Is Harold Klemp Dangerous?
InVis...@nym.alias.net
In my opinion, ANYONE who is capable of lying and knowingly perpetuating a
lie to thousands of people for 20+ years is very dangerous.
I would like to see the eckist suicide rate. Many people on that pathway
are borderline as it is...match that up with the feelings of personal
failure after years of attempting "soul travel". Add in the initiates who
read the shariyat seriously and look at their own growth and compare this
to the "standards" set forth in the shariyat....their "bible".....and then
brand themselves as failures, or "not good enough".
Please also consider that many people who get the inner urge to explore
certain "psychic" forms of study or practice are definitely discouraged to
persue this avenue, as eckankar brands almost anything other than it's own
teachings as "negative", or "evil", or "Kal".....thus a study that very
well could have produced personal growth is never accomplished.
I look at the broken marriages and marriages that never happened...the
families that have been tossed apart by eckankars self serving attitudes
and demands for exclusivity, and I am repulsed.
Look at eckankars constant urging to its membership to donate to this, and
give money for that...yet NONE of this money goes to the public good, the
public tax roles, or to the needy. In fact, most of the eckists I met
were fairly needy themselves and could hardly afford to purchase their own
discourses, far less afford to give to these worthless causes to enhance
eckankars coffers.
Look at the High Initiates who are doing spiritual counseling.
I met several who are outright thieves, one who was certainly a pedophile,
another who thought a good seduction would "cure" at lot of young ladies
personal problems.....
Not to mention another lady ESA who was so bigoted against anyone with gay
or lesbian tendencies and even outright tried to "ban" a gay man from the
local eck center based on his sexual preference even though he was
discreet, yet open, about his preferences.
Another H.I. I knew thought that having an automatic weapon in his trunk
was good insurance against alien abduction.
Another actually told me that anyone with "Downs Syndrome", especially if
they worked at a MacDonald's Restaurant, was most likely an alien
crossbreed!
Let's also look at the peddlers with their off shore investment schemes
that seldom if ever paid off and normally resulted in loss to the well
meaning chela who was just trying to get by and perhaps make a little
money from the trusted High Initiates who proposed these schemes.
And the healers who charge according to ones pocketbook rather than by
cost incurred, or service for exactly the same remedy.
The vitamin pushers, the Jewelry pushers who overcharge for low quality
gems telling folks that the gems will enhance their personal spiritual
growth.....
Not to mention the endless Diet pushers etc etc....
I could go on and on about the "enlightened" High Initiates in eckankar.
Now, consider that these folks have been studying this pathway, propagated
by Harold Klemp for at least 15 years in most cases....and this is what
eckankar has turned them into? is this spiritual growth?
Should your priest be a bigot, a thief, a pervert? Shouldn't your
religion help its members become better people?
Does eckankar actually build spiritual mastership as is its claim? If so,
WHO?
My personal definition of a spiritual master could NOT fit any living
person in eckankar that I know of, or that I knew, after being a member
for over 28 years and a 6th initiate.
Not One! Including Paul the plagiarist, Darwin the drunken womanizer or
Harold the nutcase!
They say that if the path doesn't work for you then you should get
out.....It definitely did not work for me, even though for years and
years, I worked for it......I got out - and I have NEVER been happier in
my life!
If there is anyone here, anyone at all, who thinks they were better off in
eckankar, I'd sure like to hear from them.
Harold is dangerous. Dangerous to the spiritual growth of his followers.
Dangerous in granting high status to people whom he has never met, and
actually knows nothing about, except the time they have subscribed to
eckankar discourses. His followers in turn are often dangerous to the
newer members who, in their mistaken "awe" of the spiritual state of the
H.I., allow themselves to become victims in one way or another....
Personally, I would LOVE to see the government come down on eckankar.
Perhaps the media would be a better starting point....Eckankar is
intentionally low key and does avoid media attention unless they control
100% of the media content. Perhaps someday eckankar will come under the
national spotlight and it's dark shadow will be revealed to the masses.
Ken
<InVis...@nym.alias.net> wrote ...
>
<snipers>
> Personally, I would LOVE to see the government come down on eckankar.
> Perhaps the media would be a better starting point....Eckankar is
> intentionally low key and does avoid media attention unless they control
> 100% of the media content. Perhaps someday eckankar will come under the
> national spotlight and it's dark shadow will be revealed to the masses.
Eckankar has been beneficial for me, and for everyone I know who is
still an Eckist. If it stops being beneficial, then I will find something else.
Hopefully, if that happens I won't whine too much about it. Yes, there are
some people with fringe and strange viewpoints on this path, just like
everywhere else in Real Life. That's just how it is in this world. I'll try not
to whine too much about that either. Interestingly though, I've found no
long term members of Eckankar who fit any of the descriptions shared
by Visi. Most are stable and compassionate persons, many with great
insight into Life. That's my experience.
As to the shadow and the light ... focus on what you will. I've found the
ECK teachings are accurate regarding the individual becoming what
one places one's attention upon. So look for the best in life or, if you
prefer, look for the worst. Either way, you will find what you are seeking.
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> <InVis...@nym.alias.net> wrote ...
> >
> <snipers>
> > Personally, I would LOVE to see the government come down on eckankar.
> > Perhaps the media would be a better starting point....Eckankar is
> > intentionally low key and does avoid media attention unless they control
> > 100% of the media content. Perhaps someday eckankar will come under the
> > national spotlight and it's dark shadow will be revealed to the masses.
>
> Eckankar has been beneficial for me, and for everyone I know who is
> still an Eckist.
I got a feeling beneficial here means the "positive" qualities of
Kentucky Fried Delusionment.
> If it stops being beneficial, then I will find something else.
That's how it works....if you can no longer maintain the delusion, you
find another path that will indulge you, eh?
> Hopefully, if that happens I won't whine too much about it.
You won't whine because you will immediately induct yourself into a path
that will cater to your delusion. The alternative is much too scary.
Yes, there are
> some people with fringe and strange viewpoints on this path, just like
> everywhere else in Real Life. That's just how it is in this world. I'll try not
> to whine too much about that either. Interestingly though, I've found no
> long term members of Eckankar who fit any of the descriptions shared
> by Visi. Most are stable and compassionate persons, many with great
> insight into Life. That's my experience.
Your experience is a product of your inculcation and should not be
trusted by you and anyone else.
>
> As to the shadow and the light ... focus on what you will. I've found the
> ECK teachings are accurate regarding the individual becoming what
> one places one's attention upon.
Yep, the eck teachings create "becoming addicts" at a cost of your life,
of course.
> So look for the best in life or, if you
> prefer, look for the worst. Either way, you will find what you are seeking.
How about stopping the "looking" altogether.
Then what?
Lurk
cher
>
> Jane and others,
>
> In my opinion, ANYONE who is capable of lying and knowingly perpetuating a
> lie to thousands of people for 20+ years is very dangerous.
Repost obvious data. <smile>-----------------------------------------
> "Paul Olson" <brok...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A7127D0...@home.com...
> Hi Folks,
> Just lurking here now and then, and I ran across your thread.
>
> I was an Eckist for a long time and left with not very many hard feelings.
>
> Darwin's ATOM group has been around a long time....at least since 1993 or so
> I
> believe......He used to try to rent meeting rooms at the same hotels that
> ECK
> Regional seminars were held in, until eckankar started requireing that he
> not be
> around if they were gonna rent the rooms that weekend......But in the
> beginning
> it was interesting to go to an eck seminar and to see the ATOM guys set up
> in
> the rooms down the hall.....I don't think that went over too well with
> eckankar
> at all......
>
> Oh well, I feel sorry for Darwin but he did build his own situation with
> eckankar and as far as leaaders go, I definately preferred Harold.....even
> though he sings really poorly! (ha ha).....But, yep, Darwin sang terribly
> too....I wonder if Paul sang?.....anyone know???
>
> When I was an h.i. and was a honcho in our little town....Michael Turner was
> an
> eckist as well as a member of ATOM......The local eck hi's didn't mind that
> too
> much and we did know about it.
>
> I asked Michael to be the editor of the local eck newsletter and he accepted
> the
> job.....Michael wrote some articles that he wanted to submit into the
> newsletter
> that would have gone out to all the local eck subscribers.
>
> The articles were thoughtful and well written however I was put into the
> lousey
> position of having to give the kabosh to Michaels articles and eventually to
> ask
> Michael to resign his position. The reason was that the atrticles were
> comparing ATOM to eckankar and were talking a lot about Darwin Gross and
> other
> spiritual paths as well. That's not allowed in eckankar local newsletters
> to
> chelas.
>
> As readers here well know, eckankar does not like to "pitch" other paths and
> has
> kind of an unwritten (at least i never saw it in writing) rule that chelas
> just
> don't talk about Darwin. (stricken from the vairagi records and all
> that)....
>
> I was asked to get Michaels resignation quietly and I did (not so
> quietly)....
> ( he told me to &^%$ OFF!!!)
>
> From eckanars viewpoint, Michael was just too much a free thinker and I can
> see
> their point. If you work for a company, you just don't pitch the
> competition!
> I had to fire the guy yet I really liked him as a person.
>
> Michael was a free thinker and I'm afraid that when he lived near me and we
> shared our time in eckankar, I really got him angry at me....so much so that
> he
> left eckankar shortly afterwards.......he had joined eckankar a couple of
> times
> I guess and then left......
>
> A year or so later, I heard that he had started a pathway of his own and had
> declared himself "God realized" and all that......The local h.i's had a
> really
> good laugh about that one....He had been a 2nd or 3rd initiate in eckankar
> when
> he left.
>
> Good for you Michael Turner, (I hope you read this) there is a lot of good
> cash
> flow in religion these days so why not go for it?......only,.... are you
> doing
> service for those who follow you, or for yourself?......I know nothing about
> your path or your teachings so I can't and won't comment on your path or
> teachings.
>
> I do know that a lot of paths have come about by followers of eckankar
> leaving
> eckankar and then starting up their own thing.....I knew a Jerry Mulvin in
> LA in
> the early 70's who did this, of course there is John Roger of MSIA who did
> it,
> and now Michael Turner and others.....It would be interesting to see a list!
> But, folks, that is the story of Religion throughout time!
>
> As to this being common knowledge amongst eckists.....It is not. It isn't
> spoken about except when the hi's get to yaking about this
> stuff......neither is
> Darwin for that matter......Or John Roger .......I think that the eck clergy
> really does try to keep the meetings and the discussions about eckankar ,
> and
> about how it can help the member instead of spending time gossiping about
> those
> who have left, and even though I'm not in eckankar anymore, I respect those
> ideas.
>
> The problem rises when someone finds out about these guys and then is
> brushed
> off, or lied to about Michael, darwin and others......lies serve no one.
> Unfortunately, eckankar is a little too defensive about its past and its
> failures in the present.
>
> So, thanks for letting me yak here a bit. I'd like to hear from some
> eckists
> and hear what's happenning in eckankar these days (respond personally if you
> like)....but please don't preach to me......It's just that after having been
> a
> member for 28 years and a 6th initiate back then, I'm curious about how
> things
> are going these days.
>
> See ya
> Sworddancer
cher
<shudder> Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
desire to end up where you are! Just being honest and truthful with you.
Hope you can handle it. <smile>
arelurker wrote:
<snip>
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> S/he drift backwards leading to something similar to you, lurk.
> <shudder> Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
> desire to end up where you are!
Au contraire. I am here. Where else is there? Most seekers spend a
lifetime reaching with their hand for something that is clearly
contained in their hand.
> Just being honest and truthful with you.
Yes, you are honestly and truthfully revealing how you want to defend
the seeking consciousness. As long as you keep seeking you won't have to
deal with what is.
The seeking energy is the fuel for the engine that runs club eckankar.
This seeking energy is the very thing that keeps you from realizing
you're nothing. The only thing the seeking energy gives you is the stink
of hope.
> Hope you can handle it. <smile>
I can handle that you are like most seekers in that you chase your tail
and are proud of it. You know no better, so you're left defending a
fifth rate spiritual "teacher" which gives you a glimmer of hope that
you are something. But I'm here to tell you....you are nothing. Notice
the fear that arises when reading these words. This is what you have
been running from all your life. Isn't it time to put away your
spiritual toys and awaken to what is?
Lurk
wernertrp
> Jane and others,
>
> In my opinion, ANYONE who is capable of lying and knowingly perpetuating a
> lie to thousands of people for 20+ years is very dangerous.
>
> I would like to see the eckist suicide rate.
add +1 for w.w.w.w.w.zoo :<(
Maybe this will come in my lifetime.
@aloha.net Rich
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<InVis...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:2004011312444...@nym.alias.net...
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > S/he drift backwards leading to something similar to you, lurk.
> > <shudder> Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
> > desire to end up where you are!
>
> Au contraire. I am here. Where else is there? Most seekers spend a
> lifetime reaching with their hand for something that is clearly
> contained in their hand.
And fortunately for you, you've learned to type with just one hand!
That's why you're here.
> > Just being honest and truthful with you.
>
> Yes, you are honestly and truthfully revealing how you want to defend
> the seeking consciousness. As long as you keep seeking you won't have to
> deal with what is.
I never said I was seeking, I said those who start out seeking.
Semantics, lurk. You're ultimate downfall.
> The seeking energy is the fuel for the engine that runs club eckankar.
> This seeking energy is the very thing that keeps you from realizing
> you're nothing. The only thing the seeking energy gives you is the stink
> of hope.
I explained this above, but for the sake of those who do not see hope as
a four letter word, I'd like to point out that your lack of hope in life
is self evident in your posts. Nothing like a black heart to teach
people more than flowery words. <smile>
> > Hope you can handle it. <smile>
>
> I can handle that you are like most seekers in that you chase your tail
> and are proud of it. You know no better, so you're left defending a
> fifth rate spiritual "teacher" which gives you a glimmer of hope that
> you are something. But I'm here to tell you....you are nothing. Notice
> the fear that arises when reading these words. This is what you have
> been running from all your life. Isn't it time to put away your
> spiritual toys and awaken to what is?
LOL..... and what is equals what you have? Come on now lurk.... all
you've got is the religion of anticultism! Negativity towards others for
their choices while you wrap yourself in the hopelessness of life.
That's not a no-thing universe, dear.... that's utter depression! You
should find out the difference between these two before you try setting
yourself up as a guru! <shudder> Frankly being told I'm nothing by a
loser hardly constitues anything outside of another day dealing with a
second rate troll with no life! <grin>
> Goth Lurk
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > S/he drift backwards leading to something similar to you, lurk.
> > > <shudder> Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
> > > desire to end up where you are!
> >
> > Au contraire. I am here. Where else is there? Most seekers spend a
> > lifetime reaching with their hand for something that is clearly
> > contained in their hand.
>
> And fortunately for you, you've learned to type with just one hand!
> That's why you're here.
When I say "here," I mean this moment typing words on a screen, hearing
the sound of cars outside, noticing the orange clouds colored by the
setting sun, the stillness within....
> > > Just being honest and truthful with you.
> >
> > Yes, you are honestly and truthfully revealing how you want to defend
> > the seeking consciousness. As long as you keep seeking you won't have to
> > deal with what is.
>
> I never said I was seeking, I said those who start out seeking.
> Semantics, lurk. You're ultimate downfall.
You not a seeker? Ha!
>
> > The seeking energy is the fuel for the engine that runs club eckankar.
> > This seeking energy is the very thing that keeps you from realizing
> > you're nothing. The only thing the seeking energy gives you is the stink
> > of hope.
>
> I explained this above, but for the sake of those who do not see hope as
> a four letter word, I'd like to point out that your lack of hope in life
> is self evident in your posts. Nothing like a black heart to teach
> people more than flowery words. <smile>
Your comments support my contention of your apparent dichotomy: You see
no hope as a black heart.
Those who cling to hope usually are running from hopelessness and
despair. However some people let go of hope, wade through the
hopelessness and come upon a way to meet life that does not require
hope. Are you interested in what that is?
>
> > > Hope you can handle it. <smile>
> >
> > I can handle that you are like most seekers in that you chase your tail
> > and are proud of it. You know no better, so you're left defending a
> > fifth rate spiritual "teacher" which gives you a glimmer of hope that
> > you are something. But I'm here to tell you....you are nothing. Notice
> > the fear that arises when reading these words. This is what you have
> > been running from all your life. Isn't it time to put away your
> > spiritual toys and awaken to what is?
>
> LOL..... and what is equals what you have?
Why does you mind what replacement toys? The point is to give up the
toys and step out of the sandbox. Why do you request better toys?
There's lots to be learned in your reaction here...it would be a shame
to squander the opportunity for insight here.
Come on now lurk.... all
> you've got is the religion of anticultism! Negativity towards others for
> their choices while you wrap yourself in the hopelessness of life.
> That's not a no-thing universe, dear.... that's utter depression! You
> should find out the difference between these two before you try setting
> yourself up as a guru! <shudder> Frankly being told I'm nothing by a
> loser hardly constitues anything outside of another day dealing with a
> second rate troll with no life! <grin>
I asked you to notice the fear that arises when you read the words that
you are nothing, and you step up and demonstrate your fear in your
comments here.
Please understand, I'm doing you a favor by telling you you're nothing.
It could lead to an important realization. I understand, though, this is
quite different than the indulgence that comes from Harold about how you
are, not only something, but, something special.
I see the notion of nothingness makes your bones quiver, eh?
Lurk
InVis...@nym.alias.net
From: "Rich" rsm...@aloha.net
Date: 1/13/2004 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <bu1ee...@enews3.newsguy.com>
LOL The only thing you forget is to play the Hitler/Nazi card
**This is all you have to say? Your bones must be quivering too. You are
much like Harold Klemp. That is not a compliment.
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
>
> Ken wrote:
> >
<snipers
> >
> > As to the shadow and the light ... focus on what you will. I've found the
> > ECK teachings are accurate regarding the individual becoming what
> > one places one's attention upon.
>
> Yep, the eck teachings create "becoming addicts" at a cost of your life,
> of course.
Focusing on "becoming" is only a phase Lurk. One step. Don't get too
attached to tearing it down :-)
> > So look for the best in life or, if you
> > prefer, look for the worst. Either way, you will find what you are seeking.
>
>
> How about stopping the "looking" altogether.
>
> Then what?
I read your comments later in this thread on being nothing. That's pretty
Buddhist of you :-) I agree BTW that being no thing is the way to go.
It's a lot more interesting when you talk about things you actually appreciate.
Ken
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
>
> InVis...@nym.alias.net wrote:
> >
> > Jane and others,
> >
> > In my opinion, ANYONE who is capable of lying and knowingly perpetuating a
> > lie to thousands of people for 20+ years is very dangerous.
> <snip>
>
> Repost obvious data. <smile>-----------------------------------------
> > "Paul Olson" <brok...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A7127D0...@home.com...
<snipers>
Yeah, I knew I'd read those same stories at least twice before.
They weren't any more interesting or believable then either :-)
cher
writing class? tsk.... how tacky. <grin>
cher
Sad isn't it? These old characters just can't let go of this path no
matter what! <chuckle> Poor old sword.......
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > arelurker wrote:
> > >
> > > cher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > S/he drift backwards leading to something similar to you, lurk.
> > > > <shudder> Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
> > > > desire to end up where you are!
> > >
> > > Au contraire. I am here. Where else is there? Most seekers spend a
> > > lifetime reaching with their hand for something that is clearly
> > > contained in their hand.
> >
> > And fortunately for you, you've learned to type with just one hand!
> > That's why you're here.
