacher's own warnings do so at their peril.
And when teachers binge on the power of helping those adoring eyes, they
do so at their own peril?
Lurk
SAMOREZ
In article <34F778...@achilles.net>, Bruce & Denise <w...@achilles.net>
writes:
>Lurk was so ably illustrating was the result of his own imagination running
>away with the seed of an idea which is by itself innocuous. Rather than
>cursing the weed for what it becomes (there goes that gardening habit again)
>a person can simply pluck it out when it is small. instead, Lurk
>was watering and feeding the weed to see how big and ugly and scary he could
>make it grow.
Whose responsibilty to pluck said weed?
The one who was told it was edible or the one who planted it?
I want to ask Paul T. and Harold this question.
Sam
radical
cinder wrote:
>
[.........] Think of it as a lateral system, Lurk. The Guru really
isn't at the
> 'top' so much as at an energetic gateway. The Guru doesn't even
> necessarily 'control' the gateway, but there is a connection or
> association that is compelling. Trying to 'science' it doesn't yield the
> answer. Like the energy of being in love is difficult to quantify.
>
> Inner voices are most often silenced by the 'owner' who is in the
> throw's of ego conflict and self-inflicted acceptance of peer pressure.
> We trap our own egos.
>
> Bruce said:
>
> -> > Bottom line; students who binge on the authority of the teacher
> -> > despite the teacher's own warnings do so at their peril.
>
> Lurk:
>
> -> And when teachers binge on the power of helping those adoring eyes, they
> -> do so at their own peril?
>
> It's a symbiotic relationship, remember. The adoration goes both
> ways. Peril? I dunno 'bout that, but like any high efficiency combustion
> the kitchen gets *pretty* hot (but not deep fried hot...<g>).
>
>
Damn! This is starting to be a very interesting topic. Wish I could put
in my worthless two cents, but at the moment I'm busy. Checking in
though! Thanks. This is fruitful (helpful).
> csk
>
> --
>
radical
arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
[all kinds of stuff and then...]
> > If you choose to see Eckankar in an authoritarian
> > context, your prophecy becomes self-fulfilling.
>
> So you think this authoritarianism is something I'm making up or it's a
> matter of my selective perception?
>
> The point I was trying to make is the similar type contradiction that is
> seen in an alcoholic father who advises his Son that he drinks too much
> and needs to stop... as they head off to the bar to tie one on.
>
> >
> > > And the masses will, without question, follow the
> > > prescription or dictate that they "need to decide for themselves"
> > > because someone told them they need to. <head spin>
> >
> > Relax, Lurk. Deep breaths <g>/
>
> (Lurk takes deep breath) You've got to admit it's an interesting
> question, no?
>
> Bruce, good to see you back here setting me straight. Now if you'd only
> debate the issues.... <g>
>
> Lurk
I'm enjoying this whole thread. I like controversy. It's occuring to
me though that a lot of the trouble with the "authoritarianism" of
Eckankar may not be as exclusive as some people feel it is. Personally,
I think it's the downside of any Group Consciousness from the Boy
Scouts, to a religion, to terrorist organizations. It comes with the
territory. The tyranny of the group consciousness is real and I think
Eckists who deny that, haven't done their homework. That doesn't
invalidate the value of a community for some people though. I'm saying
this as a person for whom the outer community of Eckankar has brought
little satisfaction or upliftment. But that's just me. I can't
extrapolate, it's obviously been a different process for a lot of
others.
Anyway, there's an inherent difficulty in the task of any spiritual
leader who forms or maintains a religious group, and the difficulty is
inherent in all groups, I think, but compounded because of the nature of
faith and spiritual issues.
That is: the difficulty with defining how and when a person may come
face to face with their God ~ "The Path" if you will. The catch is that
the rules/beliefs/priciples that comprise a doctrine are by their own
nature coersive and limiting.
Many inexperienced people, coming through a tightly controlled religious
environment, find themselves struggling to conform to the proper
hierophany within the group: to hear the call they are supposed to hear,
or see the vision, or visit the higher worlds, get that initiation, or
speak with tongues (as the case may be), only to fail in some way.
Worse still, because being an outsider is painful to most people who
have (I think) an instinctive and natural need to belong, some may
mimic the whole thing, even to the point of deceiving themselves. Many
an Eck leader has fit this discription. The coersive power of "the
institution" upon individuals shouldn't be underestimated. This power
can be so great over some people that it destroys the very freedom which
it claims to celebrate. By laying before the followers, a pattern of
expectations, institutions may force some people into living the
greatest of lies: a pretended or deluded ascent to something that does
not conform with their personal experience.
This does happen. There is no denying that fact. And it is the real
danger inherent in any religious institution, including Eckankar, but
not because Eckankar is uniquely flawed.
Show me a doctrinal group in which this does not occur. I've never seen
one. So, if a person wants whatever perceived advantages there are to
following an organized path, they need to be canny to the inherent
pitfalls. If they aren't, they will be sooner or later.
Two cents worth finishes here.
Bruce & Denise
SAMOREZ wrote:
>
> In article <34F778...@achilles.net>, Bruce & Denise <w...@achilles.net>
> writes:
>
> >Lurk was so ably illustrating was the result of his own imagination running
> >away with the seed of an idea which is by itself innocuous. Rather than
> >cursing the weed for what it becomes (there goes that gardening habit again)
> >a person can simply pluck it out when it is small. instead, Lurk
> >was watering and feeding the weed to see how big and ugly and scary he could
> >make it grow.
>
> Whose responsibilty to pluck said weed?
Since the weed is in the mind of each of us, I would say each of us.
> The one who was told it was edible or the one who planted it?
The plant we are talking about -- the adoration of the personality
of the master -- has been identified by the master as noxious. I
believe that the seed is a part of our genetic makeup as humans.
I don't think it can be destroyed, only managed.
It is up to each of us to pass along the warning.
Bruce
Bruce & Denise
Ken
SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
: In article <34F778...@achilles.net>, Bruce & Denise <w...@achilles.net>
: writes:
:
: >Lurk was so ably illustrating was the result of his own imagination running
: >away with the seed of an idea which is by itself innocuous. Rather than
: >cursing the weed for what it becomes (there goes that gardening habit again)
: >a person can simply pluck it out when it is small. instead, Lurk
: >was watering and feeding the weed to see how big and ugly and scary he could
: >make it grow.
