A proposal
ste...@aol.com
The birth of Eckankar by Paul Twitchell is criticized because of the
methods he used to bring about its inception, and the current leadership
is also criticized for continuing to promote what some are calling an
invalid religion.
Yet there is little argument over the teachings of Eckankar. Not
many find fault with the concept of an Inner Master, or with the Light and
Sound. It appears as if current attacks against Eckankar focus on the
outer manifestation only.
I ask each of you this: which is of greater importance, the outer,
fallible body of Eckankar, or the inner, pure Eck?
There is not much doubt that the outer body of Eckankar is in need of
improvement, but how many of us can't say the same for our own body?
As a path Home, Eckankar is just as valid as any other Light and
Sound religion, and though amends would seem in order to improve its
credibility, the core teachings are right on the mark and designed to
assist Soul in Its journey to Self- and God-Realization.
I propose that we offer our support and creativity toward helping
Eckankar become healthy and strong, instead of trying to kill it. Let us
treat this spiritual path as a parent would a special child and offer it
our love and nurturing. Pointing out its congenital defects is not the
way; instead, we can help it become self-supporting and a vital part of
the community.
Build instead of demolish.
With hope,
Jay
My5koshas
Jay,
that is a very well intended proposal you have written and you deserve
much commendation for having the ability to see that many people have a
problem with the "outer" manifestation of Eckankar's history and that it
leads many to suspect it as a valid religion.
There is an old saying about if it isn't right on the inside, it can't be
right on the outside. If we were to reverse the saying it would be that
if it isn't right on the outside it must be so that it can't be right on
the inside.
Another problem that we may have and again it is semantics, the language
of eck was invented by the founder that so many people have a problem
with. If we adopt the terminology of the founder aren't we patronizing
him?
Before Eck was around (pre 1965) there were very adaquate words to
describe the meanings behind what the eck word try to say, I personally an
more comfortable saying Holy Spirit than reducing its value to the eck.
Similarly I can say God, or Lord with more feeling than to say Sugmad.
The Shabd, or Naam are more descriptive and universal (imo) than eck and
what about the double meanings of Eckankar (the teaching) Eckankar (the
organization)? Don't you think that to the layperson it becomes confusing
like if I say "eckankar is an explaination of some esoteric truths".
You probably think these are petty points but to some, they are important.
In my opinion, until there is official disclosure from HQ to clean up the
lies and an admission of the truth that Eckankar is a version of Surat
Shabd Yoga, I can't promote it as a valid path home to Sach Khand, to be
honest I don't know if thats really where Harold is bringing you all.
There could be an "intended" psuedo Sach Khand out there somewhere that is
not the same as the Sach Khand of the Sant Mat cosmology where you all
will go after the grand dissolution?????
One of 3 dave's
ste...@aol.com
In article <19970112061...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
my5k...@aol.com (My5koshas) writes:
>that is a very well intended proposal you have written and you deserve
>much commendation for having the ability to see that many people have a
>problem with the "outer" manifestation of Eckankar's history and that it
>leads many to suspect it as a valid religion.
>
>There is an old saying about if it isn't right on the inside, it can't be
>right on the outside. If we were to reverse the saying it would be that
>if it isn't right on the outside it must be so that it can't be right on
>the inside.
>
Did you ever see the movie "The Elephant Man"? Your reversed old
saying may be true for some things, but certainly not all.
>Another problem that we may have and again it is semantics, the language
>of eck was invented by the founder that so many people have a problem
>with. If we adopt the terminology of the founder aren't we patronizing
>him?
>
>Before Eck was around (pre 1965) there were very adaquate words to
>describe the meanings behind what the eck word try to say, I personally
an
>more comfortable saying Holy Spirit than reducing its value to the eck.
>Similarly I can say God, or Lord with more feeling than to say Sugmad.
>
>The Shabd, or Naam are more descriptive and universal (imo) than eck and
>what about the double meanings of Eckankar (the teaching) Eckankar (the
>organization)? Don't you think that to the layperson it becomes
confusing
>like if I say "eckankar is an explaination of some esoteric truths".
>
There isn't any rule that says anyone has to use Eckankar terms to
communicate their spiritual experiences, and actually, lately there's been
a shift in Eckankar to speak in more generic terms, for the benefit of
those who have not heard of Eckankar and would be confused and possibly
put off by the terminology. There's really no problem with saying Holy
Spirit instead of ECK, or God instead of SUGMAD, or Shabd instead of Sound
Current, or Master instead of Mahanta, as long as the interpretation is
understood. Someone once said that the greatest problem we have in this
physical existence is expressing our spiritual experiences in a way that
can be adequately comprehended. I agree. Communication is a major hurdle
in translating the abstract to a concrete language.
>You probably think these are petty points but to some, they are
important.
> In my opinion, until there is official disclosure from HQ to clean up
the
>lies and an admission of the truth that Eckankar is a version of Surat
>Shabd Yoga, I can't promote it as a valid path home to Sach Khand, to be
>honest I don't know if thats really where Harold is bringing you all.
>There could be an "intended" psuedo Sach Khand out there somewhere that
is
>not the same as the Sach Khand of the Sant Mat cosmology where you all
>will go after the grand dissolution?????
>
There's no such thing as a petty point, David, just as there is no
such thing as a stupid question. I respect your choice to not acknowledge
Eckankar as a valid path Home until certain conditions are met, but by
recognizing Surat Shabd Yoga in Eckankar's teachings, you are allowing the
possibility of Eckankar's validity to exist. This is indeed constructive,
a trait we all could use more of if we are ever to build that bridge.
I firmly believe that Eckankar's primary intention is to help Soul
return Home. With this framework of Divine Love in place, all that
remains is to see how the rest is built and to do all we can to make the
structure better. I truly appreciate your feedback, and hope you will be
able to see Eckankar in a better light some day. I'm convinced that
Eckankar is slowly evolving toward reform, and the best atmosphere for its
success is a combination of loving support, patience and service.
Optimistically,
Jay
Quoc Quy Hoang
ste...@aol.com wrote in article
<19970112053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> there is little argument over the teachings of Eckankar. Not many find
fault with
> the concept of an Inner Master, or with the Light and Sound. It appears
as if
> current attacks against Eckankar focus on the outer manifestation only.
>
> I ask each of you this: which is of greater importance, the outer,
> fallible body of Eckankar, or the inner, pure Eck?
> the core teachings are right on the mark and designed to
> assist Soul in Its journey to Self- and God-Realization.
>
> Build instead of demolish.
>
I agreed. My daily inner experiences with the light and sound for more than
16 years as a member of ECKANKAR confirmed that the core teaching is on the
right track at least for myself. It is the reason why I have stayed with
ECKANKAR when others criticised the outer organisation, its leader
personality and books with all sorts of logic and evidence.
Even Paul and Harold taught that the foundation of ECKANKAR is the light
and sound, not the organisation or its leader and books. I myself only
trust in divine spirit and God because all else (such as books, personality
and organisation made of personalities) are fallible.
I saw the signs of improvement within the outer ECKANKAR organisation. The
process is slow but more desirable to void many side effects of quick
changes. As far as I am concerned, no organisation will ever be perfect and
there is always one more step to improve.
May be those who placed so much importance on the concept of plagiarism
need to ask themselves questions such as:
1) Where is the ultimate source of truth ? (human author or God ?)
2) If God is the source of truth then why was God not acknowledged by
author ?
3) If truth exists independent of authors who only perceive what already
exists, then who can stop others from perceiving the same truth ?
4) Will truth be less when one perceives it after others have discovered ?
5) Should a discoverer of truth be allowed to express it in terms of
existing known ideas and language to facilitate communication ?
6) If plagiarism relates to copyright or possession then can truth be
copyrighted or possessed by any human ?
7) Does God care about concepts (copyright & plagiarism) invented by human
?
8) Can human laws be applied to spiritual truth or God ?
9) How big is a book if acknowlegement of ALL sources is required ? (even
each word in the language and concept we use are hardly our own)
Quoc Quy Hoang
g...@pacificcoast.net
In article <19970112053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ste...@aol.com wrote:
> As a path Home, Eckankar is just as valid as any other Light and
> Sound religion, and though amends would seem in order to improve its
> assist Soul in Its journey to Self- and God-Realization.
>
> Eckankar become healthy and strong, instead of trying to kill it. Let us
> treat this spiritual path as a parent would a special child and offer it
> our love and nurturing. Pointing out its congenital defects is not the
> way; instead, we can help it become self-supporting and a vital part of
> the community.
>
> Build instead of demolish.
>
> With hope,
A nicely written post Jay. It is interesting to note that few disagree with the
concepts you've listed above:)
All the best
Glen
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Richard
Hi all,
I really don't think that Eckankar is going to disappear anytime soon just
because some people are unhappy with the actions of other people. The
judging goes on and on and contains no love whatsoever.