>
> When I say "here," I mean this moment typing words on a screen, hearing
> the sound of cars outside, noticing the orange clouds colored by the
> setting sun, the stillness within....
when I say with one hand, I invision you not being a man without holding
on to yourself for dear life and assurance.
> > > > Just being honest and truthful with you.
> > >
> > > Yes, you are honestly and truthfully revealing how you want to defend
> > > the seeking consciousness. As long as you keep seeking you won't have to
> > > deal with what is.
> >
> > I never said I was seeking, I said those who start out seeking.
> > Semantics, lurk. You're ultimate downfall.
>
> You not a seeker? Ha!
Again, I explain myself and you refuse to accept what I say. You're just
not worth talking to lurk.... just too damned arrogant and rude to
bother with.
> >
> > > The seeking energy is the fuel for the engine that runs club eckankar.
> > > This seeking energy is the very thing that keeps you from realizing
> > > you're nothing. The only thing the seeking energy gives you is the stink
> > > of hope.
> >
> > I explained this above, but for the sake of those who do not see hope as
> > a four letter word, I'd like to point out that your lack of hope in life
> > is self evident in your posts. Nothing like a black heart to teach
> > people more than flowery words. <smile>
>
> Your comments support my contention of your apparent dichotomy: You see
> no hope as a black heart.
So far all you're telling me is what you think about hopeful people or
those who love flowery words. And that speaks louder than anything I
could say at this point. <smile> You have no idea what it is that
believe. Just keep guessing...... seeing as you're not the least bit
interested in who anyone here actually is in the first place. Wouldn't
want reality to mess up your fantasy world. <grin>
> Those who cling to hope usually are running from hopelessness and
> despair. However some people let go of hope, wade through the
> hopelessness and come upon a way to meet life that does not require
> hope. Are you interested in what that is?
You know, if I were to share with a spiritual experience with you there
would be no doubt that you were shred it in an instant. Why? Because you
have no respect for me or my experiences. You judge first and justify it
from then on, you never ask. Now you want to explain a no-thing universe
to me as if I have no concept of it. Frankly lurk.... you haven't hit
bottom yet. You haven't even learned to grab your ankles! So keep your
silly assed dark side to yourself, cause dude.... all it's lead to so
far is an outrageous ego! And that's about as far from the point of the
thing as one can get.
> >
> > > > Hope you can handle it. <smile>
> > >
> > > I can handle that you are like most seekers in that you chase your tail
> > > and are proud of it. You know no better, so you're left defending a
> > > fifth rate spiritual "teacher" which gives you a glimmer of hope that
> > > you are something. But I'm here to tell you....you are nothing. Notice
> > > the fear that arises when reading these words. This is what you have
> > > been running from all your life. Isn't it time to put away your
> > > spiritual toys and awaken to what is?
> >
> > LOL..... and what is equals what you have?
>
> Why does you mind what replacement toys? The point is to give up the
> toys and step out of the sandbox. Why do you request better toys?
> There's lots to be learned in your reaction here...it would be a shame
> to squander the opportunity for insight here.
And go where, the litter box where you live? LOL..... scrape the cat
crap out of your ears and listen to this lurk...... pack sand jerk!
<smile>
> Come on now lurk.... all
> > you've got is the religion of anticultism! Negativity towards others for
> > their choices while you wrap yourself in the hopelessness of life.
> > That's not a no-thing universe, dear.... that's utter depression! You
> > should find out the difference between these two before you try setting
> > yourself up as a guru! <shudder> Frankly being told I'm nothing by a
> > loser hardly constitues anything outside of another day dealing with a
> > second rate troll with no life! <grin>
>
> I asked you to notice the fear that arises when you read the words that
> you are nothing, and you step up and demonstrate your fear in your
> comments here.
Is that the excuse your mother gave you when she used this tactic on
you? You're worthless, you're nothing, you'll never be anything, you'll
never amount to anything, you're daddy was a useless piece of crap just
like you are! <smile> Is that what's bothering you there bunky? Take it
to her, see if she cares. I don't! But if you honestly believe that all
there is to the no-thing universe is complete lack of self esteem, then
you're dumber than a rock!
> Please understand, I'm doing you a favor by telling you you're nothing.
> It could lead to an important realization. I understand, though, this is
> quite different than the indulgence that comes from Harold about how you
> are, not only something, but, something special.
No... the point is that you'll never be anyone special, ever. It's your
karma! <grin> I can see you writing it in every phrase here. Here's a
hint: it lies in the overwhelming fear of beings who acept their divine
beingness. There's nothing you can say or do to bring them down to your
level.
> I see the notion of nothingness makes your bones quiver, eh?
Bones quiver? LOL..... If you want to experience the depths of fear and
emptiness.... just place your prayer on the ethers. I'll do my part....
placing it in the ECK stream right now. Let it be. Baraka Bashad.
<smile>
C. Plachowitz
'Life of Brian.' The brighter side is always looking up. Plachowitz
> arelurker <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
> <snip>
> This seeking energy is the very thing that keeps you from realizing
> you're nothing. The only thing the seeking energy gives you is the stink
> of hope.
> <snip>
> Lurk
Colleen
because he is responsible for misleading and manipulating thousands of
members of eckankar into a co-dependency relationship wherein the only way
to maintain contact is to lose self-trust, shut down one's analytical
thinking, and accept Klemp as the one and ONLY "God-Realized" authority not
only on this planet, but in ALL THE UNIVERSE! This, in addition to Klemp's
paranoia, narcissism, grandiosity, superstitions, and control issues which
have been discussed here at a.r.e. by current and former eckankar members
pointS to Klemp's negative influence, in my opinion.
Further, Eckankar discourages leading a life of "In My Soul I Am Free," the
title of a book by Twitchell, founder of eckankar. Instead, it breeds
obedience and dependency on the leaders and the dogma. Because of the fear
tactics openly expressed by the leaders of eckankar, members are afraid to
challenge the leader's doctrine, or follow their own path. There is no
"graduation" in eckankar. The org describes itself as an absolute necessity
in one's life, especially with the contradictory doublethink/doublespeak
language wherein "eckankar", the organization, is confused with "eck",
meaning Spirit. "No one can leave eck", is commonly expressed in the dogma.
Does this mean eckankar or Spirit? The implication is, according to my
perceptions, that one cannot survive without Klemp and/or eckankar. My
experience is that it is WITHOUT Klemp and eckankar's influence that one is
free to develop and integrate aspects of oneself which then makes it
possible to connect with others and to lead authentic, joyful, and
fulfilling lives.
Colleen
<InVis...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:2004011312444...@nym.alias.net...
cher
Swordancer
FOR THE RECORD....I am not Invisa and would like to know who he/she actually
is.
The "Klemp..Dangerous" post of which part is shown below, was posted by me
at execkankar, for ex eckists, and was not intended for your group here at
A.R.E. or for eckankaruncovered.
I did not post it here....
I did write the post however and I do stand behind all the stories in the
post as they are all factual.
I did not give anyone permission to copy and crosspost the message however,
and since I am one of the moderators at execkankar, and we do have a rule
about copying and cross-posting without the authors permission, I would like
to know who InVisa is, so that I could speak with him/her about honesty and
ethics.
Cross posting without an authors permission smacks too much of "Paul
Twitchell consciousness"...I.E. Plagiarism.
Have a nice conversation.
Sword
"Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
news:NF0Nb.12351$VS4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Swordancer
FOR THE RECORD....I am not Invisa and would like to know who he/she actually
is.
The "Klemp..Dangerous" post of which part is shown below, was posted by me
at execkankar, for ex eckists, and was not intended for your group here at
A.R.E. or for eckankaruncovered.
I did not post it here....
I did write the post however and I do stand behind all the stories in the
post as they are all factual.
I did not give anyone permission to copy and crosspost the message however,
and since I am one of the moderators at execkankar, and we do have a rule
about copying and cross-posting without the authors permission, I would like
to know who InVisa is, so that I could speak with him/her about honesty and
ethics.
Cross posting without an authors permission smacks too much of "Paul
Twitchell consciousness"...I.E. Plagiarism.
Have a nice conversation.
Sword
> > InVis...@nym.alias.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Jane and others,
> > >
> > > In my opinion, ANYONE who is capable of lying and knowingly
perpetuating a
> > > lie to thousands of people for 20+ years is very dangerous.
> > <snip>
> >
<InVis...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:2004011312444...@nym.alias.net...
@aloha.net Rich
"Colleen" <colle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> As a former "7th initiate" of eckankar, I also believe Klemp is
dangerous
> because he is responsible for misleading and manipulating thousands of
> members of eckankar into a co-dependency relationship wherein the only
way
> to maintain contact is to lose self-trust, shut down one's analytical
> thinking, and accept Klemp as the one and ONLY "God-Realized"
authority not
> only on this planet, but in ALL THE UNIVERSE! This, in addition to
Klemp's
> paranoia, narcissism, grandiosity, superstitions, and control issues
which
> have been discussed here at a.r.e. by current and former eckankar
members
> pointS to Klemp's negative influence, in my opinion.
Right, in the opinion of someone that can't acknowledge her experience
of "co-dependency relationship wherein the only way to maintain contact
is to lose self-trust, shut down one's analytical thinking" is _not_
what happens to most people. Most Eckists are mentally healthy and
emotionally stable and not sick like that. Most all Eckist do not blame
others, calling them outrageous names but take responsibility for their
own choices of actions, feelings and the beliefs they accepted thru the
minds filters of their own interpretations.
Why would someone be so off base? These links offer three possible
reasons:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q17526146
http://www.fmsfonline.org/
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B58516146
<SNIP the rest of this 'every Eckist today is like I am' nonsense>
Sam
> Look at the High Initiates who are doing spiritual counseling.
>
True compasssion and a sense of humour is an art long gone in Eckankar IMHO.
Paul Twitchell's message has been ruined by stuffed shirts.
Here's my middle finger. Ya'll know what that means.
LOVE
Rebel Sam
Michael Wallace
You are not the type to hide behind a psuedo, I know <G>
Seriously... I flicked through what you wrote, and if I substituted Catholic
or Anglican for Eckankar, the shoe would fit pretty well in many of your
examples.
Therefore, by extrapolating your reasoning, it's ALL bad?
Taken individually, there are innumerable individualy cases that appear
daming to any organization, but the fact is... please give a specific
example of a person who was actually caused harm by Eckankar, of itself.
Sure, we can point to episode where people have acted in haste or with poor
judgement, etc etc... But is this a condition of the teaching?
Not at all, and what is more, you know this to be the truth.
When David Lane's private notes are stolen and delievered to Eckankar
(Presumably by John-Roger) they are returned, unopened to him.
When someone leaves, there is no pursuit of the person from Eckankar, nor
any overt or covert actions taken against them.
If you are going to determine the suitability of an organization by its
members, then the Catholics should have been out of business centuries ago.
This line of thinking you present is typical of so much that we call Yellow
Journalism ... It takes a narrow slanted focus on the negative uissues and
wraps them up in some glorified banner heading that wraps the various
sepearate issues up in one bag of fish and chips ...
For every case of the negative, I can go through the details and find ten in
the positive, but the fact is, if there were even so little as 51% to the
positive, it still justifies the existence of the teaching... If you believe
that it needs to be justified at all, of course.
That line of thinking is also shallow and poorly constructed, because it
ignores the fundamental right for people to choose what they will, and gain
experience as a result. You are welcome to present your view, of course, but
if this is all that Ex-Eckankar can offer, it is clearly biased so much to
the negative with no qualifying to the alternative that it represents a
typical anti-cult cult cesspit with the noxious fumes turning up on the
surface of a.r.e.
It's most likely Anne working with someone else, btw.
Love
Michael
"Swordancer" <Pa...@VantagePointRealty.com> wrote in message
news:v65Nb.11721$XD5.2730@fed1read06...
Michael Wallace
btw Paul... To represent cross posting by a psuedo using invisimail as
plagiarism ... Weeeeelll.... Are you aware of how that process works?
The Invisimail psuedo could well be a few people who just randomly select
stuff from wherever and send it in. the whole point is, no one really knows.
It isn't plagiarism because it isn't being claimed to be to a particular
author... In fact, the "author" or rather the poster is specifically saying
they are not anyone.
It is a bit of a Monty Cantsin thing.
Love
Michael
"Swordancer" <Pa...@VantagePointRealty.com> wrote in message
news:IR4Nb.11716$XD5.7104@fed1read06...
Michael Wallace
Beating the drum
The drummer forgets
That a thick skin makes a dull sound
"Colleen" <colle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Uu4Nb.9620$C%.1587@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
Swordancer
Well, I do agree that the Catholics should have been out of business a long
time ago....probably even before the inquisition.
I haven't been posting here as you know as I find it more comfortable to
just post with the ex-eckists. Suffice it to say that I found that eckankar
did not work for me so I got out and am grateful for the realizations I have
had in relation to eckankar....
I do disagree with your 51% analogy however.....if your religion is 49%
evil, I would advise that you take a closer look at it......and do what you
will.
Thank you for the explanation about invisamail. I think it was Cher who
decided a few threads up that I must be this character......
I posted a little more detailed versions of these stories a few years ago so
I really wouldn't have re-written them and posted them here
again.......There really isn't any reason for me to do this. The eckists
here are eckists and the others are whatever they are and that's ok with me.
What I wrote was a response to a serious question from someone on another
site.
Have a nice day.
Sword
"Michael Wallace" <Fl...@phurpfy.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$k2chrh$yd7$1...@news.veridas.net...
cher
you want, but it appears you and colleen have a maverick on your hands
who ignores your value chart for the disaffected. Seems like a problem
with colleen's group.... exmember messages ending up here without
permission of the author. Last time this happened, it was colleen who
posted the message. Not a very safe environment you guys have for a
therapy group, paul. Are you guys having problems over there with
mavericks? <smile>
cher
Rich, we have archives filled with examples of colleen the master
projector! tsk.... If she is an example of mental health, what's the
point? LOL..... I mean seriously, if she's the example to hold up, then
we all may as well just forget spirituality and signup for Star Search!
Or maybe The Bachelorette? <grin> tsk....
cher
person can't make it past the Entertainment Weekly for his/her opinions!
Nope.... Monty at least had some intelligence. This character, visi is
just floundering hoping to find a formula to make trouble and get
noticed! Nothing here worthy of the good old days. <smile>
Colleen
according to my perspective and experience.
Rich, an eckankar initiate, as I understand, responded to my commentary in
pointing blame to me for my perspective, calling me "sick" and citing some
"scholarly-sounding" resources which have nothing to do with my posting.
This is typical behvior of those who are intolerant of anyone's view which
does not echo the "party line" of the org in which they are involved.
I uphold my viewpoint.
Colleen
"Rich" <rsmith @aloha.net> wrote in message
news:bu2pg...@enews3.newsguy.com...
cher
others, that your party line is not the only available viewpoint on
these issues? Or will this afront to your holiness bring about another
rant from you on how superior you are to mere mortals? <cheeky grin>
neuralsurfer
>
> You are not the type to hide behind a psuedo, I know <G>
>
> Seriously... I flicked through what you wrote, and if I substituted Catholic
> or Anglican for Eckankar, the shoe would fit pretty well in many of your
> examples.
>
> Therefore, by extrapolating your reasoning, it's ALL bad?
>
> Taken individually, there are innumerable individualy cases that appear
> daming to any organization, but the fact is... please give a specific
> example of a person who was actually caused harm by Eckankar, of itself.
> Sure, we can point to episode where people have acted in haste or with poor
> judgement, etc etc... But is this a condition of the teaching?
>
> Not at all, and what is more, you know this to be the truth.
>
> When David Lane's private notes are stolen and delievered to Eckankar
> (Presumably by John-Roger) they are returned, unopened to him.
>
Huh?
Unopened?
No, actually, Eckankar made a photocopy of my wife's diary and it was
only after my lawyer wrote back to Eckankar several times that they
destroyed their copy of Jacquie's diary.
Who knows if Eckankar read it or not.
cher
Uh.... according to whom??? Do you have proof of this, david? Will your
exbrotherinlaw back up this story? Is he talking to you these days? Or
is this another one of your paranoid delusions.... ah, I mean
suppositions you're so famous for? I mean.... it's not like honesty is a
big suit with you... lying to the courts and your wife and all. So with
a character flaw such as that, your word alone isn't really worth much
these days.
Michael Wallace
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.04011...@posting.google.com...
You are still reading us David?
Thank you for that correction... The main point being that your goods were
returned to you in good order, I guess, gives the general intention of
Eckankar to not be underhanded or devious in their dealing with other...
Even those who oppose it.
How did you know they made a photocopy, btw? Did Eckankar office let you
know this??
Love
Michael
neuralsurfer
Cher:
Then if you are really interested in this issue, contact Eckankar and
ask them for their correspondence on this matter.
They will confirm that they photocopied Jacquie's diary and that they
eventually destroyed it on my lawyer's request.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > arelurker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > cher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > S/he drift backwards leading to something similar to you, lurk.
> > > > > <shudder> Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
> > > > > desire to end up where you are!
> > > >
> > > > Au contraire. I am here. Where else is there? Most seekers spend a
> > > > lifetime reaching with their hand for something that is clearly
> > > > contained in their hand.
> > >
> > > And fortunately for you, you've learned to type with just one hand!
> > > That's why you're here.
> >
> > When I say "here," I mean this moment typing words on a screen, hearing
> > the sound of cars outside, noticing the orange clouds colored by the
> > setting sun, the stillness within....
>
> when I say with one hand, I invision you not being a man without holding
> on to yourself for dear life and assurance.
Good. At least it is clear your comments are peculiar responses to my comment.
>
> > > > > Just being honest and truthful with you.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you are honestly and truthfully revealing how you want to defend
> > > > the seeking consciousness. As long as you keep seeking you won't have to
> > > > deal with what is.
> > >
> > > I never said I was seeking, I said those who start out seeking.
> > > Semantics, lurk. You're ultimate downfall.
> >
> > You not a seeker? Ha!
>
> Again, I explain myself and you refuse to accept what I say. You're just
> not worth talking to lurk.... just too damned arrogant and rude to
> bother with.
But Cher, that is a perposterus thing to claim about yourself. You're
the quintessential seeker, sweety, who you trying to kid.
>
> > >
> > > > The seeking energy is the fuel for the engine that runs club eckankar.
> > > > This seeking energy is the very thing that keeps you from realizing
> > > > you're nothing. The only thing the seeking energy gives you is the stink
> > > > of hope.
> > >
> > > I explained this above, but for the sake of those who do not see hope as
> > > a four letter word, I'd like to point out that your lack of hope in life
> > > is self evident in your posts. Nothing like a black heart to teach
> > > people more than flowery words. <smile>
> >
> > Your comments support my contention of your apparent dichotomy: You see
> > no hope as a black heart.
>
> So far all you're telling me is what you think about hopeful people or
> those who love flowery words. And that speaks louder than anything I
> could say at this point. <smile> You have no idea what it is that
> believe.
Huh? Your comments have revealed what you think of hope.
Just keep guessing...... seeing as you're not the least bit
> interested in who anyone here actually is in the first place. Wouldn't
> want reality to mess up your fantasy world. <grin>
>
> > Those who cling to hope usually are running from hopelessness and
> > despair. However some people let go of hope, wade through the
> > hopelessness and come upon a way to meet life that does not require
> > hope. Are you interested in what that is?
>
> You know, if I were to share with a spiritual experience with you there
> would be no doubt that you were shred it in an instant.
Ahh, I see. I'm the reason you don't express your truth. As I've told
you before, I think you imagine a world in which people will treat you
the way you treat others when they make themselves vulnerable.