:
:
: Whose responsibilty to pluck said weed?
:
: The one who was told it was edible or the one who planted it?
:
Weeds, growing in the gardens of my consciousness, are my responsibility
whether they were sown by the wind, a teacher, or the errant inclination of
a passing god. Whatever seeds I allow to grow, I alone shall reap their
harvest.
Besides, advice on gardening, whether offered in kindness or malice is mine to
accept or reject. Even if taken to heart, it was taken by me.
SAMOREZ
>> Bottom line; students who binge on the authority of the teacher
> despite
>the teacher's own warnings do so at their peril.
>And when teachers binge on
>the power of helping those adoring eyes, they do so at their own peril?
Should we ask Darwin? <GG>
Bruce & Denise
SAMOREZ wrote:
Woz writes:
> >> Bottom line; students who binge on the authority of the teacher
> > despite the teacher's own warnings do so at their peril.
Lurker writes:
> >And when teachers binge on
> >the power of helping those adoring eyes, they do so at their own peril?
Sam says:
> Should we ask Darwin? <GG>
Nuff said :-)
Bruce
KMerrymoon
Mr. Radical wrote:
>I'm enjoying this whole thread. I like controversy. It's occuring to
>me though that a lot of the trouble with the "authoritarianism" of
>Eckankar may not be as exclusive as some people feel it is. Personally,
>I think it's the downside of any Group Consciousness from the Boy
>Scouts, to a religion, to terrorist organizations. It comes with the
>territory. The tyranny of the group consciousness is real and I think
>Eckists who deny that, haven't done their homework. That doesn't
>invalidate the value of a community for some people though. I'm saying
>this as a person for whom the outer community of Eckankar has brought
>little satisfaction or upliftment. But that's just me. I can't
>extrapolate, it's obviously been a different process for a lot of
>others.
DOUG:
I see it the same way. We still live in an age, however, where we all like to
point at the big bad organization as the problem, but doing so is the easy way
out and misses the point.
The human race is just at the point where it is beginning to learn the
influences that herd consciousness has had upon it, leading it like a
nose-ring. If you look at a nest of ants, you can see them each, unconsciously,
acting for the good of the hive, losing their own individuality in the process.
We, as human beings, can now begin to learn how subtle that influence is, even
for thinking, conscious beings.
The biggest laugh I got, about this, was one day at Stanford University, where
I was with some ECKists who had an ECKANKAR booth on campus. I remember a
student coming up to ask some questions. Finally after about 15 mintues he
said, "I like everything you've said, but I just don't believe in
organizations." And he walked off. I stood there shaking my head, wondering
what he thought he was doing as a student at Stanford University if he didn't
believe in organizations. But this, inherently shows the fear we have of
becoming a victim of the group consciousness.
That's why I think this is one of the most important things for any spiritual
teaching to focus on. How to teach the student to become aware of the group
consciousness and its effect upon him. No matter how you try to teach this, and
I do think that Paul tried in a number of ways, it generally takes some big
shocks to really understand what it means.
>RADICAL:
>Anyway, there's an inherent difficulty in the task of any spiritual
>leader who forms or maintains a religious group, and the difficulty is
>inherent in all groups, I think, but compounded because of the nature of
>faith and spiritual issues.
>
>That is: the difficulty with defining how and when a person may come
>face to face with their God ~ "The Path" if you will. The catch is that
>the rules/beliefs/priciples that comprise a doctrine are by their own
>nature coersive and limiting.
DOUG:
It's really even more subtle than that. If you are truly, one on one, trying to
help someone understand "The Path" you may not even try to use doctrines,
beliefs, principles. You may simply try to explain to that one person in a way
that they might be able to understand. Yet, whatever you might say, it becomes
turned into doctrine and beliefs, for them. Until it becomes their reality, it
is doctrines and beliefs.
And then, even if they do have personal experiences that break through the
shell of their previous understanding, then they will only all the more be
tempted to look up to whatever doctrines and beliefs they might find that can
help them explain this new world they have now entered. They will seek out
doctrines and beliefs, because they do not know how to feel confortable with
not-knowing.
In other words, its like purifying gold. You can't just run it through the
furnace once. You've got to cure it over and over.
We just don't get it the first time. We don't get it the second time. Even when
we get it, just by calling some state of consciousness our home, our beliefs
begin to crystallize and limit us and our perceptions.
>RADICAL:
>Many inexperienced people, coming through a tightly controlled religious
>environment, find themselves struggling to conform to the proper
>hierophany within the group: to hear the call they are supposed to hear,
>or see the vision, or visit the higher worlds, get that initiation, or
>speak with tongues (as the case may be), only to fail in some way.
>Worse still, because being an outsider is painful to most people who
>have (I think) an instinctive and natural need to belong, some may
>mimic the whole thing, even to the point of deceiving themselves. Many
>an Eck leader has fit this discription. The coersive power of "the
>institution" upon individuals shouldn't be underestimated. This power
>can be so great over some people that it destroys the very freedom which
>it claims to celebrate. By laying before the followers, a pattern of
>expectations, institutions may force some people into living the
>greatest of lies: a pretended or deluded ascent to something that does
>not conform with their personal experience.
>
>This does happen. There is no denying that fact. And it is the real
>danger inherent in any religious institution, including Eckankar, but
>not because Eckankar is uniquely flawed.
DOUG:
And it happens at that very moment when the person begins to follow the
organization, rather than seeing that the organization is nothing but a shadow
cast from the light of the people in it. When people start adjusting their
behaviour based upon the reactions of the group, then the group has become the
leader. And no matter what anyone might do, organizations will always look
after themselves. Organizations can not act any other way when they are
leading.
This is why the inner connection to Spirit, the ECK, is the only thing that we
can rely on.
But there is something about this that I find really amazing. That we cannot
learn these lessons, and we cannot talk about these points, unless the
organization and group consciousness exist. We have been the grist in that
mill, but now it can become a conscious mill. We can willingly jump into that
mill to be consumed. We need something solid to be the kernel. We need
something limited to find the infinite.
>RADICAL:
>Show me a doctrinal group in which this does not occur. I've never seen
>one. So, if a person wants whatever perceived advantages there are to
>following an organized path, they need to be canny to the inherent
>pitfalls. If they aren't, they will be sooner or later.