Jay has a unique idea for this news group. Let's work together and
establish a path that is based on the individual becoming only responsible
for his/her own actions. That is *total* responsibility. Also let's make
sure that we retain our individuality and within that frame work learn to
go within to find the light and sound of God.
Why do we have to get hung up on the actions or said actions of someone
else in this physical world regardless of who they are and what they have
done. What better way to stop someone's personal spiritual growth than to
distract them by pointing out something compelling in the physical world (
lying, cheating, stealing, greed, desire, jealousy and there's more) to
keep them from thinking of God.
____________
I had to sit all day and wait for repairs to be done to my car. I knew
ahead of time so I wondered what I was going to do while I waited. A
thought came into my head that this would be a wonderful opportunity to
read Eckankar, Ancient Wisdom for Today. This little blue book had been
given out to people looking into Eckankar for the first time for quite a
while and I had yet to read it and see what we were telling people.
I sat and read through the morning while I waited. I was struck by the
love in the book; I could feel it. The part that really got to me though
was the realization that I had experienced everything the book said that
Eckankar promised. Everything!
I couldn't have said this even three years earlier; but I could say it
now. Here I was going through life thinking that nothing much was happening
to me on the inner or the outer while all the time being a member of
Eckankar and I find huge changes within myself by reading an introductory
book. Amazing.
_________
So you see, information about what someone else did or didn't do isn't
worth a hill of beans (no offense intended to my vegetarian friends) to me.
Eckankar works. It has for many people that I know. It has worked for
thousands for many years. It is not going away; so like Jay says let's try
to work together to make it even stronger and help those people who are
looking for it -- find it. Those who are looking for something else...let's
help them too.
It's the best feeling in the world to find out who you really are.
I found it by being a member of Eckankar.
--
Sing Hu to open your heart
With love from Rick
My5koshas
Paul,
A very good response! I concur and on with the discussions. Destroy what
doesn't deserve to continue...........
Harold Klemp says:
"Christianity has lost spiritual ground over the centuries. Today its own
leaders are once more ignorant of these twin aspects of the Holy Spirit:
Light and Sound."
Through out the writings of Eckankar regardless of which Paul or Harold,
their chief opponant is Christianity, and why not?, it where most of their
prospects are. If you can overtly or covertly disect someones belief
system, its like stripping a man of his clothing in a cold storm. The
first step to cultivating a new chelas for Eckankar is to get a book in
his hand. Tear down their beliefs and feed them with their propaganda.
Each day I really spend time thinking about what I learn about Eckankar,
Christianity looks better and better.
"Love one another, as I have loved you and Love God with all your heart,
mind and strength." Jesus
K. Paul Johnson
ste...@aol.com writes:
>
> The birth of Eckankar by Paul Twitchell is criticized because of the
> methods he used to bring about its inception, and the current leadership
> is also criticized for continuing to promote what some are calling an
> invalid religion.
>
categories of "valid" and "invalid." It's more of a continuum,
and there's a subjective element involved. I resonate to
Christianity more than Hinduism, but don't think one is "more
valid" than the other. However, Eckankar promotes a lot of
invalid claims.
> Yet there is little argument over the teachings of Eckankar. Not
> many find fault with the concept of an Inner Master,
Actually, many do, including me. Dave Rife has an interesting
post on this. The Sant Mat faction here is more sympathetic.
or with the Light and
> Sound. It appears as if current attacks against Eckankar focus on the
> outer manifestation only.
>
> I ask each of you this: which is of greater importance, the outer,
> fallible body of Eckankar, or the inner, pure Eck?
Importance in what circumstances, to whom, for what? Since
what you call the inner, pure Eck is in every religion, when we
are comparing and contrasting religions it is the outer body
that is more important. Generally I'd say they're of equal
importance in the long run.
>
> As a path Home, Eckankar is just as valid as any other Light and
> Sound religion,
What do you mean by "valid?" It may be authentic but is sure
isn't legitimate.
> I propose that we offer our support and creativity toward helping
> Eckankar become healthy and strong, instead of trying to kill it.
Who is "we?" Sounds like a good plan for Eckists. I'm not
interested in either killing or supporting Eckankar-- have too
many other concerns. Some of us are just here to observe and
learn.
Let us
> treat this spiritual path as a parent would a special child and offer it
> our love and nurturing. Pointing out its congenital defects is not the
> way; instead, we can help it become self-supporting and a vital part of
> the community.
>
> Build instead of demolish.
You can't build on a site that is already full. Your either/or
should be a both/and. Demolish what doesn't deserve to
continue, and you'll have lots more room (and reusable
materials perhaps) with which to build.
Steve Runfeldt
pjoh...@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson) wrote:
>You can't build on a site that is already full. Your either/or
>should be a both/and. Demolish what doesn't deserve to
>continue, and you'll have lots more room (and reusable
>materials perhaps) with which to build.
But as an observer, how is it your place to tell anyone else what is
wrong with their religion?
It may not be right for you. But I like it just fine.
Nathan Zafran
pjoh...@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson) wrote:
(referring to Eckankar)
>What do you mean by "valid?" It may be authentic but is sure
>isn't legitimate.
Webster defines "legitimate" as....in accord with the provisions of
law". The root word is legal. So, Mr. Johnson is implying that
Eckankar is an illegal religion. I should tell Eckankar's lawyers
about this. It will come as a great shock to them.
>interested in either killing or supporting Eckankar-- have too
>many other concerns. Some of us are just here to observe and
>learn.
I guess making wild statements about Eckankar's illegitimacy is Mr.
Johnson's way of learning and observing (i.e. staying away from
making judgements about other people's religions)
In the Light and Sound of ECK,
Nathan
alex deletes commercial emails
In <5bp3rr$orq$1...@aphex.direct.ca>
eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran) writes:
>
>pjoh...@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson) wrote:
>
>(referring to Eckankar)
>>What do you mean by "valid?" It may be authentic but is sure
>>isn't legitimate.
>
>Webster defines "legitimate" as....in accord with the provisions of
>law". The root word is legal. So, Mr. Johnson is implying that
>Eckankar is an illegal religion. I should tell Eckankar's lawyers
>about this. It will come as a great shock to them.
Ha! Shock a lawyer? <G>
>[not]
>>interested in either killing or supporting Eckankar-- have too
>>many other concerns. Some of us are just here to observe and
>>learn.
>
>I guess making wild statements about Eckankar's illegitimacy is Mr.
>Johnson's way of learning and observing (i.e. staying away from
>making judgements about other people's religions)
>
-----------------
Wild? (Do you get out much?) <G>
As for the learning and observing, what better way
than to stir the pot a bit? What's to be learned
from stagnation? (Or sterility?)
A
alex deletes commercial emails
In <5bouub$5...@camel0.mindspring.com>
>>should be a both/and. Demolish what doesn't deserve to
>>continue, and you'll have lots more room (and reusable
>>materials perhaps) with which to build.
>
>But as an observer, how is it your place to tell anyone else
>what is wrong with their religion?
>
In a public, unmoderated (Q?) newsgroup, it is anyone's
place to observe, raise or argue the issues being
debated. If you folks want to be shielded in your religious
discussions, why post to an open newsgroup?
A
ste...@aol.com
Jay writes:
" The birth of Eckankar by Paul Twitchell is criticized because of the
methods he used to bring about its inception, and the current leadership
is also criticized for continuing to promote what some are calling an
invalid religion."
and K. Paul Johnson replies:
"I'm not very comfortable with sorting religions into the
categories of "valid" and "invalid." It's more of a continuum,
and there's a subjective element involved. I resonate to
Christianity more than Hinduism, but don't think one is "more
valid" than the other. However, Eckankar promotes a lot of
invalid claims."
I agree with the subjective continuum, and in this context would see
every religion as being valid, equally so. Yet your statement that
Eckankar promotes a lot of invalid claims is subjective as well. That
which may be invalid to you may be valid to another.
Jay says:
"Yet there is little argument over the teachings of Eckankar. Not
many find fault with the concept of an Inner Master, . . ."
K. Paul Johnson replies:
"Actually, many do, including me. Dave Rife has an interesting
post on this. The Sant Mat faction here is more sympathetic."
Hmmm, perhaps I should have clarified that this post was addressed to
a newsgroup in which the majority do not find fault with the concept of an
Inner Master. Even those who do not support the active belief in a
separate matrix in the manifestation of a guiding guru can easily
translate this as one's own higher state of consciousness reminding
oneself of Its divinity. Only a realist, a five senses sort of fellow,
can find absolutely no value in following that intuitive whisper of
abstract bliss.
Jay says:
". . . or with the Light and
Sound. It appears as if current attacks against Eckankar focus on the
outer manifestation only.
I ask each of you this: which is of greater importance, the outer,
fallible body of Eckankar, or the inner, pure Eck?"
K. Paul Johnson replies:
"Importance in what circumstances, to whom, for what? Since
what you call the inner, pure Eck is in every religion, when we
are comparing and contrasting religions it is the outer body
that is more important. Generally I'd say they're of equal
importance in the long run."