Why? Because you
> have no respect for me or my experiences. You judge first and justify it
> from then on, you never ask.
I believe my comments were directed at Ken and you butted in and began
the judging. Here's how you started:
You said, "Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
desire to end up where you are! Just being honest and truthful with you.
Hope you can handle it." <smile>
You see, you started with a negative judgement about where I am. So I
obliged and started the judgements about where you are. I figured you
wanted to swap impressions of each other. Is this a case where you dish
it out but you can't take it? I think so.
> Now you want to explain a no-thing universe
> to me as if I have no concept of it.
You obviously have no experience with it...otherwise you wouldn't be
running scared. I'm sure you have read about it, but then you've read
about a lot of things.
Frankly lurk.... you haven't hit
> bottom yet. You haven't even learned to grab your ankles! So keep your
> silly assed dark side to yourself, cause dude....
To suggest to someone not to cling to hope is not an expression of a
dark side. You simply are having trouble understanding here. You should
ask more questions and seek understanding of what you don't know instead
of pretending.
all it's lead to so
> far is an outrageous ego! And that's about as far from the point of the
> thing as one can get.
>
> > >
> > > > > Hope you can handle it. <smile>
> > > >
> > > > I can handle that you are like most seekers in that you chase your tail
> > > > and are proud of it. You know no better, so you're left defending a
> > > > fifth rate spiritual "teacher" which gives you a glimmer of hope that
> > > > you are something. But I'm here to tell you....you are nothing. Notice
> > > > the fear that arises when reading these words. This is what you have
> > > > been running from all your life. Isn't it time to put away your
> > > > spiritual toys and awaken to what is?
> > >
> > > LOL..... and what is equals what you have?
> >
> > Why does you mind what replacement toys? The point is to give up the
> > toys and step out of the sandbox. Why do you request better toys?
> > There's lots to be learned in your reaction here...it would be a shame
> > to squander the opportunity for insight here.
>
> And go where, the litter box where you live?
Do you need some place to go? Can you not muster the courage to walk
away from the sand box without having a carrot?
LOL..... scrape the cat
> crap out of your ears and listen to this lurk...... pack sand jerk!
> <smile>
>
> > Come on now lurk.... all
> > > you've got is the religion of anticultism! Negativity towards others for
> > > their choices while you wrap yourself in the hopelessness of life.
> > > That's not a no-thing universe, dear.... that's utter depression! You
> > > should find out the difference between these two before you try setting
> > > yourself up as a guru! <shudder> Frankly being told I'm nothing by a
> > > loser hardly constitues anything outside of another day dealing with a
> > > second rate troll with no life! <grin>
> >
> > I asked you to notice the fear that arises when you read the words that
> > you are nothing, and you step up and demonstrate your fear in your
> > comments here.
>
> Is that the excuse your mother gave you when she used this tactic on
> you? You're worthless, you're nothing, you'll never be anything, you'll
> never amount to anything, you're daddy was a useless piece of crap just
> like you are! <smile>
Looks Like Cher watched Opera recently.
Is that what's bothering you there bunky? Take it
> to her, see if she cares. I don't! But if you honestly believe that all
> there is to the no-thing universe is complete lack of self esteem, then
> you're dumber than a rock!
This your way of telling me you have no clue about what I'm talking about.
>
> > Please understand, I'm doing you a favor by telling you you're nothing.
> > It could lead to an important realization. I understand, though, this is
> > quite different than the indulgence that comes from Harold about how you
> > are, not only something, but, something special.
>
> No... the point is that you'll never be anyone special, ever.
That is true because I do not exist in the first place, so how can I be
special? You not only believe you exist, but think you're special
because you're an eckist.
It's your
> karma! <grin> I can see you writing it in every phrase here. Here's a
> hint: it lies in the overwhelming fear of beings who acept their divine
> beingness. There's nothing you can say or do to bring them down to your
> level.
>
> > I see the notion of nothingness makes your bones quiver, eh?
>
> Bones quiver?
Yes, you are afraid.
Lurk
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> >
> >
> > Ken wrote:
> > >
> <snipers
> > >
> > > As to the shadow and the light ... focus on what you will. I've found the
> > > ECK teachings are accurate regarding the individual becoming what
> > > one places one's attention upon.
> >
> > Yep, the eck teachings create "becoming addicts" at a cost of your life,
> > of course.
>
> Focusing on "becoming" is only a phase Lurk. One step. Don't get too
> attached to tearing it down :-)
Not according to Harold, that is the essence of the eckankar path. In
fact, eckankar is set up to be a goal directed path. You know, the
stairway to heaven thing.
>
> > > So look for the best in life or, if you
> > > prefer, look for the worst. Either way, you will find what you are seeking.
> >
> >
> > How about stopping the "looking" altogether.
> >
> > Then what?
>
> I read your comments later in this thread on being nothing. That's pretty
> Buddhist of you :-) I agree BTW that being no thing is the way to go.
I'm not a buddhist, I killed Buddha on the road before I got a chance to
read him.
>
> It's a lot more interesting when you talk about things you actually appreciate.
I appreciate deconstructing becomming. A consciousness mired in
becomming has no room to appreciate what is going on in the moment.
I'm playing with this notion that people latch onto this becomming train
because the alternative is to be with "what is" in their life. With many
people, "what is" or what arises in them when the hope of becomming is
set aside is some of the darker emotions that have been kept at bay by
the hope of becomming. This can be disconcerting to seekers and the
grasping for the hope starts up again.
Lurk
neuralsurfer
thanks for the note and questions.
Yes, I did appreciate that Eckankar did send all the materials back in
good order.
It helped me a lot actually since it was from these materials (which
had John-Roger's handwriting on them) that we were able to trace the
robbery directly back to J.R.
You see, J.R. probably wanted to have me think that Eckankar did it,
thinking wrongly that Eckankar would use the materials and I would
then put the blame on them.
So I do give credit to Eckankar for returning the materials.
We did get in a bit of a tiff when it was discovered later that
Eckankar had copied Jacquie's diary and didn't destroy it.
But that was resolved after my lawyer pressed the issue.
Not sure how my lawyer found out.
@aloha.net Rich
"Colleen" <colle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> A question was posed to the group and I, along with others, answered
it,
> according to my perspective and experience.
>
> Rich, an eckankar initiate, as I understand, responded to my
commentary in
> pointing blame to me for my perspective,
OK. Maybe I was wrong. Whose fault is it for your perspective then?<g>
Who would you blame for your viewpoint?
> calling me "sick"
So your are saying that, a 'co-dependency relationship, 'lose of
self-trust', and 'shutting down one's analytical thinking' is healthy?
That in fact all Eckists _are_ like you and that's... what? Normal?
> and citing some "scholarly-sounding" resources which have nothing to
do with my posting.
That kind of denial is great an example of what those
"scholarly-sounding"(LOL! Yeah Oxford does sound sorta scholarly:) sites
where documenting Colleen.
> This is typical behvior of those who are intolerant of anyone's view
Colleen, that is the standard weak response from Eckankar's detractors
that can't support their position in light of contrary evidence, so they
use a broadstroke name calling tactic. What I wrote has nothing to do
with tolerance. It's OK with me that you have an apostate's perspective
Colleen, but apparently it's not OK with you that I point it out as
obvious and site sources to back up my perception.
> which does not echo the "party line" of the org in which they are
> involved.
Aaaah... Colleen? Could you point out where exactly you see this
Eckankar "party line" in my post? No? Of course you can't, because it's
not there. You are imagining things, again...:-/
> I uphold my viewpoint.
I wasn't trying to change your viewpoint Colleen, just sharing mine
along with a bit common knowledge for other to see what you are blind
to.
Michael Wallace
Guru madness strikes again, hey? It does sound like John Hinkins tends to
smoke a little too much. I remember your account of this better now, thank
you.
On the subject of the "photocopy" ... It strikes me as I consider this that
it is a lilely thing to do, and that the matter was never hidden or even
intended to be hidden.
It would seem obvious to me that your lawyer "found out" because someone
told him. Yes? And it would seem likely that it was someone from Eckankar
who told him... And it would also seem lilkely that the record of the diary
was kept just in case someone said it wasn't returned complete?
It strikes me that a copy may well have been kept for Eckankar's own legal
protection. If I were in the situation of sending a stolen diary back to a
person who was an advocate who opposed my position, I would expect my lawyer
to advise me to keep a record.
Does this make sense?
Love
Michael
cher
Nope.... it's speculation. If david learned that there was a copy and
advised to demand it's return then there would have to be a trail of who
said what to whom. That would not be speculative. And david is the one
who brought it up on this newsgroup so it is incumbent upon him to give
the details, not Eckankar. I can write some fairly interesting things
myself, but when david makes a statement like this, fiction is not
what's called for. In fact, we should demand that he come clean with
facts to back him up.
cher
>
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Ken wrote:
> > > >
> > <snipers
> > > >
> > > > As to the shadow and the light ... focus on what you will. I've found the
> > > > ECK teachings are accurate regarding the individual becoming what
> > > > one places one's attention upon.
> > >
> > > Yep, the eck teachings create "becoming addicts" at a cost of your life,
> > > of course.
> >
> > Focusing on "becoming" is only a phase Lurk. One step. Don't get too
> > attached to tearing it down :-)
>
> Not according to Harold, that is the essence of the eckankar path. In
> fact, eckankar is set up to be a goal directed path. You know, the
> stairway to heaven thing.
There is no staircase involved in shifting of ones conscious awareness,
lurk. If you needed a ladder, then maybe you were still living in the
christian archetype you grew up with? It only takes the moment to change
consciousness.
> >
> > > > So look for the best in life or, if you
> > > > prefer, look for the worst. Either way, you will find what you are seeking.
> > >
> > >
> > > How about stopping the "looking" altogether.
> > >
> > > Then what?
> >
> > I read your comments later in this thread on being nothing. That's pretty
> > Buddhist of you :-) I agree BTW that being no thing is the way to go.
>
> I'm not a buddhist, I killed Buddha on the road before I got a chance to
> read him.
That explains why you need a ladder to find higher consciousness.
> >
> > It's a lot more interesting when you talk about things you actually appreciate.
>
> I appreciate deconstructing becomming. A consciousness mired in
> becomming has no room to appreciate what is going on in the moment.
The consciousness wrapped up in deconstructing others words and ideas
misses the moment completely for the sake of its own projections. A
minute detail that accumulates quickly where consciousness is concerned.
> I'm playing with this notion that people latch onto this becomming train
> because the alternative is to be with "what is" in their life. With many
> people, "what is" or what arises in them when the hope of becomming is
> set aside is some of the darker emotions that have been kept at bay by
> the hope of becomming. This can be disconcerting to seekers and the
> grasping for the hope starts up again.
All that work to get to the moment. Seems more like psychology then
religion or spirituality, lurk. It's easy to see you're deeply invested
in the process. Not all beings stay in that place. But trying to lay
pychology as a template onto spiritual practices means that you're going
to take the stairs or ladder every single step of the way. Now, don't
confuse this as everyone's method when it's obvious that this is simply
your method. No right or wrong answers to this one.... some people are
methodical in nature. But that doesn't mean that all people must be
methodical or they are wrong. It's okay for you to take the long way
round through little self before you discover Soul. Someday you'll
realize that Soul is the one trying to map out where little self was
going to begin with.
> Lurk
cher
<smile> What do you call psychology, lurk?
> >
> > > >
> > > > > The seeking energy is the fuel for the engine that runs club eckankar.
> > > > > This seeking energy is the very thing that keeps you from realizing
> > > > > you're nothing. The only thing the seeking energy gives you is the stink
> > > > > of hope.
> > > >
> > > > I explained this above, but for the sake of those who do not see hope as
> > > > a four letter word, I'd like to point out that your lack of hope in life
> > > > is self evident in your posts. Nothing like a black heart to teach
> > > > people more than flowery words. <smile>
> > >
> > > Your comments support my contention of your apparent dichotomy: You see
> > > no hope as a black heart.
> >
> > So far all you're telling me is what you think about hopeful people or
> > those who love flowery words. And that speaks louder than anything I
> > could say at this point. <smile> You have no idea what it is that
> > believe.
>
> Huh? Your comments have revealed what you think of hope.
That I'm not afraid of it in other people? Glad you finally figured that
out! You know, there are more attacks on people based on their measure
of hope then just about any other factor of their character or
lifestyle. It's just amazing how hope brings out the most frightened and
threatened of cowards. Do I need hope? Hey, it's my place to recognize
it and honor it in others. Not my job to tell them.
> Just keep guessing...... seeing as you're not the least bit
> > interested in who anyone here actually is in the first place. Wouldn't
> > want reality to mess up your fantasy world. <grin>
> >
> > > Those who cling to hope usually are running from hopelessness and
> > > despair. However some people let go of hope, wade through the
> > > hopelessness and come upon a way to meet life that does not require
> > > hope. Are you interested in what that is?
> >
> > You know, if I were to share with a spiritual experience with you there
> > would be no doubt that you were shred it in an instant.
>
> Ahh, I see. I'm the reason you don't express your truth. As I've told
> you before, I think you imagine a world in which people will treat you
> the way you treat others when they make themselves vulnerable.
Tell me more about your fantasies, lurk. Lay down on the couch, and
we'll get started. <grin>
> Why? Because you
> > have no respect for me or my experiences. You judge first and justify it
> > from then on, you never ask.
>
> I believe my comments were directed at Ken and you butted in and began
> the judging. Here's how you started:
>
> You said, "Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
> desire to end up where you are! Just being honest and truthful with you.
> Hope you can handle it." <smile>
>
> You see, you started with a negative judgement about where I am. So I
> obliged and started the judgements about where you are. I figured you
> wanted to swap impressions of each other. Is this a case where you dish
> it out but you can't take it? I think so.
Somehow you manage to remove the point of what's being discussed and
turn things into a pissing contest. No lurk, my statement was about your
ideas, not of you personally. You constantly confuse that point!
> > Now you want to explain a no-thing universe
> > to me as if I have no concept of it.
>
> You obviously have no experience with it...otherwise you wouldn't be
> running scared. I'm sure you have read about it, but then you've read
> about a lot of things.
Hey, I don't have any respect for your mind either. <smile>
> Frankly lurk.... you haven't hit
> > bottom yet. You haven't even learned to grab your ankles! So keep your
> > silly assed dark side to yourself, cause dude....
>
> To suggest to someone not to cling to hope is not an expression of a
> dark side. You simply are having trouble understanding here. You should
> ask more questions and seek understanding of what you don't know instead
> of pretending.
I ask, and then you explain psychology as you understand it. Been there
done that with you. I am only saying here that hope is nothing to be
feared. I'm not saying that it's something everyone has to use as an
emotional tool, but that those who use it are not less then anyone else.
I don't understand how you can be so absolute about everyone else.
tsk..... Why is it so frightening for you to allow others to be who they
are? If someone needs to experience hope in their life then what's it to
you? Do you feel that alienated from humanity that you have to attempt
to force everyone you meet into your pigion holes? That just doesn't
make sense, lurk.
> all it's lead to so
> > far is an outrageous ego! And that's about as far from the point of the
> > thing as one can get.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > Hope you can handle it. <smile>
> > > > >
> > > > > I can handle that you are like most seekers in that you chase your tail
> > > > > and are proud of it. You know no better, so you're left defending a
> > > > > fifth rate spiritual "teacher" which gives you a glimmer of hope that
> > > > > you are something. But I'm here to tell you....you are nothing. Notice
> > > > > the fear that arises when reading these words. This is what you have
> > > > > been running from all your life. Isn't it time to put away your
> > > > > spiritual toys and awaken to what is?
> > > >
> > > > LOL..... and what is equals what you have?
> > >
> > > Why does you mind what replacement toys? The point is to give up the
> > > toys and step out of the sandbox. Why do you request better toys?
> > > There's lots to be learned in your reaction here...it would be a shame
> > > to squander the opportunity for insight here.
> >
> > And go where, the litter box where you live?
>
> Do you need some place to go? Can you not muster the courage to walk
> away from the sand box without having a carrot?
Oh... this one again. Walk away from Eckankar and see life from my
viewpoint. Now that puts us right back to the beginning of this latest
bitch session. See.... where you are is on a.r.e. arguing with people
who are happy to be where they are, while you try to prove they are
unhappy not being just like you! <smile>
> LOL..... scrape the cat
> > crap out of your ears and listen to this lurk...... pack sand jerk!
> > <smile>
> >
> > > Come on now lurk.... all
> > > > you've got is the religion of anticultism! Negativity towards others for
> > > > their choices while you wrap yourself in the hopelessness of life.
> > > > That's not a no-thing universe, dear.... that's utter depression! You
> > > > should find out the difference between these two before you try setting
> > > > yourself up as a guru! <shudder> Frankly being told I'm nothing by a
> > > > loser hardly constitues anything outside of another day dealing with a
> > > > second rate troll with no life! <grin>
> > >
> > > I asked you to notice the fear that arises when you read the words that
> > > you are nothing, and you step up and demonstrate your fear in your
> > > comments here.
> >
> > Is that the excuse your mother gave you when she used this tactic on
> > you? You're worthless, you're nothing, you'll never be anything, you'll
> > never amount to anything, you're daddy was a useless piece of crap just
> > like you are! <smile>
>
> Looks Like Cher watched Opera recently.
Carmen? <chuckle> Or did I perhaps make out the most obvious shapes in
your dark side? Hiding in the shadows? You're not the only one who can
play that game, lurk. The difference is that I could care less and you
have your whole life wrapped up in being right or else! <smile>
> Is that what's bothering you there bunky? Take it
> > to her, see if she cares. I don't! But if you honestly believe that all
> > there is to the no-thing universe is complete lack of self esteem, then
> > you're dumber than a rock!
>
> This your way of telling me you have no clue about what I'm talking about.
Right... that must be the answer. <smile> It more important for you to
be superior then understood, hey? <chuckle>
> >
> > > Please understand, I'm doing you a favor by telling you you're nothing.
> > > It could lead to an important realization. I understand, though, this is
> > > quite different than the indulgence that comes from Harold about how you
> > > are, not only something, but, something special.
> >
> > No... the point is that you'll never be anyone special, ever.
>
> That is true because I do not exist in the first place, so how can I be
> special? You not only believe you exist, but think you're special
> because you're an eckist.
The illusion, lurk.... it's all an illusion! If you don't exist then
what I believe shouldn't matter to you in the first place! It's you who
have so much invested in all of this.... not me. <smile> Remember, I'm
the one who won't stay put in the christian archetype of pretty in pink.
<wink> No doubt about it, you're going to need more containers to fit
all this into! <smile>
> It's your
> > karma! <grin> I can see you writing it in every phrase here. Here's a
> > hint: it lies in the overwhelming fear of beings who acept their divine
> > beingness. There's nothing you can say or do to bring them down to your
> > level.
> >
> > > I see the notion of nothingness makes your bones quiver, eh?
> >
> > Bones quiver?
>
> Yes, you are afraid.
Afraid? As fearful as you appear to be of the word hope? It amazes me
what words set you off. <smile>
cher
??? Now why would I go to Eckankar when I asked you? I don't understand
why it is you seem to believe those people are your personal secretaries
meant to keep track of all your fantasies. Nope... if I were to ask
anyone, it would be your lawyer. Got to track data via the footprints of
the speculation, david. Going to Eckankar would be a waste of time when
all I have to go on is you and apparently your lawyer.
> They will confirm that they photocopied Jacquie's diary and that they
> eventually destroyed it on my lawyer's request.