DOUG:
And if the teaching is sincere about the spiritual path, it needs to point out
over and over again its own limitations in its outer form. Like Paul said,
those who must rely on the outer from are the mass-men. They will be the
victims. They will be the effect. But the fault is not society, or the
teaching. Society and the outer teachings are merely the parents. But the
person must gain that connection within themselves, that connection to Life, or
whatever you want to call it, if they are going to free themselves, and grow up
spiritually.
Leaving groups is not the answer. Helping to consciously lead groups, while
remaining the CliffHanger, hanging to the outside edges, is to participate in a
whole new experiment with human consciousness. And as Myst Mistress said, it's
a good way to die.
>RADICAL:
>Two cents worth finishes here.
DOUG:
Wow. What do I get if I pay you $1.50? That was pretty good for only 2 cents.
SAMOREZ
In article <19980302050...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, kmerr...@aol.com
(KMerrymoon) writes:
>The biggest laugh I got, about this, was one day at Stanford University,
>where I was with some ECKists who had an ECKANKAR booth on campus. I >remember
a student coming up to ask some questions. Finally after about mintues
>he said, "I like everything you've said, but I just don't believe
>in organizations." And he walked off. I stood there shaking my head,
>wondering what he thought he was doing as a student at Stanford University if
>he didn't believe in organizations. But this, inherently shows the fear we
>have of becoming a victim of the group consciousness.
I'm shaking my head, wondering who had the balls to set-up an Eckankar booth at
Stanford !!
Did Hillary stop by? Did she come to an intro. talk? Was everybody real cool
and and careful not to treat her as "special"? What did her bodyguards think?
sam
David D. Rogers
On 3 Mar 1998 05:40:51 -0800, Richard Pickett wrote:
: In article <19980303070...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, sam...@aol.com
: says...
: >
: >In article <19980302050...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, kmerr...@aol.com
: >(KMerrymoon) writes:
: >
: >>The biggest laugh I got, about this, was one day at Stanford University,
: >>where I was with some ECKists who had an ECKANKAR booth on campus. I >remember
: >a student coming up to ask some questions. Finally after about mintues
: >>he said, "I like everything you've said, but I just don't believe
: >>in organizations." And he walked off. I stood there shaking my head,
: >>wondering what he thought he was doing as a student at Stanford University if
: >>he didn't believe in organizations. But this, inherently shows the fear we
: >>have of becoming a victim of the group consciousness.
: >
: >
: >I'm shaking my head, wondering who had the balls to set-up an Eckankar booth at
: >Stanford !!
: >
: >Did Hillary stop by? Did she come to an intro. talk? Was everybody real cool
: >and and careful not to treat her as "special"? What did her bodyguards think?
: >
: >sam
: >
: >Time makes more converts than reason ---- Thomas Paine
: >
: >
: Dear Mr. zerO,
:
: Hillary wouldn't talk to us. She was too engaged in her stroll and chat with
: Eleanor Roosevelt. Besides, she is a committed Methodist.
:
: rfp
This is even bigger news. When did Hillary get committed? <BG>
Peace,
<> David
URL me at http://www.lightlink.com/drogers/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"You can kill a thousand; you can bring an end to life; you cannot kill
an idea."
--Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres on the assassination of
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995)
-----------------
"It bothers me that I was fooled and didn't know it. It bothers me more
that you know you were fooled and don't seem to care."
--Sam Orez on alt.religion.eckankar, 2/12/98
arel...@mindspring.com
KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> Mr. Radical wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
> >RADICAL:
> >Show me a doctrinal group in which this does not occur. I've never seen
> >one. So, if a person wants whatever perceived advantages there are to
> >following an organized path, they need to be canny to the inherent
> >pitfalls. If they aren't, they will be sooner or later.
>
> DOUG:
> And if the teaching is sincere about the spiritual path, it needs to point out
> over and over again its own limitations in its outer form.
With eckankar, though, pointing out it's limitations would be
contradicting the very doctrines and attitudes of specialness which has
come to be its draw.
> Like Paul said,
> those who must rely on the outer from are the mass-men. They will be the
> victims. They will be the effect. But the fault is not society, or the
> teaching. Society and the outer teachings are merely the parents. But the
> person must gain that connection within themselves, that connection to Life, or
> whatever you want to call it, if they are going to free themselves, and grow up
> spiritually.
I agree ultimately people need to connect with Spirit to grow up. I
believe that a system devised to facilitate that connection has
responsibilities in the outcome of its efforts to do so. In other
organizations the buck stops at the top, with eckankar, it gets shoved
down the throats of the people at the bottom with comments that they
didn't do it right or they're relying on books, and so on.
I realize how tricky it is for an organization and its leaders to define
what and how much their responsibility is when their efforts depend upon
the interpretation and choices of the diverse group of people they
serve. However, this should not be confused with them having NO
responsibility. Nor should a discussion along this line necessarily mean
a person is actively engaging in an encultured response of blaming the
big bad organization.
Making a group consciousness, which is faceless, the culprit or culpable
entity does little in the way of formulating a solution to problems, in
my opinion. I believe that a shared responsibility approach, where
honest communication goes both up and down the ladder, is more useful
than a one way communication process.
Lurk
arel...@mindspring.com
cinder wrote:
>
> In article <34F8A8...@mindspring.com>, arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> -> Same with eckankar. The authoritarian hierarchical system of higher and
> -> lower with a Guru at the top is a very powerful message that can silence
> -> an inner voice of its own authority instead of develop it. I mean, the
> -> system has division written all over it and is fundamentally flawed.
> -> Eckankar should be arrested and charge with the crime of ego entrapment.
> -> <gg>
>
> Think of it as a lateral system, Lurk. The Guru really isn't at the
> 'top' so much as at an energetic gateway. The Guru doesn't even
> necessarily 'control' the gateway, but there is a connection or
> association that is compelling. Trying to 'science' it doesn't yield the
> answer. Like the energy of being in love is difficult to quantify.
While I appreciate your interpretation of the relationship as a lateral
system, I feel compelled to ask Dick to pull out the old eckankar flow
charts again. <g>
>
> Inner voices are most often silenced by the 'owner' who is in the
> throw's of ego conflict and self-inflicted acceptance of peer pressure.
> We trap our own egos.
Yes, ultimately we silence our inner voices and remove ourselves from
what is. I'm sure you would agree that the other party in the teaching
relationship has a certain degree of influence upon whether or not we
learn to trust our inner voice. Some paths, religions, or systems are
more useful than others in accomplishing this.