I respect what you're saying here about equal importance, but would
have agreed with you more quickly if you had said 'short run' instead of
'long run'. In the long run, we hopefully learn to be in this world but
not of this world, to be guided in our outer life by the lonely, piercing
note of God. This may answer your question about circumstances and for
what, but as for whom, it applies to me. Others must speak their own
truth, as each is a Law unto themself. The inner, pure Holy Spirit does
exist in every religion, and the seeker compares and contrasts to find the
vibrations that most closely reflect their own. The importance of any and
every religion is extremely subjective, according to the individual state
of consciousness.
Jay says:
"As a path Home, Eckankar is just as valid as any other Light and
Sound religion, . . ."
K. Paul Johnson replies:
"What do you mean by "valid?" It may be authentic but is sure
isn't legitimate."
Again, subjectivity. To one who grows in spirituality and wisdom,
Eckankar is legitimate. What do you mean by legitimate? Wilberian
corollaries? By valid I Do mean authentic and purposeful.
Jay says:
"I propose that we offer our support and creativity toward helping
Eckankar become healthy and strong, instead of trying to kill it. "
K. Paul Johnson replies:
"Who is "we?" Sounds like a good plan for Eckists. I'm not
interested in either killing or supporting Eckankar-- have too
many other concerns. Some of us are just here to observe and
learn."
I'm afraid your opinions toss you off the fence of merely observing,
although learning is a given in retrospect or intuition. Now, to
ressurect the 'special child' example I used, your declaration of it's
illegitimacy could be a slap in the face of it's caregivers, which could
conceivably hinder the nurturing atmosphere this child needs to flourish.
But, then again, criticism is potentially healthy if used as a working
model of discretion. In other words, the caregivers of this special child
called Eckankar can use this criticism as a test of their love and
devotion for the child, as well as a reminder that they can learn to
respect the views of others with detachment and love rather than
defenseness and attachment.
Jay says:
"Let us
treat this spiritual path as a parent would a special child and offer it
our love and nurturing. Pointing out its congenital defects is not the
way; instead, we can help it become self-supporting and a vital part of
the community.
Build instead of demolish."
K. Paul Johnson replies:
"You can't build on a site that is already full. Your either/or
should be a both/and. Demolish what doesn't deserve to
continue, and you'll have lots more room (and reusable
materials perhaps) with which to build."
Again, I respect your perspective here, but this assumes the site is full.
In my post entitled "The House That Paul Built", I described the
foundation of Eckankar as being reinforced and repaired, an ongoing
process in the exact area that needs it the most. The structure is
magnificant, the architecture an eclectic rococo. Instead of razing the
building to mend the foundation, supports are in place and levels utilized
while work is being done beneath the surface. Once integrity is
maintained and a proper balance is achieved, additions can be built with
confidance to give room for an environment of growth and prosperity.
A voice in the basement,
Jay
Ps: Sam, in regards to your mention of shame . . .yes, I am ashamed that
everything's so messy and unsightly down here. I mean, my God, you can
see every crack and hastily erected block. But I'm glad you can see it,
and care enough to point it out to those who might not be able to notice.
I'm glad you're down here, too, getting just as dirty as the rest of us.
Look! We're all here, even Steve with his wheelbarrow and David Lane with
his pick!
My5koshas
Jay,
You are very contientious in your writing and I commend you for that. To
put forth your proposal to the general readership of this newsgroup asking
for them to "build not destroy" Eckankar as a valid spiritul path brings
to light a source of indignation that some former eckist and non-eckists
may share and in an effort to magnify this aspect I write.
When Mr. Twitchell made the decision to found his organization Eckankar,
it seems evident that he and his last known spiritual master, Kirpal Singh
had fallen out for certain reasons. Paul was only one disciple among many
in the Sant Mat Satsang and he had one reason or another why he wanted to
shine brighter that the others. Because he was a writer, he was proud to
demonstrate to his Beloved Master his ability to put into writing a vivid
description of the inner planes and his profound understanding of the
process whereby one throws off the physical/material and puts on the
spiritual via the Light and Sound of God. For one reason or another his
Beloved Master did not encourage Paul's talent as out of the ordinary.
The rest is history and there is much arguement from that point.
I had the extreme good pleasure to meet with Kirpal Singh's grandson,
Rajinder Singh last June in Pennsylvania and talk with several of Paul
Twitchell's contemporaries, other disciples of Kirpal Singh's who, having
the same or similar experiences that Paul had, chose to remain loyal to
their Master and perpetuate the Sant Mat tradition the way it was given to
them from their Master.
Me being the new kid, pretty proud and cocky about being an Eckist, was
spouting that I was familiar with the writings of Paul Twitchell. I got
some sympathetic looks and was told by many that they were not
particularly interested in what Paul Twitchell said and were very aware of
what he did. When I tried to speak of my great inner experiences via
Eckankar, it was explained to me that the discussion of my personal
experiences was not a practice that was condoned in Sant Mat except with
the Master and once explained why, I understood.
I saw that many of them could have claimed a "Rod of Power" for themselves
and founded an Eckankar-like new world religion, but chose not to. To
choose to help build a new Light and Sound religion imply's that something
is wrong with the old one. Paul could have chosen to represent Sant Mat
but he would have only been recognized at best as a group leader of a USA
Satsang. There is no ego gratification and no following in that position
and no profits to be made.
You are correct that many of the posters to this newsgroup agree that the
Light and Sound teachings are valid and that a Satguru is central to that
teaching and that the true goal is Spiritual Liberation in this lifetime,
however for you to expect everyone here to agree that Eckankar and Harold
Klemp is it, is very unrealistic. If nothing else this information should
help you to understand why there is an aura of indignation that follows
Paul Twitchell's Eckankar like a ghost.
Sincerely,
David Cullen
Steve Runfeldt
I don't care if it is public or private. It is a violation of my
ethical standards to try to tell someone else that what they believe
in their hearts is wrong.
No religion is more true than any other except to the followers of
that religion.
I do not tell Sam that his beliefs are wrong. I don't even know what
Sam's beliefs are. He doesn't talk about them here. All he talks
about is his belief that my religion is wrong.
I have personal views of Catholicism, Buddhism, Methodism, Sant Mat,
etc. I don't believe in those religions. I have my reasons. But I
do not go around telling followers of those faiths that they are wrong
in their beliefs.
So I ask again, on what grounds do you try to tell me how to fix my
religion? I say, fix your own first.
Steve
"By using the Spiritual Exercises of Eck, Soul learns how to
ride this wave through all the hardships, the disappointments,
and the sorrows, unitl It can rise above the traumas of life
and ride this wave back to the heart of God."
Harold Klemp, The Secret Teachings, 1989, p. 25.
For more information on Eckankar, please visit the Eckankar Web site at http://www.eckankar.org
or call 1-800-LOVE GOD
For information on Eckankar related activities on the Internet, including open email discussions, book discussions
and other activites, please feel free to send email to ecka...@mindspring.com
Ken S
alex deletes commercial emails <aemo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>
> In a public, unmoderated (Q?) newsgroup, it is anyone's
> place to observe, raise or argue the issues being
> debated. If you folks want to be shielded in your religious
> discussions, why post to an open newsgroup?
>
> A
There is no "you folks" here. What I mean is that Steve does not speak for
anyone but himself. Same with me and everyone else here (as far as I know
<g>).
Shields down Scotty!
Ken S
Steve Runfeldt
aemo...@ix.netcom.com(alex deletes commercial emails) wrote:
>As for the learning and observing, what better way
>than to stir the pot a bit? What's to be learned
>from stagnation? (Or sterility?)
You could try learning to listen to others.
You could try contemplation on God.
You could try reading, travel, learning to be positive.
Actually I have found that very little learning comes from insulting
people, their friends, loved ones or their beliefs.
You can stir the pot by suggesting positve methods to grow
spiritually. It doesn't have to be negative.
g...@pacificcoast.net
In article <5bp8ss$d...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
>Steve said
> >But as an observer, how is it your place to tell anyone else
> >what is wrong with their religion?
> >
> -----------------
>
> In a public, unmoderated (Q?) newsgroup, it is anyone's
> place to observe, raise or argue the issues being
> debated. If you folks want to be shielded in your religious
> discussions, why post to an open newsgroup?
I have to agree with this sentiment Alex.
When I discuss any issue in the dual worlds I expect that duality to be
evident.
While I may not like what some post here, as a lover of freedom I must respect
their right to do so.
Only by extending them this right do I, in turn, retain the right to tweak their
noses when I choose to:^)
Freedom is not always clean and tidy.
Sometimes it's pretty messy.
But in the long run it's worth it and I, for one would not settle for anything
less.
Doug Armentrout
alex deletes commercial emails wrote:
(BTW I *love* your handle...)
> As for the learning and observing, what better way
> than to stir the pot a bit? What's to be learned
> from stagnation? (Or sterility?)