Well you're the one telling the story here, and so far it makes more
sense in investigation aspects to ask you or your lawyer. See... the
only place you can come up with proof of such a thing, would be your
lawyer. Maybe he could come here and explain how it was he found out
such things and what it took to take care of this whole matter? You are
telling us about his life experiences second hand and with apparently no
knowledge of what exactly went on, so he'd be the one to start with.
neuralsurfer
Yes, it does make sense.
But it also makes sense that after their lawyer was notified that the
diary was in tact to destroy it..... which, happily, they did.
As you know from my own experiences, I think lawyers tend to muddle
things more than is often needed.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > Ken wrote:
> > >
> > > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > >
> > > <snipers
> > > > >
> > > > > As to the shadow and the light ... focus on what you will. I've found the
> > > > > ECK teachings are accurate regarding the individual becoming what
> > > > > one places one's attention upon.
> > > >
> > > > Yep, the eck teachings create "becoming addicts" at a cost of your life,
> > > > of course.
> > >
> > > Focusing on "becoming" is only a phase Lurk. One step. Don't get too
> > > attached to tearing it down :-)
> >
> > Not according to Harold, that is the essence of the eckankar path. In
> > fact, eckankar is set up to be a goal directed path. You know, the
> > stairway to heaven thing.
>
> There is no staircase involved in shifting of ones conscious awareness,
> lurk. If you needed a ladder, then maybe you were still living in the
> christian archetype you grew up with? It only takes the moment to change
> consciousness.
Eckankar's cosmology is hierarchical. What to deny and pretend about
that? Gawd.
>
> > >
> > > > > So look for the best in life or, if you
> > > > > prefer, look for the worst. Either way, you will find what you are seeking.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How about stopping the "looking" altogether.
> > > >
> > > > Then what?
> > >
> > > I read your comments later in this thread on being nothing. That's pretty
> > > Buddhist of you :-) I agree BTW that being no thing is the way to go.
> >
> > I'm not a buddhist, I killed Buddha on the road before I got a chance to
> > read him.
>
> That explains why you need a ladder to find higher consciousness.
You obviously are not qualified to pose and intelligent response to my
wisdom.
>
> > >
> > > It's a lot more interesting when you talk about things you actually appreciate.
> >
> > I appreciate deconstructing becomming. A consciousness mired in
> > becomming has no room to appreciate what is going on in the moment.
>
> The consciousness wrapped up in deconstructing others words and ideas
> misses the moment completely for the sake of its own projections.
There is deconstruction of becoming in my own life...seeing the
becoming as false. Talking about such to others does not miss anything.
A
> minute detail that accumulates quickly where consciousness is concerned.
Cher, you continue to act like you know what you're talking about, but
it is clear you don't.
Stop being a poser and simply say you don't know for once in you life.
Do you really need to be an authority about everything?
>
> > I'm playing with this notion that people latch onto this becomming train
> > because the alternative is to be with "what is" in their life. With many
> > people, "what is" or what arises in them when the hope of becomming is
> > set aside is some of the darker emotions that have been kept at bay by
> > the hope of becomming. This can be disconcerting to seekers and the
> > grasping for the hope starts up again.
>
> All that work to get to the moment.
Incorrect Miss Know-it-all: A person does not work to get to the moment.
That very "work" keeps the person from being present. You see how your
becoming mind is so habitual and how you imposed it on my words?
> Seems more like psychology then
> religion or spirituality, lurk.
I tend to think that many spiritual groups would appreciate the notion
of acknowledging "what is." Seems spiritual to me, since an awful lot of
groups talk about it. Now if you're looking for spiritual fireworks
like you've been trained to look for in eckankar, then being present in
the moment without hope and fear might seem mundane.
> It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> in the process.
I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
Not all beings stay in that place. But trying to lay
> pychology as a template onto spiritual practices means that you're going
> to take the stairs or ladder every single step of the way.
You sound like someone who is faking their way through a conversation in
which you do not comprehend because you have no personal experiential
framework to understand the words. In other words, you have no clue what
is beyond the hope.
Now, don't
> confuse this as everyone's method when it's obvious that this is simply
> your method. No right or wrong answers to this one.... some people are
> methodical in nature. But that doesn't mean that all people must be
> methodical or they are wrong. It's okay for you to take the long way
> round through little self before you discover Soul. Someday you'll
> realize that Soul is the one trying to map out where little self was
> going to begin with.
Cher reveals her hand: Hope is not an expression of the Soul nor is it a
means to allow soul to prevail in the present. Hope is simply the mind
and ego playing. What is really beneath hope is fear. Hope and fear
distance ourselves from soul or whatever you want to call the
nondualistic consciousness. You are certainly free to believe that hope
and the sense of becoming are fast ways to reach Soul, but I would have
to warn you that you are sorely mistaken, just as Harold is sorely
mistaken. But what the hell, go ahead and chase your tail for another
ten years. If that is what it take, then that is what it takes.
Lurk
arelurker
Psychology.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The seeking energy is the fuel for the engine that runs club eckankar.
> > > > > > This seeking energy is the very thing that keeps you from realizing
> > > > > > you're nothing. The only thing the seeking energy gives you is the stink
> > > > > > of hope.
> > > > >
> > > > > I explained this above, but for the sake of those who do not see hope as
> > > > > a four letter word, I'd like to point out that your lack of hope in life
> > > > > is self evident in your posts. Nothing like a black heart to teach
> > > > > people more than flowery words. <smile>
> > > >
> > > > Your comments support my contention of your apparent dichotomy: You see
> > > > no hope as a black heart.
> > >
> > > So far all you're telling me is what you think about hopeful people or
> > > those who love flowery words. And that speaks louder than anything I
> > > could say at this point. <smile> You have no idea what it is that
> > > believe.
> >
> > Huh? Your comments have revealed what you think of hope.
>
> That I'm not afraid of it in other people?
No, your comment reveal that you embrace hope whole heatedly. Hope is
simply a reaction to
fear. To hope is to be afraid. You are afraid Cher.
Glad you finally figured that
> out! You know, there are more attacks on people based on their measure
> of hope then just about any other factor of their character or
> lifestyle. It's just amazing how hope brings out the most frightened and
> threatened of cowards. Do I need hope? Hey, it's my place to recognize
> it and honor it in others. Not my job to tell them.
You're being kind of dense here. If Harold talks about becoming aware of
fears, he a lauded as the highest consciousness in the world. When
little old Lurk talks about becoming aware of fears via noticing hope
as a reaction to fear, you're wanting to frame that as me being
frightened of hope and a coward. Using you poor thinking Harold would be
a frightened of other's fear when he talks about becoming aware of fear
and would be a coward.
Would you like to explain further, or.....or you could just simply admit
you are over your head and don't really know what you are talking about.
It is always an option to be truthful and reveal that you don't know.
Might even relax you a bit.
>
> > Just keep guessing...... seeing as you're not the least bit
> > > interested in who anyone here actually is in the first place. Wouldn't
> > > want reality to mess up your fantasy world. <grin>
> > >
> > > > Those who cling to hope usually are running from hopelessness and
> > > > despair. However some people let go of hope, wade through the
> > > > hopelessness and come upon a way to meet life that does not require
> > > > hope. Are you interested in what that is?
> > >
> > > You know, if I were to share with a spiritual experience with you there
> > > would be no doubt that you were shred it in an instant.
> >
> > Ahh, I see. I'm the reason you don't express your truth. As I've told
> > you before, I think you imagine a world in which people will treat you
> > the way you treat others when they make themselves vulnerable.
>
> Tell me more about your fantasies, lurk. Lay down on the couch, and
> we'll get started. <grin>
Sweety, let's not try to turn it around. I asked if you wanted to know
what was beyond hope and the negative feelings that may arise after
giving up hope and you responded by saying you if you were to share your
spiritual experiences you felt certain I would shred them. First of
all, you did not answer my question. Secondly, you do not need to relate
you spiritual experience if you want me to explain what was beyond hope
and fear.
So now you want to go off in an avoiding tit for tat tangent. Maybe some
other time, eh?
>
> > Why? Because you
> > > have no respect for me or my experiences. You judge first and justify it
> > > from then on, you never ask.
> >
> > I believe my comments were directed at Ken and you butted in and began
> > the judging. Here's how you started:
> >
> > You said, "Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
> > desire to end up where you are! Just being honest and truthful with you.
> > Hope you can handle it." <smile>
> >
> > You see, you started with a negative judgement about where I am. So I
> > obliged and started the judgements about where you are. I figured you
> > wanted to swap impressions of each other. Is this a case where you dish
> > it out but you can't take it? I think so.
>
> Somehow you manage to remove the point of what's being discussed and
> turn things into a pissing contest. No lurk, my statement was about your
> ideas, not of you personally. You constantly confuse that point!
Doesn't matter if you are talking about me or my ideas, it is
nonetheless a judgment and an invitation to swap judgments about each
other or each other's ideas. Is that the type of conversation you want
to have or did you want to try something different?
Did you want to try to communicate to each other without all the
diagnosing or judgments of the other?
>
> > > Now you want to explain a no-thing universe
> > > to me as if I have no concept of it.
> >
> > You obviously have no experience with it...otherwise you wouldn't be
> > running scared. I'm sure you have read about it, but then you've read
> > about a lot of things.
>
> Hey, I don't have any respect for your mind either. <smile>
Good neither do I. Now if you could only have the same disregard for you
own mind...
>
> > Frankly lurk.... you haven't hit
> > > bottom yet. You haven't even learned to grab your ankles! So keep your
> > > silly assed dark side to yourself, cause dude....
> >
> > To suggest to someone not to cling to hope is not an expression of a
> > dark side. You simply are having trouble understanding here. You should
> > ask more questions and seek understanding of what you don't know instead
> > of pretending.
>
> I ask, and then you explain psychology as you understand it. Been there
> done that with you. I am only saying here that hope is nothing to be
> feared.
I am not suggesting to fear hope. In fact as I have said, fear is
underneath hope....fear of what is or what could be or what was.
> I'm not saying that it's something everyone has to use as an
> emotional tool, but that those who use it are not less then anyone else.
So then you're telling me that you interpreted my comment to mean that
people should be afraid of hope and that people who are hopeful are less
than anyone else.
> I don't understand how you can be so absolute about everyone else.
> tsk..... Why is it so frightening for you to allow others to be who they
> are?
As I explained earlier, pointing out hope and fear is not disallowing
others to be who they are. When Harold wants eckists to become aware of
fear by saying so in his books and talks, do you write him a letter
asking him why it is so frightening to allow others to be who they are?
Of course not.
The difference between Harold and I is that Harold will talk about fear
in a general sense and promote all kind of hope (fear) at the same time.
In another words, he is kind of mixed up. That's why I don't think he is
an effective or particularity useful for students. Perhaps the subject
line in this thread is correct.
> If someone needs to experience hope in their life then what's it to
> you?
Nothing until and unless it is mentioned in a newsgroup. Then I stand up
and talk about how hope stinks of fear, etc.
> Do you feel that alienated from humanity that you have to attempt
> to force everyone you meet into your pigion holes?
And do you feels so strongly about this issue of hope that you feel that
talking about it on a newsgroup is a demand for you to lose hope?
That just doesn't
> make sense, lurk.
>
> > all it's lead to so
> > > far is an outrageous ego! And that's about as far from the point of the
> > > thing as one can get.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope you can handle it. <smile>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can handle that you are like most seekers in that you chase your tail
> > > > > > and are proud of it. You know no better, so you're left defending a
> > > > > > fifth rate spiritual "teacher" which gives you a glimmer of hope that
> > > > > > you are something. But I'm here to tell you....you are nothing. Notice
> > > > > > the fear that arises when reading these words. This is what you have
> > > > > > been running from all your life. Isn't it time to put away your
> > > > > > spiritual toys and awaken to what is?
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL..... and what is equals what you have?
> > > >
> > > > Why does you mind what replacement toys? The point is to give up the
> > > > toys and step out of the sandbox. Why do you request better toys?
> > > > There's lots to be learned in your reaction here...it would be a shame
> > > > to squander the opportunity for insight here.
> > >
> > > And go where, the litter box where you live?
> >
> > Do you need some place to go? Can you not muster the courage to walk
> > away from the sand box without having a carrot?
>
> Oh... this one again. Walk away from Eckankar and see life from my
> viewpoint.
Nah, how about walk away and see what happens.
Now that puts us right back to the beginning of this latest
> bitch session. See.... where you are is on a.r.e. arguing with people
> who are happy to be where they are, while you try to prove they are
> unhappy not being just like you! <smile>
Interesting how you interpret my postings on a.r.e..
Hmmm, let's see....you and other eckists don't strike me as particularly
happy with where you are at because you have been very defensive about
maintaining hope and this becoming obsession in eckankar. Eckankar is
clearly a path of becoming. I could almost be so bold as to suggest
that people who are members of this becoming path are, by association,
not content or happy with what is.
When I talk about clinging to hope and the fear the underlies it, I'm
not trying to prove others as unhappy, just raising awareness about such issues.
>
> > LOL..... scrape the cat
> > > crap out of your ears and listen to this lurk...... pack sand jerk!
> > > <smile>
> > >
> > > > Come on now lurk.... all
> > > > > you've got is the religion of anticultism! Negativity towards others for
> > > > > their choices while you wrap yourself in the hopelessness of life.
> > > > > That's not a no-thing universe, dear.... that's utter depression! You
> > > > > should find out the difference between these two before you try setting
> > > > > yourself up as a guru! <shudder> Frankly being told I'm nothing by a
> > > > > loser hardly constitues anything outside of another day dealing with a
> > > > > second rate troll with no life! <grin>
> > > >
> > > > I asked you to notice the fear that arises when you read the words that
> > > > you are nothing, and you step up and demonstrate your fear in your
> > > > comments here.
> > >
> > > Is that the excuse your mother gave you when she used this tactic on
> > > you? You're worthless, you're nothing, you'll never be anything, you'll
> > > never amount to anything, you're daddy was a useless piece of crap just
> > > like you are! <smile>
> >
> > Looks Like Cher watched Opera recently.
>
> Carmen? <chuckle>
Nope I meant soap operas.
> Or did I perhaps make out the most obvious shapes in
> your dark side? Hiding in the shadows?
Cher, you are as yet unqualified to talk about other's darks sides.
Seriously, you need more awareness of your own shadows before commenting
on others. The reason? Because you often cast you own shadows on other
people. Take care of your own dark stuff and then maybe, just maybe you
can have the privilege to comment on mine.
You're not the only one who can
> play that game, lurk. The difference is that I could care less and you
> have your whole life wrapped up in being right or else! <smile>
>
> > Is that what's bothering you there bunky? Take it
> > > to her, see if she cares. I don't! But if you honestly believe that all
> > > there is to the no-thing universe is complete lack of self esteem, then
> > > you're dumber than a rock!
> >
> > This your way of telling me you have no clue about what I'm talking about.
>
> Right... that must be the answer. <smile> It more important for you to
> be superior then understood, hey? <chuckle>
Do you feel people are superior when they have knowledge you do not
possess? (See the assumption in your question.) For you to admit that
you could learn from me means you would have to think of yourself as
inferior. Thus the reason why you want to be always right. You might
want to notice the shame that arises in you at the prospect of being
mistaken about something.
>
> > >
> > > > Please understand, I'm doing you a favor by telling you you're nothing.
> > > > It could lead to an important realization. I understand, though, this is
> > > > quite different than the indulgence that comes from Harold about how you
> > > > are, not only something, but, something special.
> > >
> > > No... the point is that you'll never be anyone special, ever.
> >
> > That is true because I do not exist in the first place, so how can I be
> > special? You not only believe you exist, but think you're special
> > because you're an eckist.
>
> The illusion, lurk.... it's all an illusion! If you don't exist then
> what I believe shouldn't matter to you in the first place! It's you who
> have so much invested in all of this.... not me. <smile>
You keep saying that and you keep responding.
Oh my!
> Remember, I'm
> the one who won't stay put in the christian archetype of pretty in pink.
Bringing out the strawmen to dance around. She has to have an imaginary
oppressor to fight.
> <wink> No doubt about it, you're going to need more containers to fit
> all this into! <smile>
>
> > It's your
> > > karma! <grin> I can see you writing it in every phrase here. Here's a
> > > hint: it lies in the overwhelming fear of beings who acept their divine
> > > beingness. There's nothing you can say or do to bring them down to your
> > > level.
> > >
> > > > I see the notion of nothingness makes your bones quiver, eh?
> > >
> > > Bones quiver?
> >
> > Yes, you are afraid.
>
> Afraid? As fearful as you appear to be of the word hope? It amazes me
> what words set you off. <smile>
Cher, I started this interaction with ken and you came into thread with
your usual reactionary and Miss Know-It-All responses. I'd say you are
demonstrating the fear that arises when the prospect of hope is
threatened or disappears all together.
Lurk
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > arelurker wrote:
> > >
> > > Ken wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > <snipers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As to the shadow and the light ... focus on what you will. I've found the
> > > > > > ECK teachings are accurate regarding the individual becoming what
> > > > > > one places one's attention upon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, the eck teachings create "becoming addicts" at a cost of your life,
> > > > > of course.
> > > >
> > > > Focusing on "becoming" is only a phase Lurk. One step. Don't get too
> > > > attached to tearing it down :-)
> > >
> > > Not according to Harold, that is the essence of the eckankar path. In
> > > fact, eckankar is set up to be a goal directed path. You know, the
> > > stairway to heaven thing.
> >
> > There is no staircase involved in shifting of ones conscious awareness,
> > lurk. If you needed a ladder, then maybe you were still living in the
> > christian archetype you grew up with? It only takes the moment to change
> > consciousness.
>
> Eckankar's cosmology is hierarchical. What to deny and pretend about
> that? Gawd.
Hierarchical cosmology? Is that how you see it lurk? <chuckling> I guess
if you have no experience with it, the chart like presentation could
throw you a curve or two. LOL...
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > So look for the best in life or, if you
> > > > > > prefer, look for the worst. Either way, you will find what you are seeking.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How about stopping the "looking" altogether.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then what?
> > > >
> > > > I read your comments later in this thread on being nothing. That's pretty
> > > > Buddhist of you :-) I agree BTW that being no thing is the way to go.
> > >
> > > I'm not a buddhist, I killed Buddha on the road before I got a chance to
> > > read him.
> >
> > That explains why you need a ladder to find higher consciousness.
>
> You obviously are not qualified to pose and intelligent response to my
> wisdom.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > It's a lot more interesting when you talk about things you actually appreciate.
> > >
> > > I appreciate deconstructing becomming. A consciousness mired in
> > > becomming has no room to appreciate what is going on in the moment.
> >
> > The consciousness wrapped up in deconstructing others words and ideas
> > misses the moment completely for the sake of its own projections.
>
> There is deconstruction of becoming in my own life...seeing the
> becoming as false. Talking about such to others does not miss anything.
LOL......
> A
> > minute detail that accumulates quickly where consciousness is concerned.
>
> Cher, you continue to act like you know what you're talking about, but
> it is clear you don't.
>
> Stop being a poser and simply say you don't know for once in you life.
>
> Do you really need to be an authority about everything?
>
> >
> > > I'm playing with this notion that people latch onto this becomming train
> > > because the alternative is to be with "what is" in their life. With many
> > > people, "what is" or what arises in them when the hope of becomming is
> > > set aside is some of the darker emotions that have been kept at bay by
> > > the hope of becomming. This can be disconcerting to seekers and the
> > > grasping for the hope starts up again.
> >
> > All that work to get to the moment.
>
> Incorrect Miss Know-it-all: A person does not work to get to the moment.