I'm just questioning how useful it is to have a religion whose structure
seems to have the effect of dividing people internally by dangling
promiscuously such notions as higher and lower initiations, becoming one
of those coworkers with God, and last but not least, the LEM playing the
role of God on earth, just to name a few things.
I've seen how eckankar can act as sort of as a travel agent for a
seeker's spiritual ego trips. <ggg>
Lurk
David D. Rogers
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 21:37:18 -0500, Bruce & Denise <w...@achilles.net>
wrote:
: radical wrote:
:
[snip]
: > It looks from where I'm sitting that you're simply attempting
: > to introvert him/her with your responses. I don't imagine you
: > really intend to do that, but that's what your style of response
: > is designed to do. It's the old psychic mirror trick...and it
: > usually works to silence the person, but doesn't help discourse
: > much.
[snip]
: To be specific, I wanted to point out that the anxiety that
: Lurk was so ably illustrating was the result of his own
: imagination running away with the seed of an idea which
: is by itself innocuous. Rather than cursing the weed for what
: it becomes (there goes that gardening habit again) a person
: can simply pluck it out when it is small. instead, Lurk was
: watering and feeding the weed to see how big and ugly and
: acary he could make it grow.
Like an ex-President used to say: "There you go again." :)
Peace,
<> David
URL me at http://www.lightlink.com/drogers/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"You can kill a thousand; you can bring an end to life; you cannot kill
an idea."
--Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres on the assassination of
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995)
-----------------
Do you believe in telekinesis? Raise my hand!
Ken
arel...@mindspring.com wrote ...
:
: I've seen how eckankar can act as sort of as a travel agent for a
: seeker's spiritual ego trips. <ggg>
:
While this (ego trips cloaked in spirituality) might be an important issue for
you, it's never personally bothered me too much. While I have seen this
happen (in both myself and others), I know that it's just another necessary
step on the path for Soul. I've watched people fall flat on their faces,
tripped up by power or prestige, and there's nothing I can do but give them
Love as they get back up and dust themselves off.
What you seem to be failing to recognize is that we all have our own unique
areas of growth to focus on and the structure of Eckankar does a good
job of bringing them to the surface for it's students.
Perhaps what you're seeing as 'bugs' in the structure of Eckankar, are really
'features' <ggg>.
--
Ken
"If the beloved is everywhere,
the lover is a veil,
But when Living itself
Becomes the Friend,
Lovers disappear."
"The Illuminated Rumi"
Translation by Coleman Barks
SAMOREZ
In article <01bd4854$d4791640$LocalHost@default>, "Ken" <kens...@erols.com>
writes:
>While this (ego trips cloaked in spirituality) might be an important issue
>for
>you, it's never personally bothered me too much. While I have seen this
>happen (in both myself and others), I know that it's just another necessary
>step on the path for Soul. I've watched people fall flat on their faces,
>tripped up by power or prestige, and there's nothing I can do but give them
>Love as they get back up and dust themselves off.
>
>What you seem to be failing to recognize is that we all have our own unique
>areas of growth to focus on and the structure of Eckankar does a good
>job of bringing them to the surface for it's students.
>
>Perhaps what you're seeing as 'bugs' in the structure of Eckankar, are really
>'features' <ggg>.
They would be 'features' Ken if they were acknowledged by the heirarchy. Alas,
they are pitfalls without warning. To my mind, eckkie higher ups are subtly
encouraged to see themselves as 'special' and 'unique'. And while Life will
take care of that particular variety of disorder in its own course, is Eck,
Inc. culpable for not giving fair warning, nay, for actually encouraging such
'full of self' behavior?
As Radical so aptly put it: "With eckankar, though, pointing out it's
limitations would be contradicting the very doctrines and attitudes of
specialness which has
come to be its draw."
sam
Julie Masters
SAMOREZ wrote:
. To my mind, eckkie higher ups are subtly
> encouraged to see themselves as 'special' and 'unique'. And while Life will
> take care of that particular variety of disorder in its own course, is Eck,
> Inc. culpable for not giving fair warning, nay, for actually encouraging such
> 'full of self' behavior?
>
What's subtle about ranking people by numbers, putting it on an id
card, and only letting those above a certain number into special
meetings/clubs?
arel...@mindspring.com
Ken wrote:
>
> arel...@mindspring.com wrote ...
> :
> : I've seen how eckankar can act as sort of as a travel agent for a
> : seeker's spiritual ego trips. <ggg>
> :
>
> you, it's never personally bothered me too much. While I have seen this
> happen (in both myself and others), I know that it's just another necessary
> step on the path for Soul. I've watched people fall flat on their faces,
> tripped up by power or prestige, and there's nothing I can do but give them
> Love as they get back up and dust themselves off.
>
> What you seem to be failing to recognize is that we all have our own unique
> areas of growth to focus on and the structure of Eckankar does a good
> job of bringing them to the surface for it's students.
>
> Perhaps what you're seeing as 'bugs' in the structure of Eckankar, are really
> 'features' <ggg>.
Ken, sounds like you're trying to turn a "bug" into a benefit. Reminds
me of the old M&M candy commercial where the announcer says, "they melt
in you mouth and not in your hand."
Yeah right!
Lurk
Ken
Julie Masters <jmas...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote ...
:
Graduated initiations have been used for thousands of years by many esoteric
groups. They have a purpose, and like anything else there are trade-offs.
This kind of arrangement does *not* necessarily fit the spiritual unfoldment
of everyone.
arel...@mindspring.com
Richard, Pickett wrote:
>
>
> Dear zeO mas,
>
> Unless Lurker & Radical are the same individual, you have misattributed the
> above quotation.
No we're not the same...Radical is a much better writer than I. I
couldn't fake that.
Lurk
radical
Maybe, but my spelling sucks the big one, and I couldn't fake THAT!
Ken
arel...@mindspring.com wrote ...
: Ken wrote:
: > While this (ego trips cloaked in spirituality) might be an important issue
for
: > you, it's never personally bothered me too much. While I have seen this
: > happen (in both myself and others), I know that it's just another
necessary
: > step on the path for Soul. I've watched people fall flat on their faces,
: > tripped up by power or prestige, and there's nothing I can do but give
them
: > Love as they get back up and dust themselves off.
: >
: > What you seem to be failing to recognize is that we all have our own
unique
: > areas of growth to focus on and the structure of Eckankar does a good
: > job of bringing them to the surface for it's students.