Agreed. How can one understand anything in this world
of duality except by understanding it in relation to
everything else?
Doug
Steve Runfeldt
Paul,
I am truly sorry that you feel this way, and regret any part I may
have had in producing this feeling.
K. Paul Johnson
> >What do you mean by "valid?" It may be authentic but is sure
> >isn't legitimate.
>
> law". The root word is legal. So, Mr. Johnson is implying that
> Eckankar is an illegal religion.
Nathan, now really. I am the only person in the world who
knows what I am implying. You know only what you are
inferring. There was a long discussion about legitimacy vs.
authenticity on this list, terms which have a specialized
meaning in the writings of Ken Wilber. "Legitimate" meaning
genuinely derived from a qualified lineage; Rajinder Singh and
Gurinder Singh are "legitimate" in the sense that they can
prove they're successors of their respective predecessors.
Paul Twitchell could not prove such a thing-- not in a court of
law, that's for sure. So, "illegal" if you insist, in the
sense that there is no legal proof that Twitchell got his
authority from where he said he did.
I should tell Eckankar's lawyers
> about this. It will come as a great shock to them.
>
It would come as a great shock to me if you ever had a nice
word for any non-Eckist on this list. You like Steve are
bad examples of just how hostile and aggressive Eckankar can
inspire some people to be.
> Johnson's way of learning and observing (i.e. staying away from
> making judgements about other people's religions)
>
> In the Light and Sound of ECK,
If this is the way your light and sound inspires you to behave,
many observers cannot avoid concluding they want no part of it.
My5koshas
Paul,
I admire the way that you are able to TRY to have an intelligent
conversation with Nathan or Steve. I don't have the bite space available
for that level of psuedo relgious jargon. They are zealots for eck and
really don't care about people IMO and can not hold an objective
conversation where it required to at least SEE the other persons point of
view. If they could they would certainly be more sympathetic, rather than
simply pathetic.
Good volley though!,
David
K. Paul Johnson
ste...@aol.com writes:
>
> I agree with the subjective continuum, and in this context would see
> every religion as being valid, equally so. Yet your statement that
> Eckankar promotes a lot of invalid claims is subjective as well. That
> which may be invalid to you may be valid to another.
>
invalid by objective standards, not subjective. My own
affiliation is to a movement that has some invalid historical
claims in its literature too. The difference is that there's
no party line saying all these things are true; Cayce himself
encouraged skepticism about the readings, and his two sons
wrote the most detailed book about his fallibility ever written.
> Inner Master. Even those who do not support the active belief in a
> separate matrix in the manifestation of a guiding guru can easily
> translate this as one's own higher state of consciousness reminding
> oneself of Its divinity. Only a realist, a five senses sort of fellow,
> can find absolutely no value in following that intuitive whisper of
> abstract bliss.
Think you mean materialist. I accept the "Inner Master" in the
sense of higher self or Christ Consciousness, but not the need
for a living person to "lead" me anywhere.
>
> Again, subjectivity. To one who grows in spirituality and wisdom,
> Eckankar is legitimate. What do you mean by legitimate? Wilberian
> corollaries? By valid I Do mean authentic and purposeful.
>
See my other post; Eckankar's lack of legitimacy is an
objective fact and not a subjective assessment. Not that
legitimacy matters to me; nobody appointed Edgar Cayce to any
post, but I still follow his teachings in most regards. The
difference, again, is that neither Cayce nor ARE ever claimed
legitimacy in the sense that Eckankar does. He said vague
things about the Great White Brotherhood when asked, but never
said "You can trust what I say because I've been appointed by
so-and-so to give this message."
K. Paul Johnson
s...@atl.mindspring.com writes:
>
> I don't care if it is public or private. It is a violation of my
> ethical standards to try to tell someone else that what they believe
> in their hearts is wrong.
>
great guy and you have earned tremendous bad karma for your
attacks on him.
Process that one.
> No religion is more true than any other except to the followers of
> that religion.
>
Mormonism says that Native Americans are descended from Jews.
That's not true. Christian Science says it's better to take
your sick child to a practitioner than a doctor when he/she is
on the brink of death. That's not true. Etc. This is not an
entirely subjective realm.
> I do not tell Sam that his beliefs are wrong. I don't even know what
> Sam's beliefs are. He doesn't talk about them here. All he talks
> about is his belief that my religion is wrong.
AHA! Here we have the root of the problem. You keep talking
about "my" religion, and behave as if you own Eckankar and can
tell other people what they are allowed to say about it. You
don't own Eckankar, Eckists don't own Eckankar, it's part of
the culture of the human race. Humanity owns Eckankar, and any
member of the club is entitled to an opinion. Same is true of
the Cayce teachings. They're not mine any more than they're
yours, and I don't have the slightest right to tell you what
you are allowed to think or say on the subject.
>
> So I ask again, on what grounds do you try to tell me how to fix my
> religion? I say, fix your own first.
There's no mine and yours, they're all ours, and we are all
equal in the right to have and express opinions.
Nathan Zafran
pjoh...@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson) wrote:
>Nathan, now really. I am the only person in the world who
>knows what I am implying. You know only what you are
>inferring. There was a long discussion about legitimacy vs.
>authenticity on this list, terms which have a specialized
>meaning in the writings of Ken Wilber. "Legitimate" meaning
>genuinely derived from a qualified lineage; Rajinder Singh and
>Gurinder Singh are "legitimate" in the sense that they can
>prove they're successors of their respective predecessors.
>Paul Twitchell could not prove such a thing-- not in a court of
>law, that's for sure. So, "illegal" if you insist, in the
>sense that there is no legal proof that Twitchell got his
>authority from where he said he did.
I am only interested in the general value of the statement Mr. Johnson
made, that Eckankar was not a legitimate path. I don't care what
Wilbur said. His statement shows his bias against Eckankar, plain and
simple. His words come across as an attempt to invalidate the entire
religion.
>It would come as a great shock to me if you ever had a nice
>word for any non-Eckist on this list. You like Steve are
>bad examples of just how hostile and aggressive Eckankar can
>inspire some people to be.
Most of what I post on this newsgroup consist of messages to
newcomers, in which I point out important information for people to
know in order for them to make informed decisions. I have never shown
any hostility to anyone, Eckists or non-Eckist. I rarely even read
the negative posts, nor do I hardly ever respond to them.
Nor do I have to defend Steve either, because he has a perfect right
to stand up to all the defamatory statements made by most of the
detractors here on a.r.e. in their attempt to invalidate the teachings
of Eckankar, or its leaders or members. If one compares the way that
Eckankar, its leaders, and Eckists are attacked, and the gentle way
that it is defended, one will see that the hostility and
aggressiveness is clearly in the hands of those that attack it.
Several Eckists have shown that Dr. Lane's writing on Eckankar is
biased andunethical. I would like to see Johnson address this issue.
He has no problem criticizing Eckists. I would like to see him apply
those same critical abilities to David Lane's Eckankar writing. It
would only be fair.
I still can't understand how Johnson needs to constantly make
negative judgements about other people's religion as a way of merely
learning and observing other religions. Can anyone explain this to me?
My understanding of learning and observing would be to simply remain
silent and read the posts of others, investigate both sides of the
issue, and finally reach some sort of conclusion about that religion.
Obviously, if Mr. Johnson is still in the learning and observing stage
of Eckankar, he would not be in a position research-wise to be making
any kind of judgements, either for or against Eckankar. In the
meantime, if he has read all the posts of all the Eckists in the last
year or two on this newsgroup, he would have seen that a large number
of Eckists are very happy with this path and all the wonderful inner
light and sound experiences they report, plus opening up of the heart
centre, expansion of unconditional love, meeting with inner and outer
masters, etc. In general, it would seem that a large number of
members of Eckankar have found deep meaning and purpose in their life
as a direct result of studying the teachings and doing the spiritual
exercises of Eckankar (like singing the Hu).
In the light of what I have just said, it is totally beyond me why Mr.
Johnson, or, for that matter, anyone else, would want to waste even
one minute of their time dwelling on such a negative and
counterproductive idea as pointing out so-called flaws in the
religions beliefs of others, especially on a newsgroup devoted
exclusively to that religion. A highly unethical and unspiritual thing
to do, INHO.
I have the greatest love for all Souls everywhere, including all those
against Eckankar, but I will not sit back and do nothing when my
religion is under attack. That is why I will continue posting my
messages to newcomers, out of love for the people who are searching
for a way to find the spiritual truth of life or who are hungry to go
home to God who still have an open mind and haven’t been brainwashed
by negative-minded people who compulsively need to tell people how bad
Eckankar is.
Eckankar, Religion of the Light and Sound of God
Eckankar is ancient wisdom for today. Its teachings, which resurfaced
in 1965, emphasize the value of personal experiences as the most
natural way back to God. Whatever your religious background, they show
how to look and listen within yourself--to expand your consciousness
and enjoy spiritual connectedness. See for yourself--perhaps for the
first time--how to lead a happy, balanced, and productive life. And
put daily concerns into loving perspective.