> That very "work" keeps the person from being present. You see how your
> becoming mind is so habitual and how you imposed it on my words?
I wasn't suggesting I do that work, only commenting on the process you
describe above. Take another look there bunky! Don't deconstruct what
you don't understand.... you'll never find a place for all those pieces.
<grin>
> > Seems more like psychology then
> > religion or spirituality, lurk.
>
> I tend to think that many spiritual groups would appreciate the notion
> of acknowledging "what is." Seems spiritual to me, since an awful lot of
> groups talk about it. Now if you're looking for spiritual fireworks
> like you've been trained to look for in eckankar, then being present in
> the moment without hope and fear might seem mundane.
Spiritual fireworks? You mean the lower astral planes? Nope.... that's a
true problem with your theory lurk... you left the path as a beginner
and never got past the astral stuff.
> > It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> > in the process.
>
> I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
> becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
> they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
Gas? Did the smile give it away?
> Not all beings stay in that place. But trying to lay
> > pychology as a template onto spiritual practices means that you're going
> > to take the stairs or ladder every single step of the way.
>
> You sound like someone who is faking their way through a conversation in
> which you do not comprehend because you have no personal experiential
> framework to understand the words. In other words, you have no clue what
> is beyond the hope.
>
> Now, don't
> > confuse this as everyone's method when it's obvious that this is simply
> > your method. No right or wrong answers to this one.... some people are
> > methodical in nature. But that doesn't mean that all people must be
> > methodical or they are wrong. It's okay for you to take the long way
> > round through little self before you discover Soul. Someday you'll
> > realize that Soul is the one trying to map out where little self was
> > going to begin with.
>
> Cher reveals her hand: Hope is not an expression of the Soul nor is it a
> means to allow soul to prevail in the present. Hope is simply the mind
> and ego playing. What is really beneath hope is fear. Hope and fear
> distance ourselves from soul or whatever you want to call the
> nondualistic consciousness. You are certainly free to believe that hope
> and the sense of becoming are fast ways to reach Soul, but I would have
> to warn you that you are sorely mistaken, just as Harold is sorely
> mistaken. But what the hell, go ahead and chase your tail for another
> ten years. If that is what it take, then that is what it takes.
You didn't even read what I wrote. <sigh> This is getting old, lurk. Why
not just post lectures and forget about trying to communicate with
others. It's a lost cause in your case.
> Lurk
cher
No, that would be that you perceive me as afraid because you are
convinced that I'm arguing for the concept of hope. You're arguing
against it, and can't comprehend that someone might argue that its okay
for those who need such a thing even if that person doesn't need it. So
once again... you're talking to yourself and just can't come to terms
with that fact.
> Glad you finally figured that
> > out! You know, there are more attacks on people based on their measure
> > of hope then just about any other factor of their character or
> > lifestyle. It's just amazing how hope brings out the most frightened and
> > threatened of cowards. Do I need hope? Hey, it's my place to recognize
> > it and honor it in others. Not my job to tell them.
>
> You're being kind of dense here. If Harold talks about becoming aware of
> fears, he a lauded as the highest consciousness in the world. When
> little old Lurk talks about becoming aware of fears via noticing hope
> as a reaction to fear, you're wanting to frame that as me being
> frightened of hope and a coward. Using you poor thinking Harold would be
> a frightened of other's fear when he talks about becoming aware of fear
> and would be a coward.
How come you can't seem to read what I write? Why are you so insecure as
to make everything said on this newsgroup about you personally or the
other guy personally? tsk.... this is the most messed up thing you've
written to date, lurk. Seriously. I made a statement, and you instantly
decided to wear it and lash yourself in public while doing it! <shudder>
That's just too weird.
Lurk... I'm not asking what's beyond fear and hope because I don't go to
donkey's for directions on how to climb the mountain!
Well this took a while to get to. I should've known that you'd be trying
to tell me that you have more spiritual insight then Sri Harold. <smile>
Lurk... you have mistaken what it is that I have taken from this path to
date and decided that based on your limited disrespectful view you can
discourse on these things. In case you didn't realize it, the discourses
that raphael shared were for lower initiates. Yep.... you may be reading
them and pondering them.... but you have no idea where they are in terms
of study for the average ECKist. Trust me..... it takes more than
reading these earlier discourse to master what they're sharing.
> > If someone needs to experience hope in their life then what's it to
> > you?
>
> Nothing until and unless it is mentioned in a newsgroup. Then I stand up
> and talk about how hope stinks of fear, etc.
>
> > Do you feel that alienated from humanity that you have to attempt
> > to force everyone you meet into your pigion holes?
>
> And do you feels so strongly about this issue of hope that you feel that
> talking about it on a newsgroup is a demand for you to lose hope?
Can't lose what isn't there, lurk. That's your projection. Nope...
you're trying to fit this around me like a noose, and in fact all I'm
saying is that if someone needs to experience hope at that time in their
life, what's it to you? You're the one making it a big deal and
apparently you think you're pretty special for coming to these ideas.
<smile> I could care less what you think on the subject, I'm just saying
that if someone needs hope then you're ideas about it won't mean a hill
of beans to the person. It's their life.
Dude, you can believe what you want to, but you've got some really
messed up ideas. <shaking her head>
> When I talk about clinging to hope and the fear the underlies it, I'm
> not trying to prove others as unhappy, just raising awareness about such issues.
Sure... LOL... that must be your motive. LOL....
Oh but you are qualified to do this? Why? What's your qualification then
lurk?
> You're not the only one who can
> > play that game, lurk. The difference is that I could care less and you
> > have your whole life wrapped up in being right or else! <smile>
> >
> > > Is that what's bothering you there bunky? Take it
> > > > to her, see if she cares. I don't! But if you honestly believe that all
> > > > there is to the no-thing universe is complete lack of self esteem, then
> > > > you're dumber than a rock!
> > >
> > > This your way of telling me you have no clue about what I'm talking about.
> >
> > Right... that must be the answer. <smile> It more important for you to
> > be superior then understood, hey? <chuckle>
>
> Do you feel people are superior when they have knowledge you do not
> possess? (See the assumption in your question.) For you to admit that
> you could learn from me means you would have to think of yourself as
> inferior. Thus the reason why you want to be always right. You might
> want to notice the shame that arises in you at the prospect of being
> mistaken about something.
>
Again... what qualifies you to be the pop psychologist of others? Hmmm?
Come on now, give us the details lurk. What makes you think you can play
talk show psychologist here? Hmmm?
> > > >
> > > > > Please understand, I'm doing you a favor by telling you you're nothing.
> > > > > It could lead to an important realization. I understand, though, this is
> > > > > quite different than the indulgence that comes from Harold about how you
> > > > > are, not only something, but, something special.
> > > >
> > > > No... the point is that you'll never be anyone special, ever.
> > >
> > > That is true because I do not exist in the first place, so how can I be
> > > special? You not only believe you exist, but think you're special
> > > because you're an eckist.
> >
> > The illusion, lurk.... it's all an illusion! If you don't exist then
> > what I believe shouldn't matter to you in the first place! It's you who
> > have so much invested in all of this.... not me. <smile>
>
> You keep saying that and you keep responding.
>
> Oh my!
My doesn't exist, remember? So my point being if you don't exist why do
you insist? Hmmm?
> > Remember, I'm
> > the one who won't stay put in the christian archetype of pretty in pink.
>
> Bringing out the strawmen to dance around. She has to have an imaginary
> oppressor to fight.
Sure.... whatever......
> > <wink> No doubt about it, you're going to need more containers to fit
> > all this into! <smile>
> >
> > > It's your
> > > > karma! <grin> I can see you writing it in every phrase here. Here's a
> > > > hint: it lies in the overwhelming fear of beings who acept their divine
> > > > beingness. There's nothing you can say or do to bring them down to your
> > > > level.
> > > >
> > > > > I see the notion of nothingness makes your bones quiver, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Bones quiver?
> > >
> > > Yes, you are afraid.
> >
> > Afraid? As fearful as you appear to be of the word hope? It amazes me
> > what words set you off. <smile>
>
> Cher, I started this interaction with ken and you came into thread with
> your usual reactionary and Miss Know-It-All responses. I'd say you are
> demonstrating the fear that arises when the prospect of hope is
> threatened or disappears all together.
Well you'd say just about anything but that doesn't make it intelligent.
But then you're still trying to pin hope on me as a belief/need when all
I've done is say that I think some people need it and I have no problem
with them living by it. I'm not a christian but I have nothing against
anyone who is a christian. I have no problem with a christian who bases
their belief on faith, hope and charity. That's what they believe. I
certainly don't need to tell them they are wrong just so that I can feel
important that day. But if that's what you want to do.... go for it.
neuralsurfer
Cher:
Whether you believe me or not is up to you.
Michael's point does make sense and it did transpire that Eckankar
eventually
destroyed the copy of Jacquie's diary.
I am sorry, but I think my former lawyer has other things to do than
post on
some obscure alt.religion.eckankar group.
Eckankar, to their credit, did return in tact the stolen property.
The tiff was over them retaining a copy of my wife's diary.
After my attorney notified them that it was not proper, they
eventually destroyed it.
If you want another version of the story, then you will have to
contact Eckankar.
Or, do as you usually do and simply imagine that I am making the whole
story up.
I am not writing this stuff for you, but for Michael and others who
can show
civility from time to time.
cher
Michael was speculating. That isn't what I was seeking here.
> I am sorry, but I think my former lawyer has other things to do than
> post on
> some obscure alt.religion.eckankar group.
I have no problems contacting the man. Got a phone number?
> Eckankar, to their credit, did return in tact the stolen property.
>
> The tiff was over them retaining a copy of my wife's diary.
So your story goes. But you have not cleared up how your former lawyer
knew that this copy existed. That's the question, now... isn't it?
> After my attorney notified them that it was not proper, they
> eventually destroyed it.
How did your attorney know of this so called copy? That's a reasonable
question seeing as how there is no evidence to back up your story.
> If you want another version of the story, then you will have to
> contact Eckankar.
Contacting Eckankar serves no purpose in this instance. This is your
story so the proof of this story falls on your shoulders.
> Or, do as you usually do and simply imagine that I am making the whole
> story up.
david the victim? tsk... now that is tacky!
> I am not writing this stuff for you, but for Michael and others who
> can show
> civility from time to time.
I show civility david.... I just don't waste it on toads. But as long as
this is a public forum, I'll continue to ask whatever I see is necessary
in order to keep your stories straight. If I wanted fiction I'd post to
steven king.
Michael Wallace
I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you on THAT notion, Dr. Lane
<G>
Just to tidy up the notion of the diary being copied ... It makes sense that
in the US where lawyers rule (I believe 1/2 of all solicitors in the world
live in the US, and 1/2 of those live in California) that people would be
seeking to protect themselves from law suit wherever possible.
I would be curious (if you are still on conversational terms with that
lawyer) if the photocopy of your wife's diary was destroyed as part of some
form of settlement agreement. He could have signed on your behalf that the
matter would be at an end if the copy was destroyed, that sort of thing.
One day I was at my solicitors office, and I told him I finally figured out
a way to work out when a lawyer was lying to me... He asked what the secret
was... I answered "His lips are moving"
<G>
love
Michael
PS: As a note, since Ford Johnson (Hey, another lawyer!) sort of took over
as head of the anti-Eckankar crusade does it feel any different?
arelurker
That's not just how I see it but how Paul created it.
No sense in me responding to this point further since you make foolish comments.
I guess
> if you have no experience with it, the chart like presentation could
> throw you a curve or two. LOL...
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > So look for the best in life or, if you
> > > > > > > prefer, look for the worst. Either way, you will find what you are seeking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about stopping the "looking" altogether.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then what?
> > > > >
> > > > > I read your comments later in this thread on being nothing. That's pretty
> > > > > Buddhist of you :-) I agree BTW that being no thing is the way to go.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not a buddhist, I killed Buddha on the road before I got a chance to
> > > > read him.
> > >
> > > That explains why you need a ladder to find higher consciousness.
> >
> > You obviously are not qualified to pose and intelligent response to my
> > wisdom.
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a lot more interesting when you talk about things you actually appreciate.
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate deconstructing becomming. A consciousness mired in
> > > > becomming has no room to appreciate what is going on in the moment.
> > >
> > > The consciousness wrapped up in deconstructing others words and ideas
> > > misses the moment completely for the sake of its own projections.
> >
> > There is deconstruction of becoming in my own life...seeing the
> > becoming as false. Talking about such to others does not miss anything.
>
> LOL......
That wasn't meant to be a joke. I was relating how I use deconstruction
in my own life and not just on other people. Why you find that funny is
beyond me.
>
> > A
> > > minute detail that accumulates quickly where consciousness is concerned.
> >
> > Cher, you continue to act like you know what you're talking about, but
> > it is clear you don't.
> >
> > Stop being a poser and simply say you don't know for once in you life.
> >
> > Do you really need to be an authority about everything?
> >
> > >
> > > > I'm playing with this notion that people latch onto this becomming train
> > > > because the alternative is to be with "what is" in their life. With many
> > > > people, "what is" or what arises in them when the hope of becomming is
> > > > set aside is some of the darker emotions that have been kept at bay by
> > > > the hope of becomming. This can be disconcerting to seekers and the
> > > > grasping for the hope starts up again.
> > >
> > > All that work to get to the moment.
> >
> > Incorrect Miss Know-it-all: A person does not work to get to the moment.
> > That very "work" keeps the person from being present. You see how your
> > becoming mind is so habitual and how you imposed it on my words?
>
> I wasn't suggesting I do that work,
Either was I.
>only commenting on the process you
> describe above.
Yes I was commenting on that too...specifically your comment about the
process I alluded to. You made it sound like a person has to do a lot of
work to be in the moment. You unwittingly revealed your becoming consciousness.
Take another look there bunky! Don't deconstruct what
> you don't understand.... you'll never find a place for all those pieces.
> <grin>
>
> > > Seems more like psychology then
> > > religion or spirituality, lurk.
> >
> > I tend to think that many spiritual groups would appreciate the notion
> > of acknowledging "what is." Seems spiritual to me, since an awful lot of
> > groups talk about it. Now if you're looking for spiritual fireworks
> > like you've been trained to look for in eckankar, then being present in
> > the moment without hope and fear might seem mundane.
>
> Spiritual fireworks? You mean the lower astral planes? Nope.... that's a
> true problem with your theory lurk... you left the path as a beginner
> and never got past the astral stuff.
I see you need clarity about what I mean by spiritual fireworks.
Spiritual fireworks is the soul travel experiences, gaining higher
consciousness, having inner experience with made up masters, yearning
for unconditional love, or trying to experience divine love, etc.
>
> > > It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> > > in the process.
> >
> > I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
> > becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
> > they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
>
> Gas?
No fear.
This is Cher's way if indicating that I went outside her level of
understanding. Instead of simply saying so, she carries on about how I
communicate poorly. You would be better off simply admitting when you
are over you head instead of all these justifications you come up with.
Lurk
> > Lurk
cher
Because I don't agree with you, no doubt. That does seem to be your tool
of measure. <sigh>
I know it's beyond you. But we let you play here anyway.
> >
> > > A
> > > > minute detail that accumulates quickly where consciousness is concerned.
> > >
> > > Cher, you continue to act like you know what you're talking about, but
> > > it is clear you don't.
> > >
> > > Stop being a poser and simply say you don't know for once in you life.
> > >
> > > Do you really need to be an authority about everything?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I'm playing with this notion that people latch onto this becomming train
> > > > > because the alternative is to be with "what is" in their life. With many
> > > > > people, "what is" or what arises in them when the hope of becomming is
> > > > > set aside is some of the darker emotions that have been kept at bay by
> > > > > the hope of becomming. This can be disconcerting to seekers and the
> > > > > grasping for the hope starts up again.
> > > >
> > > > All that work to get to the moment.
> > >
> > > Incorrect Miss Know-it-all: A person does not work to get to the moment.
> > > That very "work" keeps the person from being present. You see how your
> > > becoming mind is so habitual and how you imposed it on my words?
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting I do that work,
>
> Either was I.
>
> >only commenting on the process you
> > describe above.
>
> Yes I was commenting on that too...specifically your comment about the
> process I alluded to. You made it sound like a person has to do a lot of
> work to be in the moment. You unwittingly revealed your becoming consciousness.
You see what you want to see, lurk. No sense in agruing with you when
you're fixated on the image.
> Take another look there bunky! Don't deconstruct what
> > you don't understand.... you'll never find a place for all those pieces.
> > <grin>
> >
> > > > Seems more like psychology then
> > > > religion or spirituality, lurk.
> > >
> > > I tend to think that many spiritual groups would appreciate the notion
> > > of acknowledging "what is." Seems spiritual to me, since an awful lot of
> > > groups talk about it. Now if you're looking for spiritual fireworks
> > > like you've been trained to look for in eckankar, then being present in
> > > the moment without hope and fear might seem mundane.
> >
> > Spiritual fireworks? You mean the lower astral planes? Nope.... that's a
> > true problem with your theory lurk... you left the path as a beginner
> > and never got past the astral stuff.
>
> I see you need clarity about what I mean by spiritual fireworks.
> Spiritual fireworks is the soul travel experiences, gaining higher
> consciousness, having inner experience with made up masters, yearning
> for unconditional love, or trying to experience divine love, etc.
Yearning, trying, gaining.... lurk, the only one here who seems to live
in the world of "becoming" is you. I'd explain about sitting still in
silence, and letting go but you'd find something to bitch about in the
act of sitting down on a pillow! <sigh>
> >
> > > > It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> > > > in the process.
> > >
> > > I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
> > > becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
> > > they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
> >
> > Gas?
>
> No fear.
Ah... that great lurk humor fails to surface once again. <grin>
Lurk... it's no wonder you admire ford johnson. Vanity is it's own
reward. <smile>
> Lurk
>
> > > Lurk
arelurker
It's okay Cher, you can have your hope. Mean ole Lurk won't take it
away from you.
One thing you might want to notice is how my original comments to Ken
were appreciated by Ken. What's the difference between you and Ken? Ken
understood my comments, and you don't. You want to vilify.
So
> once again... you're talking to yourself and just can't come to terms
> with that fact.
>
> > Glad you finally figured that
> > > out! You know, there are more attacks on people based on their measure
> > > of hope then just about any other factor of their character or
> > > lifestyle. It's just amazing how hope brings out the most frightened and
> > > threatened of cowards. Do I need hope? Hey, it's my place to recognize
> > > it and honor it in others. Not my job to tell them.
> >
> > You're being kind of dense here. If Harold talks about becoming aware of
> > fears, he a lauded as the highest consciousness in the world. When
> > little old Lurk talks about becoming aware of fears via noticing hope
> > as a reaction to fear, you're wanting to frame that as me being
> > frightened of hope and a coward. Using you poor thinking Harold would be
> > a frightened of other's fear when he talks about becoming aware of fear
> > and would be a coward.
>
> How come you can't seem to read what I write? Why are you so insecure as
> to make everything said on this newsgroup about you personally or the
> other guy personally? tsk.... this is the most messed up thing you've
> written to date, lurk. Seriously. I made a statement, and you instantly
> decided to wear it and lash yourself in public while doing it! <shudder>
> That's just too weird.
This is your way of saying you have no response to my comparison using
Harold that makes your comments look silly. Cher, you're over you head,
why not just admit it. Just say you don't know. You look like an ass
when you go on and on about stuff you don't have a clue about.
Be truthful and say you don't know. That would be a major advance in
your growth.