: >
: > Perhaps what you're seeing as 'bugs' in the structure of Eckankar, are
really
: > 'features' <ggg>.
:
: Ken, sounds like you're trying to turn a "bug" into a benefit. Reminds
: me of the old M&M candy commercial where the announcer says, "they melt
: in you mouth and not in your hand."
:
: Yeah right!
I like M&M's. What part of the commercial isn't true? As a 5-year old, I
discovered you can carry them around in your pocket all day and still have a
chocolate snack later. And they're crunchy too. Great stuff.
Regarding the feature vs failure perception of certain aspects of Eckankar,
I'm not trying to DO anything. What I wrote above is a good description of
the true spiritual path as I understand it, whether it is Sufism, Buddhism,
Eckankar or any other. Your response indicates that you haven't given much
attention to the actual process of unfoldment. Why not?
Zaz9 13
>"Ken" <kens...@erols.com> wrote:
> Your response indicates that you haven't given much
>attention to the actual process of unfoldment.
Say....when did you discover you were folded?
And how will you ever get rid of those creases?
And WHO folded you?
(viewing Homer Simpson at the temple of eck answering)
:o)
SAMOREZ
In article <6do3r8$5...@drn.newsguy.com>, Richard Pickett writes:
>Unless Lurker & Radical are the same individual, you have misattributed the
>above quotation.
>
>But, what's new about that?
>
>
Jeez, Dicky, you must be tired. Is this the best you can do???
You put the anal in anal retention.
S.O.
SAMOREZ
In article <34FF27...@oregon.uoregon.edu>, Julie Masters
<jmas...@oregon.uoregon.edu> writes:
>What's subtle about ranking people by numbers, putting it on an id
>card, and only letting those above a certain number into special
>meetings/clubs?
Got me there.....<G>
sam
SAMOREZ
In article <19980307025...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, zaz...@aol.com
(Zaz9 13) writes:
>Say....when did you discover you were folded?
>
>And how will you ever get rid of those creases?
>
>And WHO folded you?
>
>(viewing Homer Simpson at the temple of eck answering)
> :o)
>
>
Doh !
:)
Ram3Ram
rfp wrote:
>One can't keep the players straight without a program. Considering all the
>fictive identities, counternovelists, and Paratactii terroists
Ram:
"terroists"??????? Say it ain't so rfp!
As Sam once wrote, "where have all the hero's gone???"
Rfp:
. . . abounding in
>this newsgroup, it is my sworn duty to provide some small measure of
>coherence and sanity to any newcomer that may stumble across this hole.
>
>Maybe I should start a roster:
snip
Ram:
Maybe I too should start a roster for the newcomer:
Rebezar Tarzs - Julian Johnson, Sawan Singh, Kirpal Singh, Guru Nanak and
others
Sudar Singh - Swami Premananda, Kirpal Singh and others
Fubbi Quantz - Meher Baba and others
Lai Tsi - Jesus and others
Gopal Das - Kabir, Jesus and others
Paul Twitchell -The self-proclaimed "New Age Messia" (All About ECK)
Darwin Gross - The Black Magician
Harold Klemp - Blah Zey
Rfp:
>
>Would anything but a madman complain of uncertainty? Uncertainty and
>expectation are the joys of life. Security is an insipid thing, and
>the overtaking and possesing of a wish discovers the folly of the
>chase. Never let us know one another better, for the pleasure of a
>masquerade is done better when we come to show faces. But I'll tell
>you two things before I leave you: I am not the fool you take me for,
>and you are mad and don't know it.
> William Congreve, "Love for Love," act IV scene xx line 678-685
Ram:
For the record, I gave my full name, and location, when I started posting to
a.r.e. But I stopped for two reasons:
1) The madman-like reply of a certain nutcase HI to my first post, leading me
to think again about the wisdom of continuing to give out my "identity" here.
2) I was inspired by Twitchell's literary "creativity," so I figured why not
"go thou and do likewise." What true eckist could find fault with that?
Ram3Ram
rfp wrote:
>>1) The madman-like reply of a certain nutcase HI to my first post, leading
>me
>>to think again about the wisdom of continuing to give out my "identity"
>here.
>
>That darned David Lane ruined Eckankar for me - Ram3Ram 1998/01/03
> Nathan Zafran 1998/01/03
> cinder 1998/01/03
> SAMOREZ 1998/01/03 (Is this the 'nut case?')
> KMerrymoon 1998/01/04
>
>
>rfp
>
>
>
Most impressive Sherlock.
Not Sam of course. You and everyone else here knows who the nutcase is. And
his posting you cited is but an edited version of an email. That is what I was
referring to here.
On the other hand, your sedulous diligence (obsession?) with this matter makes
me wonder if he's the only one I have to wonder about.
Will Goodwin
> : What's subtle about ranking people by numbers, putting it on an id
> : card, and only letting those above a certain number into special
> : meetings/clubs?
> :
>
> Graduated initiations have been used for thousands of years by many esoteric
> groups. They have a purpose, and like anything else there are trade-offs.
> This kind of arrangement does *not* necessarily fit the spiritual unfoldment
> of everyone.
>
> --
> Ken
Yes, just like schools, or universities rank participants into numbered
levels (grades)... you have people who don't do well with structure and
classification. Those people usually drop out, then go on to become
millionaires by opening Dominoes pizza chains. Of course, some also cook
those pizzas.
Does that have anything to do with thier spiritual level of development?
Absolutely not. It is all up the individual to take a certain course in
his/her life, then reap the spiritual benefits of what they have sown.
Will
SAMOREZ
In article <6dvs2o$p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Richard Pickett writes:
> SAMOREZ 1998/01/03 (Is this the 'nut case?')
More like a case of nuts.
screwy sam
dro...@lightlink.com
In article <6dtro7$n...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Richard Pickett wrote:
> Dear Sloppy Sam,
>
> One can't keep the players straight without a program. Considering all the
> fictive identities, counternovelists, and Paratactii terroists abounding in
> this newsgroup, it is my sworn duty to provide some small measure of
> coherence and sanity to any newcomer that may stumble across this hole.