For more information on Eckankar, please visit the Eckankar Web site
at http://www.eckankar.org
or call 1-800-LOVE GOD
For information on Eckankar related activities on the Internet,
including open email discussions, book discussions
and other activites, please feel free to send email to
ecka...@mindspring.com
In the Light and Sound of Eck,
Nathan
Steve Runfeldt
pjoh...@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson) wrote:
>ste...@aol.com writes:
>>
>> I agree with the subjective continuum, and in this context would see
>> every religion as being valid, equally so. Yet your statement that
>> Eckankar promotes a lot of invalid claims is subjective as well. That
>> which may be invalid to you may be valid to another.
>>
>No, sorry, the historical claims that have been disproven are
>invalid by objective standards, not subjective. My own
>affiliation is to a movement that has some invalid historical
>claims in its literature too. The difference is that there's
>no party line saying all these things are true; Cayce himself
>encouraged skepticism about the readings, and his two sons
>wrote the most detailed book about his fallibility ever written.
Which claims have been disproven? That Sudar Singh was Paul's
teacher? There seems to be some new evidence in that area. The
non-existance of either Sudar Singh or Rebazar Tarz has hardly been
proven. How would one go about proving that someone never existed?
In any case, this is really beside the point. It is not central to the
teachings of Eckankar.
>> Inner Master. Even those who do not support the active belief in a
>> separate matrix in the manifestation of a guiding guru can easily
>> translate this as one's own higher state of consciousness reminding
>> oneself of Its divinity. Only a realist, a five senses sort of fellow,
>> can find absolutely no value in following that intuitive whisper of
>> abstract bliss.
>Think you mean materialist. I accept the "Inner Master" in the
>sense of higher self or Christ Consciousness, but not the need
>for a living person to "lead" me anywhere.
But this again is a matter of preference. Have you never had a
teacher? Have you learned everything on your own? What is the
purpose of universities?
Eckankar, like Sant Mat, teaches the necessity of having a living
Master. Your disagreement with that does not make the teaching
illegitimate.
>> Again, subjectivity. To one who grows in spirituality and wisdom,
>> Eckankar is legitimate. What do you mean by legitimate? Wilberian
>> corollaries? By valid I Do mean authentic and purposeful.
>>
>See my other post; Eckankar's lack of legitimacy is an
>objective fact and not a subjective assessment. Not that
If you are using the word "legitimacy" in a highly technical sense,
within the context of lineages, you might have a point.
Unfortunately, the word has a pejorative meaning to most people,
including practically everyone on this newsgroup. To most people the
terms legitimate and valid are essentially interchangable. That is
not their problem, it is yours if you want your meaning to be
understood.
>legitimacy matters to me; nobody appointed Edgar Cayce to any
>post, but I still follow his teachings in most regards. The
>difference, again, is that neither Cayce nor ARE ever claimed
>legitimacy in the sense that Eckankar does. He said vague
>things about the Great White Brotherhood when asked, but never
>said "You can trust what I say because I've been appointed by
>so-and-so to give this message."
Paul Twitchell, Darwin Gross and Harold Klemp have all said that one
should never take what they say as gospelm but each individual should
prover it for themselves. I believe that your uninformed opinion is
what comes from relying too heavily on a biased and one sided
treatment like David Lane's.
Paul's and Harold's authority comes not from the lineage, but from
their own experience and that of anyone who decides to follow their
teaching and example. If you read virtually any Eckankar book you
will find this stated clearly many tiimes. It is a fundamental of
Eckankar.
Anyone who relys on the lineage for their views of Eckankar is making
a mistake. There are many, however, who have had extensive inner
experience with the Eck Masters. That falls within the purview of
their personal experience.
In Eck,
Steve
ste...@aol.com
K. Paul (please, if you could be so kind, let me know how to properly
address you other than this or Mr. Johnson - it sounds so formal!), I'd
like to begin this response to you by quoting a passage from the original
post of this thread, the essence of this thread to be more exact, in hopes
that there might be some effort to stray closer to the proposal instead of
straying away from it.
"I propose that we offer our support and creativity toward helping
Eckankar become healthy and strong, instead of trying to kill it. Let us
treat this spiritual path as a parent would a special child and offer it
our love and nurturing. Pointing out its congenital defects is not the
way; instead, we can help it become self-supporting and a vital part of
the community."
Now, the gist of this proposal is an attempt toward healing. If from
the outset you don't believe this is possible, our discussion is moot in
the context of this thread. So, until you clarify your belief in the
possible growth and nourishment of this spiritual path, or at least in the
ability to manifest harmony between two different sounds, I will assume a
compromise can be met.
On to your most recent reply.
In reply to my statement:
"I agree with the subjective continuum, and in this context would see
every religion as being valid, equally so. Yet your statement that
Eckankar promotes a lot of invalid claims is subjective as well. That
which may be invalid to you may be valid to another."
You reply:
"No, sorry, the historical claims that have been disproven are
invalid by objective standards, not subjective. My own
affiliation is to a movement that has some invalid historical
claims in its literature too. The difference is that there's
no party line saying all these things are true; Cayce himself
encouraged skepticism about the readings, and his two sons
wrote the most detailed book about his fallibility ever written."
The present Living Eck Master, Harold Klemp, has encouraged
skepticism in the writings of Eckankar as well (if you need a quote, I
know that there are Eckists that can supply his exact words), and not only
do I agree wholeheartedly, I believe that the apparant dissension on
a.r.e. is a valuable tool for Eckists to test their beliefs on. If a
belief is smashed, it evidently wasn't strong enough to withstand the
tool's sharp edge, but if it is sharpened, it can become honed to a
razor's edge. This forum separates the wheat from the chaff, turns boys
into men, lights a fire in which one may get burned or receive warmth.
Party line? The only one I really know is "Just Be". The rest is tossed
into the fire to be folded over again and again until it can withstand the
cold water of our subjectivity.
When I mentioned ' realist', you replied:
"Think you mean materialist. I accept the "Inner Master" in the
sense of higher self or Christ Consciousness, but not the need
for a living person to "lead" me anywhere."
Yes! Materialist! That's the word I was searching for, but instead
came up with realist. Thank you, K. Paul. I really like application of
the higher self, and understand your meaning here. Sometimes the imagery
of words can be misleading. I speak of a Master as being a Guide, or a
higher state of consciousness reminding the unrealized self of it's Self.
The imagery can lead one<g> to think in terms of 'leading', but in this
matrix I view it as a Way Shower, or Self Reminder. It is the state of
consciousness we're talking about here, that which already exists within
us, and as we progress spiritually, or gradually evolve out of our
self-appointed amnesia, we are given glimpses of that which IS. Now,
whether we call them 'flash-forwards' or 'Way Showers', the essence is the
same. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light", he was
coming from that ISness, and not from a personality seeking followers. We
must listen closely to what is said by outer Masters, for their words may
appear contradictory, while in reality they could be coming from a level
of consciousness we cannot remember. So, to get back around this bush, I
suppose 'lead' means 'remind' to me.
You say:
"See my other post; Eckankar's lack of legitimacy is an
objective fact and not a subjective assessment. Not that
legitimacy matters to me; nobody appointed Edgar Cayce to any
post, but I still follow his teachings in most regards. The
difference, again, is that neither Cayce nor ARE ever claimed
legitimacy in the sense that Eckankar does. He said vague
things about the Great White Brotherhood when asked, but never
said "You can trust what I say because I've been appointed by
so-and-so to give this message.""
I will defer questioning your meaning of 'objective fact' until I
read your response to Steve and Nathan, in which this issue is focused on.
It is enough to read that legitimacy is not all that crucial to you. It
appears to be the "claim" of legitimacy despite evidence of its lack
thereof that you take issue with. I really respect this, and trust you
have fairly weighed each claim against all the evidence. You know that
there's an element of myth involved here (regarding Eckankar, Cayce, or
any of the grey areas of spiritual belief), and if you've read Campbell,
you can appreciate the importance of this in relation to tapping into the
'unremembered' portion of Soul. I feel that this physical universe is
comprised of the illusionary fabric of the mind, and even the wildest
fiction can have threads of Divine Truth woven into it. If life is indeed
but a dream, it matters little what symbology is used, as long as we
understand the symbols as being more than just that, and nothing but that,
simultaneously. Ultimately, it is what we DO with the symbology that
matters, whether it helps us grow closer to our remembrance, or whether it
emerses us deeper into the dream. It is not the symbol's fault . . .it is
the dreamer's responsibility to decipher the dream.
This ties in perfectly to the initial proposal, for Eckankar's health
and progress as a way in which Soul can return to It's own heritage
depends on the attitude and willingness of each seeker to determine for
themself if this religion's symbology is adaptable and useable toward this
goal. If it is not, there are plenty of other wells to drink of (nod to
Kirpal's wordage), but if it is, may the seeker drink and become
nourished. It is the dreamer's responsibility to decipher their own
dream.