Okay, you do not want to know. That's fine. Not everyone is ready to
hear such truth. At least you answered the question finally.
>
> > So now you want to go off in an avoiding tit for tat tangent. Maybe some
> > other time, eh?
> >
> > >
> > > > Why? Because you
> > > > > have no respect for me or my experiences. You judge first and justify it
> > > > > from then on, you never ask.
> > > >
> > > > I believe my comments were directed at Ken and you butted in and began
> > > > the judging. Here's how you started:
> > > >
> > > > You said, "Most people who start out seeking spiritually, have little
> > > > desire to end up where you are! Just being honest and truthful with you.
> > > > Hope you can handle it." <smile>
> > > >
> > > > You see, you started with a negative judgement about where I am. So I
> > > > obliged and started the judgements about where you are. I figured you
> > > > wanted to swap impressions of each other. Is this a case where you dish
> > > > it out but you can't take it? I think so.
> > >
> > > Somehow you manage to remove the point of what's being discussed and
> > > turn things into a pissing contest. No lurk, my statement was about your
> > > ideas, not of you personally. You constantly confuse that point!
> >
> > Doesn't matter if you are talking about me or my ideas, it is
> > nonetheless a judgment and an invitation to swap judgments about each
> > other or each other's ideas. Is that the type of conversation you want
> > to have or did you want to try something different?
> >
> > Did you want to try to communicate to each other without all the
> > diagnosing or judgments of the other?
Notice Cher did not respond to this question. I suspect these kinds of
questions makes Cher uncomfortable. It was cause her to humanize her
"opponent" which would be devastating to her fundie thinking. She would
definitely be outside her comfort zone of black and white thinking.
That's not saying much. He's a fool.
> Lurk... you have mistaken what it is that I have taken from this path to
> date and decided that based on your limited disrespectful view you can
> discourse on these things. In case you didn't realize it, the discourses
> that raphael shared were for lower initiates. Yep.... you may be reading
> them and pondering them.... but you have no idea where they are in terms
> of study for the average ECKist. Trust me..... it takes more than
> reading these earlier discourse to master what they're sharing.
I don't know what all this justifying gibberish has to do with what we
were talking about. You do like to go on and on about nothing. What we
were talking about is how you think a person talking about being aware
of the pitfalls of hope is supposedly afraid of hope, yet when Harold
talks about being aware of fears, he is a spiritual giant.
>
> > > If someone needs to experience hope in their life then what's it to
> > > you?
> >
> > Nothing until and unless it is mentioned in a newsgroup. Then I stand up
> > and talk about how hope stinks of fear, etc.
> >
> > > Do you feel that alienated from humanity that you have to attempt
> > > to force everyone you meet into your pigion holes?
> >
> > And do you feels so strongly about this issue of hope that you feel that
> > talking about it on a newsgroup is a demand for you to lose hope?
>
> Can't lose what isn't there, lurk. That's your projection. Nope...
> you're trying to fit this around me like a noose, and in fact all I'm
> saying is that if someone needs to experience hope at that time in their
> life, what's it to you?
What is it to me? A person experiencing hope at that time in their life
when they need to.
> You're the one making it a big deal and
> apparently you think you're pretty special for coming to these ideas.
I'm just talking about hope and how fear underlies it. You're the one reacting.
> <smile> I could care less what you think on the subject, I'm just saying
> that if someone needs hope then you're ideas about it won't mean a hill
> of beans to the person. It's their life.
Your comment doesn't really make sense and sounds like you have some sort
of drama going on in your head that the readers are not privy to.
I know they sound far out to the becoming addict, but then that is part
of the addiction.
>
> > When I talk about clinging to hope and the fear the underlies it, I'm
> > not trying to prove others as unhappy, just raising awareness about such issues.
>
> Sure... LOL... that must be your motive. LOL....
Well, with you, I really don't have high expectations of raising your
awareness since you are fixated on being right and staying ignorant.
Yes.
> Why? What's your qualification then
> lurk?
I have wisdom.
>
> > You're not the only one who can
> > > play that game, lurk. The difference is that I could care less and you
> > > have your whole life wrapped up in being right or else! <smile>
> > >
> > > > Is that what's bothering you there bunky? Take it
> > > > > to her, see if she cares. I don't! But if you honestly believe that all
> > > > > there is to the no-thing universe is complete lack of self esteem, then
> > > > > you're dumber than a rock!
> > > >
> > > > This your way of telling me you have no clue about what I'm talking about.
> > >
> > > Right... that must be the answer. <smile> It more important for you to
> > > be superior then understood, hey? <chuckle>
> >
> > Do you feel people are superior when they have knowledge you do not
> > possess? (See the assumption in your question.) For you to admit that
> > you could learn from me means you would have to think of yourself as
> > inferior. Thus the reason why you want to be always right. You might
> > want to notice the shame that arises in you at the prospect of being
> > mistaken about something.
> >
>
> Again... what qualifies you to be the pop psychologist of others? Hmmm?
> Come on now, give us the details lurk. What makes you think you can play
> talk show psychologist here? Hmmm?
Because there are a lot of nuts?
I think it is on the money, honey.
> But then you're still trying to pin hope on me as a belief/need when all
> I've done is say that I think some people need it and I have no problem
> with them living by it. I'm not a christian but I have nothing against
> anyone who is a christian. I have no problem with a christian who bases
> their belief on faith, hope and charity.
We were not talking about Christians, we were talking about eckists and
eckankar being a religion of becoming. You're part of that religion and
therefore are inculcated with hope for a better tomorrow.
That's what they believe. I
> certainly don't need to tell them they are wrong just so that I can feel
> important that day. But if that's what you want to do.... go for it.
Cher, as I said earlier, my comments to Ken about hope were useful and
you respond with your typical snotty cultic attitude and continue on and
on to demonstrate your ignorance. How can you possible want to continue
demonstrating such. I mean there's a point where I get embarrassed for you.
Lurk
arelurker
No it is not about agreement, it is about you denying.
I see your words and how you express them in the habitual becoming
consciousness that is so ingrained in eckist.
>
> > Take another look there bunky! Don't deconstruct what
> > > you don't understand.... you'll never find a place for all those pieces.
> > > <grin>
> > >
> > > > > Seems more like psychology then
> > > > > religion or spirituality, lurk.
> > > >
> > > > I tend to think that many spiritual groups would appreciate the notion
> > > > of acknowledging "what is." Seems spiritual to me, since an awful lot of
> > > > groups talk about it. Now if you're looking for spiritual fireworks
> > > > like you've been trained to look for in eckankar, then being present in
> > > > the moment without hope and fear might seem mundane.
> > >
> > > Spiritual fireworks? You mean the lower astral planes? Nope.... that's a
> > > true problem with your theory lurk... you left the path as a beginner
> > > and never got past the astral stuff.
> >
> > I see you need clarity about what I mean by spiritual fireworks.
> > Spiritual fireworks is the soul travel experiences, gaining higher
> > consciousness, having inner experience with made up masters, yearning
> > for unconditional love, or trying to experience divine love, etc.
>
> Yearning, trying, gaining.... lurk, the only one here who seems to live
> in the world of "becoming" is you.
Nope this is the essence of the eckankar teachings. That you deny it is
quite funny. Most eckists are proud of their assertive spiritual
disposition of reaching those higher consciousness levels.
I'd explain about sitting still in
> silence, and letting go but you'd find something to bitch about in the
> act of sitting down on a pillow! <sigh>
You can explain sitting all you want. That doesn't negate the main
thrust of the eckankar being a path of becoming and higher and higher,
one more step, keep the discourses flowing, higher initiations, etc.
>
> > >
> > > > > It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> > > > > in the process.
> > > >
> > > > I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
> > > > becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
> > > > they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
> > >
> > > Gas?
> >
> > No fear.
>
> Ah... that great lurk humor fails to surface once again. <grin>
I was expressing personal stuff about myself and you wanted to make a
joke out of it. Are you uncomfortable when I talk about personal stuff?
Cher it is not vane to point out the obvious, you don't understand what
I talk about and yet you act like you do. Why?
Lurk
>
> > Lurk
> >
> > > > Lurk
neuralsurfer
Dear Michael:
What you write here makes lots of sense. No, there wasn't a settlement
agreement, as such, but you are right in the sense that it was a way
to END that particular form of disagreement.
Again, I am grateful to Eckankar for sending me the documents because
it really did help me pinpoint who robbed my house.
It simply backfired on John-Roger, who thought that Eckankar would use
the stuff against me.
Most of my writing lately has been focused on Radhasoami (see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radhasoamistudies), where I am outlining
why I think R.S. theology is wrong, etc.
As for Eckankar, I have always loved Paul Twitchell and the never
ending debates relating to his life/work.
He is infinitely more interesting that most other leaders.
I am currently responding point by point to Doug's book (finally!--I
am up to chapter five, I think), and trying to do an annotated version
of Making for the net.....
But, alas, my son and school and surf keep me going pretty slowly.
Making a few surf movies as well.
Here is the link for that:
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/2004surfing.htm
I have only talked with Ford Johnson on the phone a few times and I
did read his book closely.
What I liked most about his book (and I think he posted this) was his
citations on Faqir Chand.
For my money, Faqir Chand's revelations concerning shabd yoga and Sant
Mat are extremely insightful.
I did appreciate that Ford got a copy of Paul and Gail's marriage
certificate.
Contrary to popular perception, Ford didn't rely on me. He did his own
research and dug up stuff I have never seen.
Eckists and Eckankar have always treated me fairly, well, and
objectively (slightly teasing).
But I do appreciate the civility of your posts.
cher
There's no accounting for your bais. Too bad that you can't get over
that point to understand that what you believe about Eckankar is
basically wrong. No matter how many people tell you this, you just find
fault in what they say and who they are, but ignore what they tell you
about the path. How can you be an expert on such things with your
fingers in your ears?
> >
> > > Take another look there bunky! Don't deconstruct what
> > > > you don't understand.... you'll never find a place for all those pieces.
> > > > <grin>
> > > >
> > > > > > Seems more like psychology then
> > > > > > religion or spirituality, lurk.
> > > > >
> > > > > I tend to think that many spiritual groups would appreciate the notion
> > > > > of acknowledging "what is." Seems spiritual to me, since an awful lot of
> > > > > groups talk about it. Now if you're looking for spiritual fireworks
> > > > > like you've been trained to look for in eckankar, then being present in
> > > > > the moment without hope and fear might seem mundane.
> > > >
> > > > Spiritual fireworks? You mean the lower astral planes? Nope.... that's a
> > > > true problem with your theory lurk... you left the path as a beginner
> > > > and never got past the astral stuff.
> > >
> > > I see you need clarity about what I mean by spiritual fireworks.
> > > Spiritual fireworks is the soul travel experiences, gaining higher
> > > consciousness, having inner experience with made up masters, yearning
> > > for unconditional love, or trying to experience divine love, etc.
> >
> > Yearning, trying, gaining.... lurk, the only one here who seems to live
> > in the world of "becoming" is you.
>
> Nope this is the essence of the eckankar teachings. That you deny it is
> quite funny. Most eckists are proud of their assertive spiritual
> disposition of reaching those higher consciousness levels.
Most ECKists? You know most ECKists? And if I tell you that that one
only needs to stop and sit silently and go within, and not all this
externalizing that you seem believe is some process of climbing the
hierarchy then you'll tell me I as an ECK am wrong and you are as always
right. <sigh> What's the point? You will only build on what you believe,
all others answers are not going to get through to you.
> I'd explain about sitting still in
> > silence, and letting go but you'd find something to bitch about in the
> > act of sitting down on a pillow! <sigh>
>
> You can explain sitting all you want. That doesn't negate the main
> thrust of the eckankar being a path of becoming and higher and higher,
> one more step, keep the discourses flowing, higher initiations, etc.
Well let's hope no one tells you that there's no becoming if you're
already there. I wouldn't want to confuse you with this externalized
imagining of this path.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> > > > > > in the process.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
> > > > > becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
> > > > > they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
> > > >
> > > > Gas?
> > >
> > > No fear.
> >
> > Ah... that great lurk humor fails to surface once again. <grin>
>
> I was expressing personal stuff about myself and you wanted to make a
> joke out of it. Are you uncomfortable when I talk about personal stuff?
Is that part of the character description? Let me know, as the script
hasn't come in the mail yet... I'm just playing this one by ear!
You're so certain you know what i understand and don't understand that
you constantly correct me when I tell you what I think. <grin> If that
isn't vanity, then how would you describe it? It's your script.
> Lurk
>
> >
> > > Lurk
> > >
> > > > > Lurk
cher
you going to marry this new one? Enquiring minds have a right know, as
you may well understand! Or is bringing this up somehow a way for you to
touch those good old days and not get in trouble with the little miss?
Perhaps it explains your sudden neediness for civility? Maybe things
aren't all quiet on the western front? Hmmmm?
neuralsurfer wrote:
<snip>
> But, alas, my son and school and surf keep me going pretty slowly.
<snip>
Michael Wallace
Civility is the hallmark of civilization, one must suppose. I recall the old
English joke about the Lord who was sticking a knife into his butlers back,
and the butler says "Thank you Sir, do you mind if I get the maid to clean
this up now?" One must retain ones sense of perspective on things, hey what?
<G>
Glad to see you are getting around to a response to Doug. Dialogue generally
clears most things up, though it may take a few lifetimes in some cases. I
haven't seen Ford's posting regarding Faqir Chand, but as to research on his
part... He ignored a lot of things that were contrary to his line of belief,
and so I must say, even if he didn't cut and paste as much as it appears
from yourself, he certainly mastered your style !! <G>
I am still on dialup here, so video files are a pain to load... but the site
looks terrific. The file I tried to load (with Tad Burrows) wouldn't play in
media player for some reason...
Oh... Saw John - Roger on the Rossanne show... some repeat from a while ago.
It got me thinking... He was a chump who did pretty well working PR....
Maybe if this gets worked right we could have a "Great Debate" with JR, RS
member, Doug, Ford and Yourself ... Maybe a few others? <G>
It's a win win situation... everyone gets the PR 'and' their 15 minutes of
fame.
Love
Michael
neuralsurfer
Dear Cher:
Glad you are interested in my life. Ah, but he is not a baby, but a
boy who is almost 4.
He is doing quite well.
And Jacquie is doing quite well.
Thanks for your interest.
neuralsurfer
Yes, it can be a pain to dial-up the movies. I post them as VCD
quality and so it does take a long time to download.
John-Roger did indeed do quite well.....
Ironically (or maybe not so ironically), he gave me a great piece of
advice when I first taught high school.
I had been teaching grammar school and it was difficult to keep
control of the 7th and 8th grade classes (I was 22 at the time and I
was there THIRD teacher in the same semester!).
So I was talking to John-Roger at his home (we used to be on friendly
terms) about it. J.R. used to be an English high school teacher at
Rosemead high.
He said, "Dave, just don't crack a smile the first day. Be absolutely
serious."
And, he was right.
If you set the discipline on the first day, you can always loosen it
up later.
He is actually a fun guy to talk with one to one, since he likes to
gossip and share stories about all sorts of things.
I don't know Ford Johnson personally (since we have never met), but I
do think he has a good grasp of Faqir's key points.
He also made mistakes about Radhasoami history, but his overall point
was a correct one, I believe:
Lineage disputes are often suppressed in religious circles and tidied
up for popular consumption.
neuralsurfer
> you going to marry this new one? Enquiring minds have a right know, as
> you may well understand! Or is bringing this up somehow a way for you to
> touch those good old days and not get in trouble with the little miss?
> Perhaps it explains your sudden neediness for civility? Maybe things
> aren't all quiet on the western front? Hmmmm?
>
Well, a boy never keeps things too quiet.
But thanks for asking.
Here is a little pic of him that was taken last year:
http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/shaunlane.htm
And, of the three of us together several years ago at my mom's house:
Michael Wallace
Charm often covers up many flaws, as they say <G>
On the other hand, on the basis that all we see is our own consciousness, I
could say that you are looking remarkably well today!
I have to say, the entire notion of lineage is a curious one... Either
people are getting what they need, or they are not. In my view, the majority
of claims to lineage are more to supress or deal with the "censor" inside
people that needs this sort of traditional support ... Not that I think
there is anything 'wrong' with that, but there is a higher level of self
responsibility and recognizing the obvious.
Then we rush off to the existentialist argument about what is obviously red
to me is obviously pink to someone else, etc.
I have determined the truth is that no one can be completely determined
about the truth <G>
Love
Michael
cher
>
> cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<4009B314...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > So what does Jacquie think of the new baby? And the new girlfriend? Are
> > you going to marry this new one? Enquiring minds have a right know, as
> > you may well understand! Or is bringing this up somehow a way for you to
> > touch those good old days and not get in trouble with the little miss?
> > Perhaps it explains your sudden neediness for civility? Maybe things
> > aren't all quiet on the western front? Hmmmm?
> >
> > neuralsurfer wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > But, alas, my son and school and surf keep me going pretty slowly.
> > <snip>
>
> Dear Cher:
>
> Glad you are interested in my life. Ah, but he is not a baby, but a
> boy who is almost 4.
A three year old, hey? So who's the mother?
> He is doing quite well.
>
> And Jacquie is doing quite well.
Finally wised up... I'm not surprised she's doing well. So does this
mean that she'll let you near your documents yet? I know that you've
often said in this last three years that your documents where in Seal
Beach.... and well, two plus two equals david out of the picture.
> Thanks for your interest.
Just that fearless moment of asking the touch questions, david. It's
addictive, isn't it? <smile>
cher
>
> cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<4009B314...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > So what does Jacquie think of the new baby? And the new girlfriend? Are
> > you going to marry this new one? Enquiring minds have a right know, as
> > you may well understand! Or is bringing this up somehow a way for you to
> > touch those good old days and not get in trouble with the little miss?
> > Perhaps it explains your sudden neediness for civility? Maybe things
> > aren't all quiet on the western front? Hmmmm?
> >
>
> Well, a boy never keeps things too quiet.
>
> But thanks for asking.
>
> Here is a little pic of him that was taken last year:
> http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/shaunlane.htm
Cute kid.
> And, of the three of us together several years ago at my mom's house:
> http://elearn.mtsac.edu/dlane/mybaby.htm
So who does shaun live with now days?
arelurker
It's not a matter of my beliefs, it is a matter of Pauls and Harold's
beliefs that are documented and make up the dogma of eckankar. You
eckists are licking a becoming flavored Ice cream cone and don't even
know it.
No I'll tell you that you probably went out and bought "Buddhism for
Dummies" so you could act like you know something and parrot it here.
But Lurk knows you're a poser.
> What's the point? You will only build on what you believe,
> all others answers are not going to get through to you.
The point is, most eckist have a very strong becoming consciousness
because eckankar has a very strong becoming dogma and a teacher is
selling his becoming viewpoints because he still hasn't arrived anywhere
except grandiosity land. Harold has totally missed the point. It is
obvious in his prattle he writes.
>
> > I'd explain about sitting still in
> > > silence, and letting go but you'd find something to bitch about in the
> > > act of sitting down on a pillow! <sigh>
> >
> > You can explain sitting all you want. That doesn't negate the main
> > thrust of the eckankar being a path of becoming and higher and higher,
> > one more step, keep the discourses flowing, higher initiations, etc.
>
> Well let's hope no one tells you that there's no becoming if you're
> already there.
Eckists don't talk like this...give me a break.
If you're already there, you would walk away from eckankar. Duh.
Cher, you're an inauthentic person. Gawd, for once just admit you don't know.