>
> Maybe I should start a roster:
>
> Samorez - Unknown (I promised not to tell)
> KAL - Samorez
> Karaholly - Unknown
> Arelurker - Unknown
> Raphael - Unknown
> Zuma - Unknown
> Shiva7 - Unknown
> Ram3Ram - Unknown
> tuzatravlr - Unknown
> Radical - Unknown (thinks he is Alec Baldwin)
> Harry Kight - Harry Kight
> K. Paul Johnson - K. Paul Johnson
> John T. Engel - John T. Engel
> David Lane - David Lane
> dlane - David Christopher Lane
> zephyr - Kate McLaughlin
> Kate McLaughlin - Kate McLaughlin
> Cinder - Kent Livingston
> Spark - Kent Livingston
> Kent - Kent Livingston
> Red Tara - Alana Keres
> mystes - Mysti Easterwood - Alana Keres
> Alana Keres - Alana Keres
> Kmerrymoon - Doug Marman
> Ken - Ken Stoltz
> Rich - Rich Smith
> Jessica N Weiss - Jessica N Weiss
> Joseph Polanik - Joseph Polanik
> David D. Rogers - David D. Rogers
That's very good. But what is my SPIRITUAL name? Next to that, "David D.
Rogers" is just my "fictive identity". =)
> Will Goodwin - Will Goodwin
> Michael Turner - Michael Turner
> Julie Masters - Julie Masters
> Rick Cahdwick - Rick Chadwick
> Nathan Zafran - Nathan Zafran
> ezafran - Nathan Zafran
> Steve Runfeldt - Steve Runfeldt
> Bruce & Denise - Bruce & Denise Wozny
> Woz - Bruce Wozny
> Glen Stevens - Glen Stevens
> Jason Venner - Jason Venner
> Mark Alexander - Mark Alexander
>
> rfp
Peace,
<> David
URL me at http://www.lightlink.com/drogers/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"You can kill a thousand; you can bring an end to life; you cannot kill
an idea."
--Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres on the assassination of
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995)
-----------------
Do you believe in telekinesis? Raise my hand!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Shiva7
>>>> Shiva7 - Unknown
What's up with that Pickett?
Do I need two proofs of identification to post on a newsgroup?
I thought you were going to come up for Satsang? Ya scared to give out your
e-mail address?
Ned
radical
These lists of yours are just a bit...Kafkaesque, don't you think?
Dean Cooper
Richard, Pickett wrote:
> In article <6f1vs2$g...@drn.newsguy.com>, Richard says...
> >
> >>>> One can't keep the players straight without a program. Considering all the
> >>>> fictive identities, counternovelists, and Paratactii terroists abounding in
> >>>> this newsgroup, it is my sworn duty to provide some small measure of
> >>>> coherence and sanity to any newcomer that may stumble across this hole.
> >>>>
> >>>> The updated roster:
> >>>>
> >>>> Samorez - Unknown (I promised not to tell)
> >>>> KAL - Samorez
> >>>> Karaholly - Unknown
> >>>> Arelurker - Unknown
> >>>> Raphael - Unknown
> >>>> Zuma - Unknown
> >>>> Shiva7 - Ned Lawrence
> >>>> Ram3Ram - Joe O'Leary
> >>>> tuzatravlr - Unknown
> >>>> Radical - Mick Roche
> >>>> Harry Kight - Harry Kight
> >>>> K. Paul Johnson - K. Paul Johnson
> >>>> John T. Engel - John T. Engel
> > Lord Bujinin - RONALD D. DOUGLASS of Portland
> > Benji - RONALD D. DOUGLASS of Portland
> > Swami Mocha - RONALD D. DOUGLASS of Portland
> >>>> David Lane - David Lane
> >>>> dlane - David Christopher Lane
> >>>> zephyr - Kate McLaughlin
> >>>> Kate McLaughlin - Kate McLaughlin
> >>>> Cinder - Kent Livingston
> >>>> Spark - Kent Livingston
> >>>> Kent - Kent Livingston
> >>>> Red Tara - Alana Keres
> >>>> mystes - Mysti Easterwood - Alana Keres
> >>>> Alana Keres - Alana Keres
> >>>> Kmerrymoon - Doug Marman
> >>>> Ken - Ken Stoltz
> >>>> Rich - Rich Smith
> >>>> Jessica N Weiss - Jessica N Weiss
> >>>> Joseph Polanik - Joseph Polanik
> >>>> David D. Rogers - David D. Rogers
> >>>> Will Goodwin - Will Goodwin
> >>>> Michael Turner - Michael Turner
> >>>> Julie Masters - Julie Masters
> >>>> Rick Cahdwick - Rick Chadwick
> >>>> Nathan Zafran - Nathan Zafran
> >>>> ezafran - Nathan Zafran
> >>>> Steve Runfeldt - Steve Runfeldt
> >>>> Bruce & Denise - Bruce & Denise Wozny
> >>>> Woz - Bruce Wozny
> >>>> Glen Stevens - Glen Stevens
> >>>> Jason Venner - Jason Venner
> >>>> Mark Alexander - Mark Alexander
> >>>>Dean Cooper - the invisible man
> >>>> rfp
Ram3Ram
>Subject: Steve Runfeldt Memorial Roster
>From: Richard Pickett
And add one more:
Mark Twain - Samuel Clemens
David D. Rogers
On 21 Mar 1998 19:17:22 -0800, Richard Pickett wrote:
: >>> One can't keep the players straight without a program. Considering all the
: >>> fictive identities, counternovelists, and Paratactii terroists abounding in
: >>> this newsgroup, it is my sworn duty to provide some small measure of
: >>> coherence and sanity to any newcomer that may stumble across this hole.
: >>>
: >>> The updated roster:
[snip]
: >>> David D. Rogers - David D. Rogers
: >>
: >>That's very good. But what is my SPIRITUAL name? Next to that, "David D.
: >>Rogers" is just my "fictive identity". =)
: >>
: >David D. Rogers - Tifo Lluf (TRUE SPIRITUAL NAME)
Full Of IT? Thanks! I knew that there was a spark of IT in every one of
us, but knowing that I'm "full" of IT makes me feel special. :) <G>
SAMOREZ
In article <199803240445...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, ram...@aol.com
(Ram3Ram) writes:
>And add one more:
>
>Mark Twain - Samuel Clemens
The cowardly knave ! But at least he wasn't a phony !!
"Samuel Kalmans"
"I know of nothing poorer under the sun than you gods. Wretchedly you feed your
majesty on imposed sacrifices and the breath of prayers. You would waste away
if children and beggars were not hopeful fools."