Thank you for this dialogue, K. Paul. Disagreement may still exist,
but hopefully respect may be fostered, as a symbol of harmony between two
different sounds.
Symbolically,
Jay
K. Paul Johnson
s...@atl.mindspring.com writes:
>
> I do not attack David Lane personally. I don't care what his morals
Yes you do. For example:
> every case. He has his own beliefs which conflict with Eckankar.
> Eckankar must be false if Charan SIngh is correct, ergo Lane must
> disprove Eckankar. (I don't agree with this, but it seems to be the
> premise upon which David Lane operates.). Lane is trying to get back
> at Eckankar for all of his legal problems. Lane simply likes
> interfering with people's belief systems. He thinks it is "fun" when
> he attacks the foundation of someone's religion and they are hurt by
> it.
This is all personal attack, all untrue, and I know it.
Lane has never tried to disprove my religious beliefs, which
certainly conflict with RS. He likes criticizing belief
systems, but criticism isn't interference. You don't have to
read his books or his posts. Lane has never in my recollection
gone after an Eckist on this list for anything other than an
attack on his own work, and then always in a lighthearted
way.
>
> What part of the Eckankar teachings do you object to in this regard?
As objectively untrue? All the fake Eck Masters.
>
> This is absurd. Only a fanatic would take what I said to mean that I
> think I "own" the religion, or that I am trying to tell other people
what they are "allowed to say"
Your definition of "fanatic" must be "anyone who can read."
>
> I do not disparage anyone else's religion. Are you trying to elevate
> Sam's anger and Lane's hatred to the level of religious belief?
No, I'm trying to point out that your anger and hatred are
poison to your soul and others, and justifying them by what
other people do is idiotic and self-destructive.
>
> It is beyond me how you can condone their behavior.
I don't condone all the things that Sam, or Dave R., or Dave
C., or Zuma say, or the ridicule that Dave L. uses often.
Never said I did. But then, they don't attack me and you do.
Not because I've ever attacked your beliefs, but simply because
I've *questioned* and *disbelieved* them, and defend other people you attack.
>
> belong to a religion whose members share certain beliefs. For you or
> David Lane or Sam Orez or David Cullen to try to get us to change our
> beliefs to match yours in still unethical.
And what makes you think I am? I just want you to accept facts
and be civil. I have no interest in recruiting you to anything.
>
> Why don't you answer my questions to you regarding Lane's research
> ethics?
I have.
Do you agree with his methods?
Not always. I posted here that he shouldn't have said Harold
ought to shut down Eckankar, that such a statement went too
far, and Lane actually agreed.
Do you see how his failure to
> follow standard procedures has led to a flawed piece of work?
Wait. Standard? Your definitions of standard are not credible
to me, Steve. But flawed? Sure, what isn't?
I'm really tired of arguing, and won't do so any more. You're
hurting yourself, you're hurting your religion, and you're NOT
hurting Sam or Dave or me by your rampaging obsession here.
For your own sake, give it a rest. I worry about you, I really
do.
alex deletes commercial emails
In <19970121041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
ste...@aol.com writes:
>
>"I propose that we offer our support and creativity toward
>helping Eckankar become healthy and strong, instead of trying
>to kill it. Let us treat this spiritual path as a parent
>would a special child and offer it our love and nurturing.
>Pointing out its congenital defects is not the way; instead,
>we can help it become self-supporting and a vital part of
>the community."
---------------------------
I understand.
Question: If a pediatrician told you the child has a form
of cancer, would denying the whole idea be the loving and
nurturing thing to do for the child? How about perceiving
only insult when the doctor's words became harsh at your
lack of willingness to face the possibility?
And what if a second, third and fourth opinion agreed with
the diagnosis, some based on the first doctor's files, some
based on their own observations and tests they'd performed
themselves? Would you hide the child inside the pretty world
of a loving group that only agreed with your belief that they
were just a bunch of soured practitioners...the child is fine
...and to believe only what *works* for you?
I agree, don't take the advice of someone who'd say, throw
the child away, it's defective. I'd agree, though, with anyone
who'd say...I may have my own reasons for not wanting to face
what the truth could be...how can this help my child? I'd do
whatever it takes to gain the clarity to heal my child,
no matter how much effort and pain it would take.
A
alex deletes commercial emails
In <1997Jan20.1...@leo.vsla.edu>
pjoh...@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson) writes:
>
>AHA! Here we have the root of the problem. You keep talking
>about "my" religion, and behave as if you own Eckankar and can
>tell other people what they are allowed to say about it. You
>don't own Eckankar, Eckists don't own Eckankar, it's part of
>the culture of the human race. Humanity owns Eckankar, and any
>member of the club is entitled to an opinion. Same is true of
>the Cayce teachings. They're not mine any more than they're
>yours, and I don't have the slightest right to tell you what
>you are allowed to think or say on the subject.
>>
>> So I ask again, on what grounds do you try to tell me how to
>> fix my religion? I say, fix your own first.
>
>There's no mine and yours, they're all ours, and we are all
>equal in the right to have and express opinions.
-------------------------
Sure, what is so threatening about someone saying this?
Is there a _fix what?_ pool that somehow gets depleted
every time someone raises the issue?
I'm told I need to fix my defensive behaviors *all* the time.
I just smile, and say, _Do not! Fix your own, and piss off!_
No problem.
A
sam...@aol.com
In article <5c0cur$4...@camel4.mindspring.com>, s...@atl.mindspring.com
(Steve Runfeldt) writes:
>I do not attack David Lane personally.
Steve,
How is it that you are so facile a liar?
Do you think your lies and half-truths help the cause of Eckankar?
Why don't your Eckankar Handlers rein you in?
Why do they sit back and watch you singlehandedly tarnish their religion?
Why don't they send in someone more qualified?
It is very baffling to me.
Sam
The Internet has the potential of leading you
to increasingly superficial interactions
with more and more people......Danny Hillis
My5koshas
Paul,
You worry with good reason about this man. You copied some of his post to
you and it stated:
> belong to a religion whose members share certain beliefs. For you or
> David Lane or Sam Orez or David Cullen to try to get *us* to change our
> beliefs to match yours in still unethical.
Notice the *us* ? Is this a result of a messiah complex setting in or
could he have multiple personality syndrom? How many of "him" is arguing
with you in this post I wonder????? You should quit Paul, you never know
how many there are, it could be a legion!
Obsevantly,
David C.
ste...@aol.com
In article <5c69kn$3...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
aemo...@ix.netcom.com(alex deletes commercial emails) writes:
>I understand.
Those two words speak volumes!
>Question: If a pediatrician told you the child has a form
>of cancer, would denying the whole idea be the loving and
>nurturing thing to do for the child? How about perceiving
>only insult when the doctor's words became harsh at your
>lack of willingness to face the possibility?
>
Prolonged denial would be detrimental to the child. This is the
obvious answer. To perceive only insult when the doctor becomes more
stern in his attempt to communicate the child's grave condition is an
indication of either a pathological condition of the lower bodies (mind,
memory, emotions, physical) or a symptom of temporary denial brought about
by shock. Either way, the perception of insult when insult is not
intended shows imbalance, whether it be acute or chronic.
>And what if a second, third and fourth opinion agreed with
>the diagnosis, some based on the first doctor's files, some
>based on their own observations and tests they'd performed
>themselves? Would you hide the child inside the pretty world
>of a loving group that only agreed with your belief that they
>were just a bunch of soured practitioners...the child is fine
>...and to believe only what *works* for you?
>
Subsequent verification of a diagnosis of cancer by four physicians
is pretty conclusive, wouldn't you suppose?<g> Would *I* sequester the
child in an environment of total denial? Hell, no! Would others? It
happens every day.
>I agree, don't take the advice of someone who'd say, throw
>the child away, it's defective. I'd agree, though, with anyone
>who'd say...I may have my own reasons for not wanting to face
>what the truth could be...how can this help my child? I'd do
>whatever it takes to gain the clarity to heal my child,
>no matter how much effort and pain it would take.
Absolutely. I would never suggest or condone withdrawing truth, and
my first priority would be to bring the child to an acceptable level of
health.
Now, in the case of Eckankar, (and in order to be ethically correct,
I must emphatically declare that the opinions expressed by me are mine and
mine alone, and are not indicative of Eckankar's position in any way,
shape or form - whew!) this metaphor would make a closer parallel were the
disease curable and or treatable, such as encephalitis, poliomyelitis,
Hodgkin's disease or diabetes. It is suggested that since the accounts of
plagairism were with Eckankar from day one, more accurate metaphors would
include Down's syndrome or cystic fibrosis. But for the sake of
agreement, let's say it is cancer, and is found to be benign and operable.
Great care must be taken to insure the tumor be removed in it's entirety
and that no secondary infection be allowed to occur after the procedure.