> I wouldn't want to confuse you with this externalized
> imagining of this path.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> > > > > > > in the process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
> > > > > > becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
> > > > > > they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gas?
> > > >
> > > > No fear.
> > >
> > > Ah... that great lurk humor fails to surface once again. <grin>
> >
> > I was expressing personal stuff about myself and you wanted to make a
> > joke out of it. Are you uncomfortable when I talk about personal stuff?
>
> Is that part of the character description? Let me know, as the script
> hasn't come in the mail yet... I'm just playing this one by ear!
You didn't answer my question: Are you uncomfortable when I talk about
my personal experiences?
That's because you're a fake. You reveal what you're beliefs are in your
responses and when I point them out and characterize them as bush league
spiritual stuff, you suddenly, like a politician, change your views.
Lurk
cher
Maybe we don't know it, because it isn't true? Because you have it all
wrong? Hmmmm?
I had no idea they had a Buddhism for Dummies available. So what did you
think of it?
> > What's the point? You will only build on what you believe,
> > all others answers are not going to get through to you.
>
> The point is, most eckist have a very strong becoming consciousness
> because eckankar has a very strong becoming dogma and a teacher is
> selling his becoming viewpoints because he still hasn't arrived anywhere
> except grandiosity land. Harold has totally missed the point. It is
> obvious in his prattle he writes.
Well I tell you what, lurk. When you can firm up these beliefs of yours
in some manner other than by comparision to what you think another path
is teaching then let me know. As it stands, your interst in Buddhism
seems too mired in your biases against the path of Eckankar to be pure
much less practiced. But then when someone lives to feed a bias, every
topic becomes new fodder for comparion. Just the way the mental
addiction runs its course.
> >
> > > I'd explain about sitting still in
> > > > silence, and letting go but you'd find something to bitch about in the
> > > > act of sitting down on a pillow! <sigh>
> > >
> > > You can explain sitting all you want. That doesn't negate the main
> > > thrust of the eckankar being a path of becoming and higher and higher,
> > > one more step, keep the discourses flowing, higher initiations, etc.
> >
> > Well let's hope no one tells you that there's no becoming if you're
> > already there.
>
> Eckists don't talk like this...give me a break.
Oh really? Can you prove this to me? I wouldn't want to argue with such
an expert as yourself on the subject. <chuckling>
> If you're already there, you would walk away from eckankar. Duh.
Is that your measure then? tsk...
> Cher, you're an inauthentic person. Gawd, for once just admit you don't know.
Hey.... you can have any opinion you need to get you through the day!
You never bother conversing with me anyway... but that projection of
yours sure gets a work out here!
> > I wouldn't want to confuse you with this externalized
> > imagining of this path.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> > > > > > > > in the process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
> > > > > > > becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
> > > > > > > they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gas?
> > > > >
> > > > > No fear.
> > > >
> > > > Ah... that great lurk humor fails to surface once again. <grin>
> > >
> > > I was expressing personal stuff about myself and you wanted to make a
> > > joke out of it. Are you uncomfortable when I talk about personal stuff?
> >
> > Is that part of the character description? Let me know, as the script
> > hasn't come in the mail yet... I'm just playing this one by ear!
>
> You didn't answer my question: Are you uncomfortable when I talk about
> my personal experiences?
No. <sigh>
Change my views to what, lurk? Where? You have a fixed concept of me,
and when I don't play by your rules, you freak out. I'm thinking that
you probably learned this spending your paycheck on 1-800-girlfriend.
<sigh> If you don't understand what I say, then ask... stop telling me
what I really mean according to your opinion of me. But that's beginner
stuff....
arelurker
I have their documented beliefs all wrong. That's not a very smart
question on your part. Anyone can read them.
I made it up for you. It seemed appropriate to your responses.
>
> > > What's the point? You will only build on what you believe,
> > > all others answers are not going to get through to you.
> >
> > The point is, most eckist have a very strong becoming consciousness
> > because eckankar has a very strong becoming dogma and a teacher is
> > selling his becoming viewpoints because he still hasn't arrived anywhere
> > except grandiosity land. Harold has totally missed the point. It is
> > obvious in his prattle he writes.
>
> Well I tell you what, lurk. When you can firm up these beliefs of yours
> in some manner other than by comparision to what you think another path
> is teaching then let me know. As it stands, your interst in Buddhism
> seems too mired in your biases against the path of Eckankar to be pure
> much less practiced.
I have no interest in Buddhism. I told you I kill Buddha on the road
before I read him.
But then when someone lives to feed a bias, every
> topic becomes new fodder for comparion. Just the way the mental
> addiction runs its course.
Cher I don't know what else to say except you are over your head.
>
> > >
> > > > I'd explain about sitting still in
> > > > > silence, and letting go but you'd find something to bitch about in the
> > > > > act of sitting down on a pillow! <sigh>
> > > >
> > > > You can explain sitting all you want. That doesn't negate the main
> > > > thrust of the eckankar being a path of becoming and higher and higher,
> > > > one more step, keep the discourses flowing, higher initiations, etc.
> > >
> > > Well let's hope no one tells you that there's no becoming if you're
> > > already there.
> >
> > Eckists don't talk like this...give me a break.
>
> Oh really? Can you prove this to me?
Check the archives. Most of the writing by eckists here is delusional
utterances about getting higher and higher just like Harji. <gag> What a farce.
> I wouldn't want to argue with such
> an expert as yourself on the subject. <chuckling>
True, you would want to argue with me because your feeble little mind is
no match.
>
> > If you're already there, you would walk away from eckankar. Duh.
>
> Is that your measure then? tsk...
Yes, if you're already there, you wouldn't support such a joke as Harold
and eckankar. Believe me.
>
> > Cher, you're an inauthentic person. Gawd, for once just admit you don't know.
>
> Hey.... you can have any opinion you need to get you through the day!
> You never bother conversing with me anyway... but that projection of
> yours sure gets a work out here!
I keep repeating this line about you not knowing because you keep acting
like you know something and you obviously don't. What not be what you
are? A poser. Acknowledging and being a poser is a good start to your
being authentic. You got to start from where you are, right?
>
> > > I wouldn't want to confuse you with this externalized
> > > imagining of this path.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's easy to see you're deeply invested
> > > > > > > > > in the process.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am deeply invested in being aware of what arises in me. Sometimes
> > > > > > > > becoming urges arise in me and I observe them and see them for what
> > > > > > > > they are. Sometimes I see hope arise in me and I see if for what it is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gas?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No fear.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah... that great lurk humor fails to surface once again. <grin>
> > > >
> > > > I was expressing personal stuff about myself and you wanted to make a
> > > > joke out of it. Are you uncomfortable when I talk about personal stuff?
> > >
> > > Is that part of the character description? Let me know, as the script
> > > hasn't come in the mail yet... I'm just playing this one by ear!
> >
> > You didn't answer my question: Are you uncomfortable when I talk about
> > my personal experiences?
>
> No. <sigh>
Then why do you make a joke when I do talk about my personal experiences?
Again, you reveal your beliefs when you respond to my comments and then
backtrack when you realize you're unwittingly pushing the standard
eckankar becoming agenda.
Just more poser stuff.
Lurk
arelurker
Bless you child.
Lurk
cher
it that details only matter when it's you interested in them? But you
won't even give us your name! You want your opinion to count for more
than a persons religion, and you won't even give people your name!
LOL..... Keep your blessings..... no one needs a ghost in the group....
to know which way the winds blow.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> The same sort of pain that david is in? Or you? Or gary? Or ford? Why is
> it that details only matter when it's you interested in them?
Cher, it is not necessary to try to justify your pain. How about simply
acknowledging it and maybe....just maybe, you'll experience the power of
standing in the truth of that pain, and you won't feel compelled,
consciously or unconsciously, to dump your pain on others.
Lurk
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > The same sort of pain that david is in? Or you? Or gary? Or ford? Why is
> > it that details only matter when it's you interested in them?
>
> Cher, it is not necessary to try to justify your pain. How about simply
> acknowledging it and maybe....just maybe, you'll experience the power of
> standing in the truth of that pain, and you won't feel compelled,
> consciously or unconsciously, to dump your pain on others.
You ignore the part about not using your name, but demanding your
opinions be held higher in peoples lives then their religion. <smile>
Fits the profile, lurk. Seriously fits the profile. As pain..... let's
see if you can explain to me why this is my pain when I ask direct
questions of your beloved leader david lane, but its critical thinking
when you ask such questions? What sort of disconnection is this lurk?
See.... david has made a life of digging up whatever he can to expose
certain people in this lifetime, but has this childish viewpoint that
this shouldn't effect his life personally in any manner. Well truth be
known, he's a far more interesting public figure then most of the people
he's ivestigated. So what is it that you're defending here lurk? Why is
it david needs protection from exposure? If he lives in a glass house,
he should learn somehthing new besides throwing stones.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > The same sort of pain that david is in? Or you? Or gary? Or ford? Why is
> > > it that details only matter when it's you interested in them?
> >
> > Cher, it is not necessary to try to justify your pain. How about simply
> > acknowledging it and maybe....just maybe, you'll experience the power of
> > standing in the truth of that pain, and you won't feel compelled,
> > consciously or unconsciously, to dump your pain on others.
>
> You ignore the part about not using your name, but demanding your
> opinions be held higher in peoples lives then their religion. <smile>
I ignored that part about my name because it is irrelevant. So you hear
my words as a demand? I wonder why that is?
> Fits the profile, lurk. Seriously fits the profile. As pain..... let's
> see if you can explain to me why this is my pain when I ask direct
> questions of your beloved leader david lane, but its critical thinking
> when you ask such questions?
Cher you need to answer that question for yourself. I can't point you in
the direction of your pain, but you have got to do the work.
Cher, you don't particular like it when people make comments about your
husband dying, etc. and I have spoken up against that as being over the
top. Now, I'm speaking up and letting you know your being over the top.
But I'm sure you'll argue about it endlessly and try to justify your behavior.
Lurk
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > arelurker wrote:
> > >
> > > cher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The same sort of pain that david is in? Or you? Or gary? Or ford? Why is
> > > > it that details only matter when it's you interested in them?
> > >
> > > Cher, it is not necessary to try to justify your pain. How about simply
> > > acknowledging it and maybe....just maybe, you'll experience the power of
> > > standing in the truth of that pain, and you won't feel compelled,
> > > consciously or unconsciously, to dump your pain on others.
> >
> > You ignore the part about not using your name, but demanding your
> > opinions be held higher in peoples lives then their religion. <smile>
>
> I ignored that part about my name because it is irrelevant. So you hear
> my words as a demand? I wonder why that is?
Gee.... maybe it's the hissy fits you throw when people don't take you
seriously! Ya' think? <smile>
> > Fits the profile, lurk. Seriously fits the profile. As pain..... let's
> > see if you can explain to me why this is my pain when I ask direct
> > questions of your beloved leader david lane, but its critical thinking
> > when you ask such questions?
>
> Cher you need to answer that question for yourself. I can't point you in
> the direction of your pain, but you have got to do the work.
lurk.... I realize that you find this funny to badger people in this
abusive manner.... but frankly you couldn't answer for anyone. That's
the saddest part of all....
> Cher, you don't particular like it when people make comments about your
> husband dying, etc. and I have spoken up against that as being over the
> top. Now, I'm speaking up and letting you know your being over the top.
Over the top by asking if david is still married? What would you do if
we tracked down his marriage license? Or his divorce papers? How about
his educational information? Public record. I didn't ask him anything
that wasn't public record. That's not the same thing as asking someone
if their husband killed himself to get away from you. Trust me, lurk...
there's a world of difference here. If david wants to dig into someone
elses life for details, then he should be willing to accept the
experience first hand.
> But I'm sure you'll argue about it endlessly and try to justify your behavior.
I don't need to justify this, lurk. I have no problem with david being
ashamed of his behavior. Frankly these bits and pieces as to why he
can't get access to his documents are beginning to make sense. It
explains why his former lawyer is his former lawyer! If you can't handle
seeing your beloved master questioned in an honest and straight forward
manner, then that's your problem. I still say this is a true disconnect
in you, man. You're talk about critical thinking here is just bull.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > arelurker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > cher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The same sort of pain that david is in? Or you? Or gary? Or ford? Why is
> > > > > it that details only matter when it's you interested in them?
> > > >
> > > > Cher, it is not necessary to try to justify your pain. How about simply
> > > > acknowledging it and maybe....just maybe, you'll experience the power of
> > > > standing in the truth of that pain, and you won't feel compelled,
> > > > consciously or unconsciously, to dump your pain on others.
> > >
> > > You ignore the part about not using your name, but demanding your
> > > opinions be held higher in peoples lives then their religion. <smile>
> >
> > I ignored that part about my name because it is irrelevant. So you hear
> > my words as a demand? I wonder why that is?
>
> Gee.... maybe it's the hissy fits you throw when people don't take you
> seriously! Ya' think? <smile>
Wrong answer. Why do you hear my words as a demand? Who is doing the
demanding Cher?
>
> > > Fits the profile, lurk. Seriously fits the profile. As pain..... let's
> > > see if you can explain to me why this is my pain when I ask direct
> > > questions of your beloved leader david lane, but its critical thinking
> > > when you ask such questions?
> >
> > Cher you need to answer that question for yourself. I can't point you in
> > the direction of your pain, but you have got to do the work.
>
> lurk.... I realize that you find this funny to badger people in this
> abusive manner....
Cher I'm not joking nor am I badgering you. I'm helping you become aware
of your pain that you dump on people with your over the top "questions."
but frankly you couldn't answer for anyone. That's
> the saddest part of all....
>
> > Cher, you don't particular like it when people make comments about your
> > husband dying, etc. and I have spoken up against that as being over the
> > top. Now, I'm speaking up and letting you know your being over the top.
>
> Over the top by asking if david is still married?
Is that the question you feel I think is over the top? Try again, look
at all your questions.
What would you do if
> we tracked down his marriage license? Or his divorce papers? How about
> his educational information? Public record. I didn't ask him anything
> that wasn't public record. That's not the same thing as asking someone
> if their husband killed himself to get away from you.
This question about your husband is over the top Cher just like some of your
questions to Lane are over the top.
Trust me, lurk...
> there's a world of difference here. If david wants to dig into someone
> elses life for details, then he should be willing to accept the
> experience first hand.
Just as I predicted...you'll try to justify this endlessly.
>
> > But I'm sure you'll argue about it endlessly and try to justify your behavior.
>
> I don't need to justify this, lurk.
That's what you're trying to do above.
I have no problem with david being
> ashamed of his behavior. Frankly these bits and pieces as to why he
> can't get access to his documents are beginning to make sense. It
> explains why his former lawyer is his former lawyer! If you can't handle
> seeing your beloved master questioned in an honest and straight forward
> manner, then that's your problem. I still say this is a true disconnect
> in you, man. You're talk about critical thinking here is just bull.
I can see you truly don't know the difference between critical questions
and over the top ones. That's a trait of people who are damaged and deep
in pain. Cher, you are damaged and dump your pain on people. That pretty
much sums up most of your posts to critics here.
I understand Lane wrote an unflattering book about eckankar, but what
you eckists don't understand is as soon as you try to dump you pain and
anger on the messenger, you are sentencing yourself to live in a
disempowered scheme where there is no completion or healing, because you
place to source of healing your pain on Lane or other critics.
Your over the top questions are and expression of you disempowerment.
You might as well put a sign around your neck that says "Hi I'm Cher,
and I don't take responsibility for my pain, I feel powerless and would
like to dump it on you so I don't have to feel my pain anymore" This is
the message contained in many of your posts here.
To put in your terms: Lane humanized himself by revealing personal
information and you try to take that information dehumanize him because
you really really NEED someone to demonize....someone to be a repository
for all your self hatred.
It would be worthwhile for you to seriously look at this.
Lurk
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > arelurker wrote:
> > >
> > > cher wrote:
> > > >
> > > > arelurker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > cher wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same sort of pain that david is in? Or you? Or gary? Or ford? Why is
> > > > > > it that details only matter when it's you interested in them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cher, it is not necessary to try to justify your pain. How about simply
> > > > > acknowledging it and maybe....just maybe, you'll experience the power of
> > > > > standing in the truth of that pain, and you won't feel compelled,
> > > > > consciously or unconsciously, to dump your pain on others.
> > > >
> > > > You ignore the part about not using your name, but demanding your
> > > > opinions be held higher in peoples lives then their religion. <smile>
> > >
> > > I ignored that part about my name because it is irrelevant. So you hear
> > > my words as a demand? I wonder why that is?
> >
> > Gee.... maybe it's the hissy fits you throw when people don't take you
> > seriously! Ya' think? <smile>
>
> Wrong answer. Why do you hear my words as a demand? Who is doing the
> demanding Cher?
Last time I looked, it was you lurk. In fact the archives are filled
with your hissy fits demanding people take you and your questions
seriously. And when they don't you badger them and attack them
personally until you think you've brought them to their knees with your
psychological abuse and do your sick little strut declaring yourself the
winner of the engagement. It goes like this in every single thread you
participate in. This is why most of the posters here don't even bother
with you any longer. You're on most peoples block sender list because
you're a bombastic obnoxious abusive little man trying to make a noise.
There's nothing sadder in this world then a type A personality armed
only with marginal pop psychology.
> >
> > > > Fits the profile, lurk. Seriously fits the profile. As pain..... let's
> > > > see if you can explain to me why this is my pain when I ask direct
> > > > questions of your beloved leader david lane, but its critical thinking
> > > > when you ask such questions?
> > >
> > > Cher you need to answer that question for yourself. I can't point you in
> > > the direction of your pain, but you have got to do the work.
> >
> > lurk.... I realize that you find this funny to badger people in this
> > abusive manner....
>
> Cher I'm not joking nor am I badgering you. I'm helping you become aware
> of your pain that you dump on people with your over the top "questions."
Massa lurk, hey? LOL... It does appear to be you here attempting to come
to david lane's defense. And frankly if it looks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck... well... you figure it out! Of course asking david about
his marriage on usenet is so personally threatening, such an invasion of
privacy in your eyes... but you're willing to psycho-analyize me in
public to help me along? LOL.... get real little boy! It's time you grew
up! David lane is a public figure! And as such his privacy is limited to
that of a public figure. The public has a right to know and a right to
ask. See if you can figure this one out, okay? Take your time... it's a
lot to digest.
> but frankly you couldn't answer for anyone. That's
> > the saddest part of all....
> >
> > > Cher, you don't particular like it when people make comments about your
> > > husband dying, etc. and I have spoken up against that as being over the
> > > top. Now, I'm speaking up and letting you know your being over the top.
> >
> > Over the top by asking if david is still married?
>
> Is that the question you feel I think is over the top? Try again, look
> at all your questions.
No... I'm not into the mind game, lurk. You don't have the equiptment to
play properly.
> What would you do if
> > we tracked down his marriage license? Or his divorce papers? How about
> > his educational information? Public record. I didn't ask him anything
> > that wasn't public record. That's not the same thing as asking someone
> > if their husband killed himself to get away from you.
>
> This question about your husband is over the top Cher just like some of your
> questions to Lane are over the top.
Okay... so we've established you didn't like what I asked david lane.
And your point is? OR are you attempting to ellicite compassion from me
for david based on the verbal abuse from detractors on this group?
<chuckle> Sorry lurk... that's funny. Nope... lane is a public figure.
He's open to this sort of questioning. If he can't stand the heat, he
should get out of the kitchen. Plain and simple. So nope.... sympathy
isn't going to work in this regard. <grin>
> Trust me, lurk...