--Goethe
Ram3Ram
R. Pickett wrote:
>
>In article <35198F...@bigfoot.com>, Zuma says...
>>
>>Richard, Pickett wrote:
>>>
>>> Zuma - Unknown
>>
>>Real name: Alfred
>>DOB 12/26/50
>>Place of birth: Boston MA
>>Present Location: Belle Mead, New Jersey
>
>Dear Alfred:
>
>Thanks for the update. Mr. Runfeldt would be proud of you.
>
>For the record, what type of songs dou you write?
>What sort of band do you play in?
>Do you have a surname?
>
>rfp
"When a man says he's here to help you, run like hell!"
-- Mark Twain
SAMOREZ
In article <199803260514...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, ram...@aol.com
(Ram3Ram) writes:
>>For the record, what type of songs dou you write?
>>What sort of band do you play in?
>>Do you have a surname?
>>
>>rfp
>
>"When a man says he's here to help you, run like hell!"
>-- Mark Twain
>
>
Good call Ram. I wouldn't give this CREEPazoid the time of day.
Samram
Will Goodwin
Zuma wrote:
>
> Richard, Pickett wrote:
> >
> > Zuma - Unknown
>
> Real name: Alfred
> DOB 12/26/50
> Place of birth: Boston MA
> Present Location: Belle Mead, New Jersey
>
> with Major Fortune 50 company. Religion: Roman Catholic. Hobbies:
> Martial Arts, Boating, Fishing, Song Writing. Play in a band on weekends
> and just bought a new home. Life is good.
>
<strong opinions on Eckankar snipped>
>
> Zuma
>
> I can call you Betty..and you can call me Al.
Thanks for the intruduction Al. Nice to meet you.
Will
--
NOTICE TO BULK E-MAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5,
Subchapter II, p.227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to
this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of
$500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Ram3Ram
Sam wrote:
>Ram3Ram) writes:
>
>>>For the record, what type of songs dou you write?
>>>What sort of band do you play in?
>>>Do you have a surname?
>>>
>>>rfp
>>
>>"When a man says he's here to help you, run like hell!"
>>-- Mark Twain
Pickett doesn't believe the above quote is authentic Twain (Clemens).
By serendipitous "chance," I happened upon the quote yesterday while browsing
the periodicals at Berkeley's Graduate Theological Union. It was in the margin
of an article, and I copied it verbatim. Unfortunately there was no textual
citation linking the quote to exactly where and when Twain said or wrote it.
I went back to the library today, but though I made three trips through the
periodicals--THE ONE I FOUND THE QUOTE IN WAS GONE!!!
Such is the Way of the ECK!
Swami Ram Twain Trifecta
"Some to the fascination of a name surrender judgment hoodwinked."
-- Cowper
radical
Richard, Pickett wrote:
...
> Well, Alfred,
>
> I can see your concern. As a member of the religion that aided the Nazis in
> their persecution of the Jews, you've probably made a few enemies.
>
> Vatican opens war archives
> VATICAN CITY, March 26 (UPI) Pope John Paul II says
> Jewish scholars will for the first time get access to the Vatican's
> archives, something that might shed light on the role of Pope Pius
> XII during World War II, and the holocaust.
>
....
> One rabbi, addressing the pontiff, said he was grateful for the
> Vatican's move toward historical transparency but expressed
> regret that there still exist obstacles and a lack of clarification.
>
> This meeting comes weeks after the Vatican released a document
> entitled "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,"; a Vatican
> attempt at healing the wounds of injustice, which was not so well
> received. Many were hoping for a more introspective criticism of
> the Roman Curia and many of the church's teachings that were
> considered to have contributed to anti-Semitism.
>
> Hare Krishna,
>
> rfp
Richard??? Is that really you? You got a nasty streak, dontcha? Where
were you when the smoke was rising from Auschwitz? Can you say for
sure?
Will Goodwin
Zuma wrote:
>
> Richard, Pickett wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I can see your concern. As a member of the religion that aided the Nazis in
> > their persecution of the Jews, you've probably made a few enemies.
> >
>
> Maybe I was too rash, Richard. Maybe I say things I don't mean.....But
> this time I did. I tried to understand why you would post such a thing
> concerning my reason for anonymity having something to do with being a
> Catholic, but I really think it is because I opened myself up to you and
> this group; told you my name; and gave you little bio info. Maybe you
> are just jealous because Zuma is a real person with a LIFE and you are
> just some fucking loser with none. Baraka Bullshit!!!
>
> Zuma
Allright... that'll be just about ENOUGH of this! This shit is WAY outta
line! If you two don't stop this bickering, I will be forced to shut the
both of you down using the neuroplastic sporimeter given to me by Elvis
and the space aliens when I was appointed CyberMan - Lord of all NGs.
"Pick-a-little, talk-a-little, Pick-a-little, talk-a-little, Cheep Cheep
Cheep, talk-a-lot, pick-a-little-more!" - Music Man
radical
Will Goodwin wrote:
>
> Allright... that'll be just about ENOUGH of this! This shit is WAY outta
> line! If you two don't stop this bickering, I will be forced to shut the
> both of you down using the neuroplastic sporimeter given to me by Elvis
> and the space aliens when I was appointed CyberMan - Lord of all NGs.
>
> "Pick-a-little, talk-a-little, Pick-a-little, talk-a-little, Cheep Cheep
> Cheep, talk-a-lot, pick-a-little-more!" - Music Man
>
> Will
>
Ohhhhh!??? Now THAT's the spirit!
---Bobo (who rarely speaks) *wink*
Ram3Ram
Reichmarshall Richard wrote:
>
>In article <351B88...@bigfoot.com>, Zuma says...
>>
>>Richard, Pickett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, Alfred,
>>>
>>> I can see your concern. As a member of the religion that aided the Nazis
>in
>>> their persecution of the Jews, you've probably made a few enemies.
>>>
>>><Vatican's Holocaust Support deleted>
>>
>>Maybe I was too rash, Richard. Maybe I say things I don't mean.....But
>>this time I did. I tried to understand why you would post such a thing
>>concerning my reason for anonymity having something to do with being a
>>Catholic, but I really think it is because I opened myself up to you and
>>this group; told you my name; and gave you little bio info. Maybe you
>>are just jealous because Zuma is a real person with a LIFE and you are
>>just some fucking loser with none. Baraka Bullshit!!!