I don't think surgery is the final answer, but some excision is
necessary. The best thing that could be done now would be to explain the
diagnosis and treatment to the child in a way it can understand, and then
answer its questions as honestly and directly as possible. An attitude of
love combined with a determination to bring the highest level of health
possible to the child is crucial. All avenues of treatment should be
explored, but not all suggestions should be tried out of desperation. It
is better to consult with the child's primary care physician, as he is the
ultimate authority of the child's medical condition (unless the child is
referred to a specialist, in which case the specialist would always keep
the primary physician appraised of any treatment).
Treatment has begun already, and the prognosis points toward almost
total recovery save a few scars and perhaps a limp. For me, I'm not about
to abandon the little tyke yet. Yes, some of the treatments will be
painful, but I'm right Here holding it's hand. I intend on being around
when it reaches adulthood, and I'll do everything within my power to see
that it grows up strong and healthy.
After all, it taught me about the child within myself. I owe it my
life, my love, my devotion. It may not be perfect, but it's beautiful to
me.
Medically,
Jay
Steve Runfeldt
aemo...@ix.netcom.com(alex deletes commercial emails) wrote:
>In <19970121041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> ste...@aol.com writes:
>>
>>"I propose that we offer our support and creativity toward
>>helping Eckankar become healthy and strong, instead of trying
>>to kill it. Let us treat this spiritual path as a parent
>>would a special child and offer it our love and nurturing.
>>Pointing out its congenital defects is not the way; instead,
>>we can help it become self-supporting and a vital part of
>>the community."
>---------------------------
>I understand.
>Question: If a pediatrician told you the child has a form
>of cancer, would denying the whole idea be the loving and
>nurturing thing to do for the child? How about perceiving
>only insult when the doctor's words became harsh at your
>lack of willingness to face the possibility?
>And what if a second, third and fourth opinion agreed with
>the diagnosis, some based on the first doctor's files, some
>based on their own observations and tests they'd performed
>themselves? Would you hide the child inside the pretty world
>of a loving group that only agreed with your belief that they
>were just a bunch of soured practitioners...the child is fine
>...and to believe only what *works* for you?
>I agree, don't take the advice of someone who'd say, throw
>the child away, it's defective. I'd agree, though, with anyone
>who'd say...I may have my own reasons for not wanting to face
>what the truth could be...how can this help my child? I'd do
>whatever it takes to gain the clarity to heal my child,
>no matter how much effort and pain it would take.
>A
Something similar has actually happened. Doctors have told women that
they needed mastectomies and the women have believed and had the
surgery. They trusted the doctors based on their degrees and
reputation. They did not know until much later of the doctors ties to
the insurance companies and that much less drastic and safer measures
would have been sufficient.
When you go for a second opinion, it is always a good idea to make
sure that that second opinion is really independent. The second
opinions you alude to here all go back to the same source.
Steve
"By using the Spiritual Exercises of Eck, Soul learns how to
ride this wave through all the hardships, the disappointments,
and the sorrows, unitl It can rise above the traumas of life
and ride this wave back to the heart of God."
Harold Klemp, The Secret Teachings, 1989, p. 25.
For more information on Eckankar, please visit the Eckankar Web site at http://www.eckankar.org
K. Paul Johnson
ste...@aol.com writes:
>
> K. Paul (please, if you could be so kind, let me know how to properly
> address you other than this or Mr. Johnson - it sounds so formal!), I'd
Just Paul. I had to use the K. for my books because there's a
famous Paul Johnson author already.
snip
>
> Now, the gist of this proposal is an attempt toward healing. If from
> the outset you don't believe this is possible, our discussion is moot in
> the context of this thread. So, until you clarify your belief in the
> possible growth and nourishment of this spiritual path, or at least in the
> ability to manifest harmony between two different sounds, I will assume a
> compromise can be met.
Yes, I believe that healing is possible, but no, I don't think
it can happen without a confrontation of the issues raised by
Lane's research.
>
> The present Living Eck Master, Harold Klemp, has encouraged
> skepticism in the writings of Eckankar as well (if you need a quote, I
I don't think that's totally sincere in light of the "astral
library" excuse and the continued claims about Rebazar et al,
but at least it's a start.
> same. When Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light", he was
> coming from that ISness, and not from a personality seeking followers. We
> must listen closely to what is said by outer Masters, for their words may
> appear contradictory, while in reality they could be coming from a level
> of consciousness we cannot remember. So, to get back around this bush, I
> suppose 'lead' means 'remind' to me.
OK. The question then in my mind is whether the Outer
Master attempts to control others. In Cayce's phase, "Then
they abuse" their status.
> have fairly weighed each claim against all the evidence. You know that
> there's an element of myth involved here (regarding Eckankar, Cayce, or
> any of the grey areas of spiritual belief), and if you've read Campbell,
Sure, and one difference between a healthy and unhealthy
approach to spirituality is, IMO, avoiding taking myth for
history.
> goal. If it is not, there are plenty of other wells to drink of (nod to
> Kirpal's wordage), but if it is, may the seeker drink and become
> nourished. It is the dreamer's responsibility to decipher their own
> dream.
>
With Paul Twitchell, as with Mme. Blavatsky, you have someone
who was an admitted fiction writer who also produced a body of
claims concerning Masters that are supposedly non-fiction. The
question is how much the fiction seeps into the latter, and
what to do about it.
Cheers,
Paul
g...@pacificcoast.net
In article <19970123040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
my5k...@aol.com (My5koshas) wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> You worry with good reason about this man. You copied some of his post to
> you and it stated:
>
> > belong to a religion whose members share certain beliefs. For you or
> > David Lane or Sam Orez or David Cullen to try to get *us* to change our
> > beliefs to match yours in still unethical.
I worry a bit about this unethical spin here. I believe everyone has the right
to express their beliefs. . . even if they are absolutely abhorent to me, as
long as they do not contavene the laws of the land.
On the internet there really are no laws regarding speech . . . so whether or
not the above mentioned are ethical or not does not really matter. One does not
need to be ethical to post to a.r.e.. They only need an opinion and a computer.
I do not need to agree with them. How can I expect to be free to post here if I
do not give them the same freedom.
You know, as a primary teacher, I've noticed that it's always the kid with head
lice who falls down and needs comforting:)
Scratching
Glen
+15
Ken S
alex deletes commercial emails <aemo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote...
>
> I'm told I need to fix my defensive behaviors *all* the time.
>
> I just smile, and say, _Do not! Fix your own, and piss off!_
>
> No problem.
>
Some very good advice alex. I'll try this soon. :-))
Thanks,
Ken S
ste...@aol.com
Paul writes:
"Yes, I believe that healing is possible, but no, I don't think
it can happen without a confrontation of the issues raised by
Lane's research."
Absolutely.
In response to my words:
> The present Living Eck Master, Harold Klemp, has encouraged
> skepticism in the writings of Eckankar as well (if you need a quote, I
Paul answers:
"I don't think that's totally sincere in light of the "astral
library" excuse and the continued claims about Rebazar et al,
but at least it's a start."
What's that old saying? 'A thousand mile journey begins with the
first step." I personally have had lucid dream experiences in a vast
Inner library, have even taken poetry and ideas garnered from this place,
so I can confirm the existance of an Astral library. More often than not
information is gathered through the subconscious while in the dream state
and then is slowly 'bled' through to the conscious in fragments. Harji
mentioned an experience he had with Paulji on the Inner inside this
library. Having read the experience myself, I came away with the feeling
that Paulji knew controversy existed regarding his writings, for in
reference to this, he said, "Yeah, something has to be done about that."
(Eckists, correct me on that quote, I don't have it with me) Well,
something IS being done about that at a pace that won't alarm those who
don't know of the controversy, and quick enough to show those that do that
this is being ironed out. Paul, the issue isn't really whether or not
anyone believes the astral library story. Paul Twitchell copied writings
from Johnson - if it were just to pass along the esoteric spiritual
truths, that might be swallowed. But what sticks in most folks' craw is
that he had Johnson's words come out of Sudar Singh's mouth and Rebazar
Tarz' mouth. I have no problem understanding it as part of the myth, and
taking what gems of truth that come with it to aid in my spiritual growth.
It doesn't work that way with everyone, though. That's one reason why
there's so much controversy here, and everyone feel's they are right.
Paul said:
"OK. The question then in my mind is whether the Outer
Master attempts to control others. In Cayce's phase, "Then
they abuse" their status.
Good question. You'e liable to get different answers, depending on
who you talk to. For me, Harold Klemp does not try to control me in any
way. So far he has laid out a course, and it has been up to me to follow
it or not. I may deviate somewhat from time to time, but I always keep my
sights set on the Way. Even those who overtly attempt to control others
have only the power to do so with the subject's consent. Look at
Scientology. Now THAT's mind control! Still, thousands allow themselves
to be 'audited' each year while their bank accounts go dry.
In response to my words:
> have fairly weighed each claim against all the evidence. You know that
> there's an element of myth involved here (regarding Eckankar, Cayce, or
> any of the grey areas of spiritual belief), and if you've read Campbell,
Paul replies:
Sure, and one difference between a healthy and unhealthy
approach to spirituality is, IMO, avoiding taking myth for
history.
Agreed.
"With Paul Twitchell, as with Mme. Blavatsky, you have someone
who was an admitted fiction writer who also produced a body of
claims concerning Masters that are supposedly non-fiction. The
question is how much the fiction seeps into the latter, and
what to do about it."
Discernment. Draw a line between myth and objective reality and
place the pieces where you feel they should go. One rule of thumb,
though. Don't set the pieces in concrete, as they might be moved across
the line someday.
Mythically,
Jay
Ken S
ste...@aol.com wrote
>
> Paul writes:
>
> "With Paul Twitchell, as with Mme. Blavatsky, you have someone
> who was an admitted fiction writer who also produced a body of
> claims concerning Masters that are supposedly non-fiction. The
> question is how much the fiction seeps into the latter, and
> what to do about it."
>
> Discernment. Draw a line between myth and objective reality and
> place the pieces where you feel they should go. One rule of thumb,
> though. Don't set the pieces in concrete, as they might be moved across
> the line someday.
>
I wonder about the need of mankind for myth and the intense desire of some
folks to strip away at all myths to expose them as untruth. There's a lot
to be said for cultivating a sense of mystery in life. In a way, being
aware of the mystery, the unknown and the unknowable, is closer to the true
reality of the situation than the strict rationalist viewpoint. After all
our civilization is only a few thousand years old, and most of what we know
we learned in the last 100 years. It's amazing to think about!
More amazing is that we probably only know of a tiny fraction of a
percentage of what there is to know. Our known world is like a small boat
floating on an ocean of infinite existance. The "real world" is more like
a puppet show of shadows. So when Paul Johnson and others point out the
"fiction" of the spiritual beliefs of other people, I wonder. They seem so
sure ... is no mystery left in their lives?
Ken S
ste...@aol.com
In article <01bc0a8f$971b96a0$LocalHost@default>, "Ken S"
<kst...@redrose.net> writes:
>More amazing is that we probably only know of a tiny fraction of a
>percentage of what there is to know. Our known world is like a small
boat
>floating on an ocean of infinite existance. The "real world" is more
like
>a puppet show of shadows. So when Paul Johnson and others point out the
>"fiction" of the spiritual beliefs of other people, I wonder. They seem
so
>sure ... is no mystery left in their lives?
>
>
Great post, Ken! You expressed the journey of life well here.
Mystery holds the threads of reality together.
Without the myth, there is no substance.
The intertwining of the concrete and the abstract form the school of Soul.
Mysteriously,
Jay
K. Paul Johnson
"Ken S" writes:
>
> More amazing is that we probably only know of a tiny fraction of a
> percentage of what there is to know. Our known world is like a small boat
> floating on an ocean of infinite existance. The "real world" is more like
> a puppet show of shadows. So when Paul Johnson and others point out the
> "fiction" of the spiritual beliefs of other people, I wonder. They seem so
> sure ... is no mystery left in their lives?
Dear Ken,
Would it help to answer that question if I tell you I'm an avid
astrologer, see auras all the time, meditate and pray
regularly, read mostly spiritual literature, and find Edgar
Cayce-- whose work I've been researching intently for two
years-- extremely mysterious?
In fact, regarding things as mysterious is, I think, a healthy
sign. The people who seem so sure are those who insist on the
historical reliability of Twitchell re: the Eck Masters,
Blavatsky re: Tibet, Cayce re: Atlantis and Lemuria, and so
on. (Or those like Mike M. who are sure that science has
disproven everything mystical and occult.) I won't agree with you
that these (or Christian dogmas about the resurrection and virgin birth
either) qualify as "spiritual beliefs." They are quasi-historical beliefs that
people adhere to with misplaced fervor thinking them spiritual
in nature. Spiritual beliefs are in principles and values, not
historical claims, IMO.
Cheers
Paul
Steve Runfeldt
pjoh...@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson) wrote:
>Spiritual beliefs are in principles and values, not
>historical claims, IMO.
I agree with this. I think most Eckists would also agree. I wold go a
little further than principles and values to also include spiritual
experience. This is what we mean when we say that Eckankar is 95% on
the inner.
Steve
Ken S
K. Paul Johnson <pjoh...@leo.vsla.edu> wrote
>
> Would it help to answer that question if I tell you I'm an avid
> astrologer, see auras all the time, meditate and pray
> regularly, read mostly spiritual literature, and find Edgar
> Cayce-- whose work I've been researching intently for two
> years-- extremely mysterious?
This really suprises me. Your posts strike me as being writen by someone
with a more, ahh, objectivist/scientific perspective. No offense intended.
:-)
>
> In fact, regarding things as mysterious is, I think, a healthy
> sign. The people who seem so sure are those who insist on the
> historical reliability of Twitchell re: the Eck Masters,
> Blavatsky re: Tibet, Cayce re: Atlantis and Lemuria, and so
> on. (Or those like Mike M. who are sure that science has
> disproven everything mystical and occult.) I won't agree with you
> that these (or Christian dogmas about the resurrection and virgin birth
> either) qualify as "spiritual beliefs." They are quasi-historical
beliefs that
> people adhere to with misplaced fervor thinking them spiritual
> in nature. Spiritual beliefs are in principles and values, not
> historical claims, IMO.
OK, point taken. The physical existence of Rebazar can be considered an
historical fact or fiction (pick one). But **belief** in Rebazar is not
historical -- it's personal and subjective. Does it accomplish anything to
debate the historical reality of Rebazar and Fubi? I say no, because for
me the proof of physical existance of *specific* Eck Masters is irrelevant.
And I believe that it's a complete waste of time to attempt to invalidate
another persons perception of reality. For example take these two
'opposing' viewponts...
Rebazar Tarz is alive today, and gives spiritual guidance to many!
Rebazar Tarz is simply a manifestation of Divine Spirit, filling a matrix
of perception for the individual.
I don't know whether there is a monk living in a hut in the Hindu Kush that
answers to the name Tarz, and for me it doesn't matter! I belive *both* of
these viewpoints could be true. The important thing for me is that there
are possibilities that I am not going to discount based on any researched
information. I and many, many other people have experienced things that
simply can't be explained away using conventional versions of reality. So
I plan on keeping an open mind, at least until we research our way to the
ultimate nature of what is.
Ken S
sam...@aol.com
In article <5cr9st$s...@camel2.mindspring.com>, s...@mindspring.com (Steve
Runfeldt) writes:
>This is what we mean when we say that Eckankar is 95% on
>the inner.
Now if we can just do something about that *other* 5%.
sam
sam...@aol.com
In article <01bc0f19$72c8e9e0$LocalHost@default>, "Ken S"
<kst...@redrose.net> writes:
>I don't know whether there is a monk living in a hut in the Hindu Kush
that
>answers to the name Tarz, and for me it doesn't matter! I belive *both*
of
>these viewpoints could be true. The important thing for me is that there
>are possibilities that I am not going to discount based on any researched
>information. I and many, many other people have experienced things that
>simply can't be explained away using conventional versions of reality.
So
>I plan on keeping an open mind, at least until we research our way to the
>ultimate nature of what is.
Just don't go to sleep on the way!
Sam
alex deletes commercial emails
In <19970131171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
sam...@aol.com writes:
>
>In article <5cr9st$s...@camel2.mindspring.com>,
s...@mindspring.com (Steve Runfeldt) writes:
>
>>This is what we mean when we say that Eckankar is 95% on
>>the inner.
>
>Now if we can just do something about that *other* 5%.
>
That's easy. Just write a check.
K?
ste...@aol.com
In article <19970131171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sam...@aol.com writes:
>In article <5cr9st$s...@camel2.mindspring.com>, s...@mindspring.com (Steve
>Runfeldt) writes:
>
>>This is what we mean when we say that Eckankar is 95% on
>>the inner.
>
>Now if we can just do something about that *other* 5%.
>
>
Ack! Here we go again with percentages! Eckankar is the outer
organization that teaches its students about the ECK, which is both on the
outer and Inner. Percentaging is merely a mental toy of statisticians,
and has no bearing on the ISness of IT other than a crude manifestation
device designed to illustrate the pure subjectiveness of duality.
We are children of the Light playing in the shadows of life.
IT IS.
Singularly,
Jay
abr...@hotmail.com
In article <19970201022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ste...@aol.com says...
>>In article <5cr9st$s...@camel2.mindspring.com>, s...@mindspring.com (Steve
>>Runfeldt) writes:
>>
>>>This is what we mean when we say that Eckankar is 95% on
>>>the inner.
More like 99% according to Patti Simpson's book Paulji.
Bill Flavell