>>
>>Zuma
>
>Dear Rock 'n Roll Groupie:
>
>I could hardly be jealous of your impoverished existence.
>
>A person that criticizes Eckankar and supports the Catholic Church should
>heed the following:
>
>...one mustn't criticize other people on grounds where he can't stand
>perpendicular himself.
>Mark Twain - A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
>
>A man with a hump-backed uncle mustn't make fun of another man's cross-eyed
>aunt.
>- "Mark Twain on England", New York World N.D.; reprinted in Hartford
>Courant,
>5/14/1879
>
>However, I do admire you willingness to identify your religon. There are
>elements in this newsgroup that fear to expose their religious path.
When was the last time you had anything to say here about eckankar,
Reichmarshall? I've been on a.r.e. over 3 months and have yet to see you
state any personal opinions, or engage in open debate. Just cryptic crapola,
unctuous utterances, and mean-spirited malignity. On a daily basis.
I guess something broke inside after you were so thoroughly thrashed in the
Lane debates.
>Doubtless, their religion is even more insidious than Roman Catholicism.
>
>Also, you might seek professional help for the malady of Tourette's
>Syndrome from which you suffer.
>
>rfp
>
>
>
A Higher Initiate folks. Proud day to be an eckist.
Sorry Zuma, but I tried to warn you:
"If a man says he's here to help you, run like hell!"
-- Mark Twain
radical
Zuma wrote:
>
> Ram3Ram wrote:
>
> >
> > "If a man says he's here to help you, run like hell!"
> > -- Mark Twain
>
> "spiritual" person but for just ONE time, I opened myself up for all to
> see. Mind you, it wasn't a complete account of who I am (why bore you)
> but to get slapped in the face for being honest for a change.....that
> sucks. I NEVER prey on people's weaknesses. I simply cry when I see a
> child in a wheelchair, or a lonely old man on a bench. I don't go
> kicking crutches out from under cripples!! I certainly have great
> weaknesses too, and even doubts about my own faith, and perhaps spend
> too much time on this plane arguing with the likes of Pickett. My God
> says turn the other cheek but it is by far the hardest thing for me to
> do! Anyway, it is early morning Saturday...coffee in hand...a beautiful
> day here in New Jersey (and THAT'S rare)....I suppose I will say to
> Richard..that I am truly sorry for having offended you...please forgive
> me...and have a great day.
You are a man. And thank you for being open. We can use all the
openess we can get around here.
>
> Zuma
GLEN STEVENS
>
> I should pay more attention to these sigs. OK, I am not exactly the most
> "spiritual" person but for just ONE time, I opened myself up for all to
> see. Mind you, it wasn't a complete account of who I am (why bore you)
> but to get slapped in the face for being honest for a change.....that
> sucks.
I agree.
We used to have a kind of unwritten rule here.
There were things that were not open to "smack".
If one of us posted a spiritual experience that we held dear . . . the
skeptics refrained from shredding it. If one of us spoke of who we are
truthfully . . . the skeptics refrained from shredding (note skeptics can
be of any stripe).
Zuma . . . nice to see you sharing yourself a bit. Kudos.
I NEVER prey on people's weaknesses. I simply cry when I see a
> child in a wheelchair, or a lonely old man on a bench. I don't go
> kicking crutches out from under cripples!! I certainly have great
> weaknesses too, and even doubts about my own faith, and perhaps spend
> too much time on this plane arguing with the likes of Pickett. My God
> says turn the other cheek but it is by far the hardest thing for me to
> do! Anyway, it is early morning Saturday...coffee in hand...a beautiful
> day here in New Jersey (and THAT'S rare)....I suppose I will say to
> Richard..that I am truly sorry for having offended you...please forgive
> me...and have a great day.
Well said.
Impressedly
Glen
--
Rich
Zuma wrote:
> OK, I am not exactly the most "spiritual" person...
I'll be nice and withhold comment.<G>
> ...but for just ONE time, I opened myself up for all to
> see. Mind you, it wasn't a complete account of who I am (why bore you)
> but to get slapped in the face for being honest for a change.....that
> sucks.
Three things Al. First, it was only one guy. Second, personally I was
pleased to get to know you a little better. Thanks for showing us that
you actually have an interesting life. Lastly, what the hell do you
expect when you spend most of your time here slapping Eckists in the
face?
<snip the sniveling sentimentality>
> I certainly have great
> weaknesses too, and even doubts about my own faith, and perhaps spend
> too much time on this plane arguing with the likes of Pickett. My God
> says turn the other cheek but it is by far the hardest thing for me to
> do! Anyway, it is early morning Saturday...coffee in hand...a beautiful
> day here in New Jersey (and THAT'S rare)....I suppose I will say to
> Richard..that I am truly sorry for having offended you...please forgive
> me...and have a great day.
Nice to see this mostly hidden part of you Al. Much better than the
slapping, insulting, Tourette's Syndrome-like condescending Zuma we have
all grown to know and Love.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
Zuma wrote:
> Yup, thanks....... Maybe I should just drop out of here.
OK, if you do I will. Err... could you take Lurk with you?
Will Goodwin
Zuma wrote:
>
<Lots of insults and dirty names snipped>
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal..... are you angry? C'mon.
:)
Will Goodwin
Zuma wrote:
>
> Ram3Ram wrote:
>
> >
> > "If a man says he's here to help you, run like hell!"
> > -- Mark Twain
>
> "spiritual" person but for just ONE time, I opened myself up for all to
> see. Mind you, it wasn't a complete account of who I am (why bore you)
> but to get slapped in the face for being honest for a change.....that
> child in a wheelchair, or a lonely old man on a bench. I don't go
> weaknesses too, and even doubts about my own faith, and perhaps spend
> too much time on this plane arguing with the likes of Pickett. My God
> says turn the other cheek but it is by far the hardest thing for me to
> do! Anyway, it is early morning Saturday...coffee in hand...a beautiful
> day here in New Jersey (and THAT'S rare)....I suppose I will say to
> Richard..that I am truly sorry for having offended you...please forgive
> me...and have a great day.
>
Wow! Now there is courage! Al, it takes a strong, brave heart to do what
your just did! I admire that. It is a very risky thing to open yourself
up the way you did, and you're right - it really SUCKS that people would
pounce on you the way they did. Def not cool! However, all "belief
systems" aside, you are showing a high degree of "spirituality" here.
I welcome your insights on future topics.