> > there's a world of difference here. If david wants to dig into someone
> > elses life for details, then he should be willing to accept the
> > experience first hand.
>
> Just as I predicted...you'll try to justify this endlessly.
Oh... you mean you wanted the last word on this issue? LOL..... Like
that's freakin anything new with you. You'll beat this thread into the
ground stating who I am and why I'm doing what I'm doing.... til you
honestly believe that you've worn me down enough to let you win. Not a
pretty picture lurk. Bullying people into submission isn't winning....
it's losing. It's proving how small your mind really is!
> >
> > > But I'm sure you'll argue about it endlessly and try to justify your behavior.
> >
> > I don't need to justify this, lurk.
>
> That's what you're trying to do above.
>
> I have no problem with david being
> > ashamed of his behavior. Frankly these bits and pieces as to why he
> > can't get access to his documents are beginning to make sense. It
> > explains why his former lawyer is his former lawyer! If you can't handle
> > seeing your beloved master questioned in an honest and straight forward
> > manner, then that's your problem. I still say this is a true disconnect
> > in you, man. You're talk about critical thinking here is just bull.
>
> I can see you truly don't know the difference between critical questions
> and over the top ones. That's a trait of people who are damaged and deep
> in pain. Cher, you are damaged and dump your pain on people. That pretty
> much sums up most of your posts to critics here.
Pot kettle black. I'm asking lane uncomfortable questions. These
questions show a relationship between the values he uses to judge those
he writes exposes about and the values he actually has some experience
using in his personal life. There should not be two sets of values here.
So this means that there is a bias at work, and not a basis of critical
thought alone. He gives his students this lecture at the beginning of
every semester stating that he wants to be asked the hard questions,
that he wants them to ripe his class apart and put it back together
again. Well if he can't take it, he should find a different mask to wear
in this lifetime. David has his television interviews on his web site,
lurk. He's vested in being a public figure... he thrives on it! He has
to learn to deal with it. That's entertainment, lurk. And he's a public
figure. He's made himself a public figure.
> I understand Lane wrote an unflattering book about eckankar, but what
> you eckists don't understand is as soon as you try to dump you pain and
> anger on the messenger, you are sentencing yourself to live in a
> disempowered scheme where there is no completion or healing, because you
> place to source of healing your pain on Lane or other critics.
You ECKists? You suddenly go from freaking out over what I say to the
entire body of ECKists? You are so predictable, lurk. So I wonder... why
is it that all ECKists have the same psychological profile according to
you? See... there's no rational for this that won't fit just as easily
on every detractor. But that will never happen. <smile> So your attempt
to turn this onto me won't hold water.... the test of any situation is
this: does it hold true for others? When we flip this scenerio around
what i see here is that there's one set of rules for david lane and the
detractors, and another set of rules for so called Eckists. And that's a
bright red light that you're not being honest here.
> Your over the top questions are and expression of you disempowerment.
> You might as well put a sign around your neck that says "Hi I'm Cher,
> and I don't take responsibility for my pain, I feel powerless and would
> like to dump it on you so I don't have to feel my pain anymore" This is
> the message contained in many of your posts here.
blah blah blah.... lurk tries to analyse someone according to his
anticult psychological profile of cult members. One size fits millions
and explains it all so that little lurk can feel like he knows more than
anyone else. LOL..... there's a sucker born every minute, and the
anticult community is a sucker magnet! <grin>
> To put in your terms: Lane humanized himself by revealing personal
> information and you try to take that information dehumanize him because
> you really really NEED someone to demonize....someone to be a repository
> for all your self hatred.
Your standard drum song. But the reality of this moment is that you are
defending david lane in a more personal manner then any ECKist has ever
defended Paul Twitchell. And beyond this? You're attempting to make this
disappear with a wave of your hand. Why are you so deeply threatened
when david lane is asked uncomfortable questions? What would you do if
he ended up on the cover of the national enquirer? Just look at the
stars and what little privacy they have. David chose to be a public
figure... and frankly he's as vulnerable to these sorts of questions as
anyone he tries to expose! That's just reality. Paint it any color you
want to, you can't change the fact that david is a public figure!
> It would be worthwhile for you to seriously look at this.
Grab your ankles, lurk... cowboy up! But you can point at me all day
long, it won't change the reality that lane attacks spiritual paths and
religions, and then expects them to play by spiritual rules which he
doesn't abide by. Well that doesn't work in the world of public figures.
Nope... that just doesn't work with public figures. david lane makes up
the rules to protect himself, but has no respect for those he
investigates. He cries like a girl when someone plays hard ball with
him. He actually needs someone like you to come here and take up his
fight because he can't deal with the same level of stuff he dishes out
to others. Well in my eyes that is hardly worthy of respect. He's far
from civil with anyone he investigates... and yet wants others to treat
him in a gentlemanly fashion. Not in this century, lurk. This is the era
of michael jackson and britney spears! Get with the program there boy!
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > arelurker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > cher wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > arelurker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cher wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The same sort of pain that david is in? Or you? Or gary? Or ford? Why is
> > > > > > > it that details only matter when it's you interested in them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cher, it is not necessary to try to justify your pain. How about simply
> > > > > > acknowledging it and maybe....just maybe, you'll experience the power of
> > > > > > standing in the truth of that pain, and you won't feel compelled,
> > > > > > consciously or unconsciously, to dump your pain on others.
> > > > >
> > > > > You ignore the part about not using your name, but demanding your
> > > > > opinions be held higher in peoples lives then their religion. <smile>
> > > >
> > > > I ignored that part about my name because it is irrelevant. So you hear
> > > > my words as a demand? I wonder why that is?
> > >
> > > Gee.... maybe it's the hissy fits you throw when people don't take you
> > > seriously! Ya' think? <smile>
> >
> > Wrong answer. Why do you hear my words as a demand? Who is doing the
> > demanding Cher?
>
> Last time I looked, it was you lurk.
Show me what comments in the above you consider demanding. I would suggest
you can't find any, so the demanding that is going on is your own inner
critic that tortures you so.
In fact the archives are filled
> with your hissy fits demanding people take you and your questions
> seriously. And when they don't you badger them and attack them
> personally until you think you've brought them to their knees with your
> psychological abuse and do your sick little strut declaring yourself the
> winner of the engagement.
It is no surprise that you feel and think this way since this is how you
behave here sweety.
It goes like this in every single thread you
> participate in. This is why most of the posters here don't even bother
> with you any longer. You're on most peoples block sender list because
> you're a bombastic obnoxious abusive little man trying to make a noise.
> There's nothing sadder in this world then a type A personality armed
> only with marginal pop psychology.
The point is, you said I was demanding and I really wasn't. So maybe you
should own your demanding interpretations, eh? It was be a start....it
will be good for your tortured soul.
>
> > >
> > > > > Fits the profile, lurk. Seriously fits the profile. As pain..... let's
> > > > > see if you can explain to me why this is my pain when I ask direct
> > > > > questions of your beloved leader david lane, but its critical thinking
> > > > > when you ask such questions?
> > > >
> > > > Cher you need to answer that question for yourself. I can't point you in
> > > > the direction of your pain, but you have got to do the work.
> > >
> > > lurk.... I realize that you find this funny to badger people in this
> > > abusive manner....
> >
> > Cher I'm not joking nor am I badgering you. I'm helping you become aware
> > of your pain that you dump on people with your over the top "questions."
>
> Massa lurk, hey? LOL... It does appear to be you here attempting to come
> to david lane's defense.
I would do the same thing if it was someone else. Over the top is over
the top. Remember, I came to YOUR defense with over the top comments.
And frankly if it looks like a duck, and quacks
> like a duck... well... you figure it out! Of course asking david about
> his marriage on usenet is so personally threatening, such an invasion of
> privacy in your eyes... but you're willing to psycho-analyize me in
> public to help me along? LOL.... get real little boy! It's time you grew
> up! David lane is a public figure! And as such his privacy is limited to
> that of a public figure. The public has a right to know and a right to
> ask. See if you can figure this one out, okay? Take your time... it's a
> lot to digest.
I predicted you would endlessly try to justify your over the top
questions. I'm a psychic.
>
> > but frankly you couldn't answer for anyone. That's
> > > the saddest part of all....
> > >
> > > > Cher, you don't particular like it when people make comments about your
> > > > husband dying, etc. and I have spoken up against that as being over the
> > > > top. Now, I'm speaking up and letting you know your being over the top.
> > >
> > > Over the top by asking if david is still married?
> >
> > Is that the question you feel I think is over the top? Try again, look
> > at all your questions.
>
> No... I'm not into the mind game, lurk. You don't have the equiptment to
> play properly.
C'mon cher, you know which questions are over the top.
>
> > What would you do if
> > > we tracked down his marriage license? Or his divorce papers? How about
> > > his educational information? Public record. I didn't ask him anything
> > > that wasn't public record. That's not the same thing as asking someone
> > > if their husband killed himself to get away from you.
> >
> > This question about your husband is over the top Cher just like some of your
> > questions to Lane are over the top.
>
> Okay... so we've established you didn't like what I asked david lane.
> And your point is?
They're over the top questions and an expression of your pain....the
pain you frequently dump on people here.
> OR are you attempting to ellicite compassion from me
> for david based on the verbal abuse from detractors on this group?
No. How about compassion for yourself by dealing with your pain.
> <chuckle> Sorry lurk... that's funny. Nope... lane is a public figure.
> He's open to this sort of questioning. If he can't stand the heat, he
> should get out of the kitchen. Plain and simple. So nope.... sympathy
> isn't going to work in this regard. <grin>
Lane can take care of himself...obviously. Again, you fall back to
trying to justify your over the top questions.
>
> > Trust me, lurk...
> > > there's a world of difference here. If david wants to dig into someone
> > > elses life for details, then he should be willing to accept the
> > > experience first hand.
> >
> > Just as I predicted...you'll try to justify this endlessly.
>
> Oh... you mean you wanted the last word on this issue?
I'm characterizing your responses as rationalizations for your over the
top questions.
LOL..... Like
> that's freakin anything new with you. You'll beat this thread into the
> ground stating who I am and why I'm doing what I'm doing.... til you
> honestly believe that you've worn me down enough to let you win. Not a
> pretty picture lurk. Bullying people into submission isn't winning....
> it's losing.
Just as asking your over the top questions means you losing....losing in
the sense that your deal with you pain by trying to dump it on others.
> It's proving how small your mind really is!
>
> > >
> > > > But I'm sure you'll argue about it endlessly and try to justify your behavior.
> > >
> > > I don't need to justify this, lurk.
> >
> > That's what you're trying to do above.
> >
> > I have no problem with david being
> > > ashamed of his behavior. Frankly these bits and pieces as to why he
> > > can't get access to his documents are beginning to make sense. It
> > > explains why his former lawyer is his former lawyer! If you can't handle
> > > seeing your beloved master questioned in an honest and straight forward
> > > manner, then that's your problem. I still say this is a true disconnect
> > > in you, man. You're talk about critical thinking here is just bull.
> >
> > I can see you truly don't know the difference between critical questions
> > and over the top ones. That's a trait of people who are damaged and deep
> > in pain. Cher, you are damaged and dump your pain on people. That pretty
> > much sums up most of your posts to critics here.
>
> Pot kettle black. I'm asking lane uncomfortable questions. These
> questions show a relationship between the values he uses to judge those
> he writes exposes about and the values he actually has some experience
> using in his personal life. There should not be two sets of values here.
Cher is trying a new angle, a new rationalization for asking her over
the top questions.
> So this means that there is a bias at work, and not a basis of critical
> thought alone. He gives his students this lecture at the beginning of
> every semester stating that he wants to be asked the hard questions,
> that he wants them to ripe his class apart and put it back together
> again. Well if he can't take it, he should find a different mask to wear
> in this lifetime. David has his television interviews on his web site,
> lurk. He's vested in being a public figure... he thrives on it! He has
> to learn to deal with it. That's entertainment, lurk. And he's a public
> figure. He's made himself a public figure.
Notice Cher is trying really really hard to justify her behavior. That
means she knows deep down she made a mistake and went too far. She is
trying to convince herself as well as us so she won't feel compelled to
bear herself up.
>
> > I understand Lane wrote an unflattering book about eckankar, but what
> > you eckists don't understand is as soon as you try to dump you pain and
> > anger on the messenger, you are sentencing yourself to live in a
> > disempowered scheme where there is no completion or healing, because you
> > place to source of healing your pain on Lane or other critics.
>
> You ECKists?
Yes, you are not the first nor the last eckists to dump your pain on the
messenger. You happen to be one of the more obnoxious acting eckists
here to do so lately.
> You suddenly go from freaking out over what I say to the
> entire body of ECKists?
I couldn't be referring to the entire body of eckist because the entire
body of eckists do not know about Lane's book. Of course that is
changing with Ford's book.
You are so predictable, lurk. So I wonder... why
> is it that all ECKists have the same psychological profile according to
> you?
You start with a false interpretation and premise and carry on like a
lunatic about it.
See... there's no rational for this that won't fit just as easily
> on every detractor. But that will never happen. <smile> So your attempt
> to turn this onto me won't hold water.... the test of any situation is
> this: does it hold true for others? When we flip this scenerio around
> what i see here is that there's one set of rules for david lane and the
> detractors, and another set of rules for so called Eckists. And that's a
> bright red light that you're not being honest here.
You managed to confound yourself here.
>
> > Your over the top questions are and expression of you disempowerment.
> > You might as well put a sign around your neck that says "Hi I'm Cher,
> > and I don't take responsibility for my pain, I feel powerless and would
> > like to dump it on you so I don't have to feel my pain anymore" This is
> > the message contained in many of your posts here.
>
> blah blah blah.... lurk tries to analyse someone according to his
> anticult psychological profile of cult members. One size fits millions
> and explains it all so that little lurk can feel like he knows more than
> anyone else. LOL..... there's a sucker born every minute, and the
> anticult community is a sucker magnet! <grin>
Cher babbles about anticult community when you knows my comments are
correct and can't think of anything else to counter them. That's simply
a diversionary tactic to take the spot light away from her pain and how
she tries to dump in on people here day after day.
>
> > To put in your terms: Lane humanized himself by revealing personal
> > information and you try to take that information dehumanize him because
> > you really really NEED someone to demonize....someone to be a repository
> > for all your self hatred.
>
> Your standard drum song. But the reality of this moment is that you are
> defending david lane in a more personal manner then any ECKist has ever
> defended Paul Twitchell. And beyond this? You're attempting to make this
> disappear with a wave of your hand. Why are you so deeply threatened
> when david lane is asked uncomfortable questions?
Cher I was clear why I spoke up. I spoke up for the same reason I spoke
up about someone commenting about your husband death. I think it is over
the top. Just as you would like people to consider refraining from such
mean spirited personal questions about your dead husband, I would like
you to consider refraining from such over the top questions. How about it?
What would you do if
> he ended up on the cover of the national enquirer? Just look at the
> stars and what little privacy they have. David chose to be a public
> figure... and frankly he's as vulnerable to these sorts of questions as
> anyone he tries to expose! That's just reality. Paint it any color you
> want to, you can't change the fact that david is a public figure!
Cher, I think if you keep repeating this rationalizing another ten times
it is not going to change the fact that you asked some over the top
questions and you like to dump your pain on people.
>
> > It would be worthwhile for you to seriously look at this.
>
> Grab your ankles, lurk... cowboy up! But you can point at me all day
> long, it won't change the reality that lane attacks spiritual paths and
> religions,
You see, you inadvertently are getting to the core of your
problem....you feel attacked by Lane for writing his book and therefore
feel justified in attacking him by asking over the top questions.
and then expects them to play by spiritual rules which he
> doesn't abide by.
Lane was attacked by eckankar and threatened to be sued when doing a
college term paper. Lane's school mate was attacked by eckankar. Lane
wrote a book about eckankar that is held up even to this day. Eckankar
has threatened to sue his publisher and prevented the truth from being
distributed to libraries.
Well that doesn't work in the world of public figures.
> Nope... that just doesn't work with public figures. david lane makes up
> the rules to protect himself, but has no respect for those he
> investigates. He cries like a girl when someone plays hard ball with
> him.
Now you're imagining things.
He actually needs someone like you to come here and take up his
> fight because he can't deal with the same level of stuff he dishes out
> to others.
Yeah right Cher. Lane has asserted himself and his opinions more than
adequately with the rabid eckists here and has done so with honor and grace.
> Well in my eyes that is hardly worthy of respect. He's far
> from civil with anyone he investigates.
Huh? You're rambling off the deep end here.
.. and yet wants others to treat
> him in a gentlemanly fashion. Not in this century, lurk. This is the era
> of michael jackson and britney spears! Get with the program there boy!
Keep trying to justify. The more you do the more you reveal how guilty
you feel about your over the top comments and your dumping your pain on people.
Lurk
cher
feet and needs the likes of lurk to come to his defense. How
predictable. Oh well....
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Examples of lurk being stubborn and ignorant. Too bad his hero has clay
> feet and needs the likes of lurk to come to his defense.
The point is, I'm sure your husband had clay feet.... should that give
someone the green light to ask over the top questions about you killing him?
I'm sure none of my comments will have any impact on you and you'll
continue to dump your pain. Oh well, life goes on, and Cher makes
eckankar look bad. She follows in the footsteps of a tradition in
eckankar of treating critics of eckankar poorly.
I guess after Harold has his narcissistic meltdown and eckankar crumbles
to the ground, you'll be force to look at you pain.
Lurk
cher
these things everyday, cause you say them here constantly! <smile>
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Dude... you just keep convincing yourself. Apparently you need to hear
> these things everyday, cause you say them here constantly! <smile>
I talk about your pain here everyday because that is what you exude in
your posts.
Lurk
cher
discussion, lurk. It's no great secret.... you're an abusive creep. The
thing you don't understand is that everyone here knows this as a fact!
Deal with it. <smile>
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> You talk about my pain bcause you have nothing intelligent to add to the
> discussion, lurk.
You know that is not true. I add a unique perspective to the issues
raised here. Often your posts come from a place of pain and the only
authentic response, in my mind, is to point it out. You are obviously
among the walking wounded.
Lurk
cher
who disagrees with you is a member of the walking wounded. And you
always point out that you are of course important in comparison to the
one you're putting down. <smile>
You know, if you truly wanted to be respected, you could start by ending
this viscious need to demonize anyone who disagrees with you. Seriously,
intelligent people are confident in their knowledge and don't stoop to
this sort of juvenille tactic constantly. That's why we can see when an
intelligent person gets frustrated with a moron. <smile> It becomes
obvious. You can't fake that as an impression, lurk.... but putting
everyone down. It just doesn't work.
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> Tell us what your really think, lurk. LOL..... Everyone on this group
> who disagrees with you is a member of the walking wounded.
I don't think that is true, nor have I said this. This is your
fabrication, your "all or nothing" thinking at work. For example, I
don't view Ken as part of the wounded...a little slow on the uptake, but
that's different. <g>
And you
> always point out that you are of course important in comparison to the
> one you're putting down. <smile>
When there are competing theories and ideas, mine prevail most often
with eckists here simply because many eckists start out speaking from
their delusions and do not have a chance. What can I say. I've done the
work, have you?
>
> You know, if you truly wanted to be respected, you could start by ending
> this viscious need to demonize anyone who disagrees with you.
You don't get it, I don't expect to be respected here by eckists who
react as though food is being taken out of their mouth when expressing
opinions about Paul and Harold being liars and dishonest.
Seriously,
> intelligent people are confident in their knowledge and don't stoop to
> this sort of juvenille tactic constantly. That's why we can see when an
> intelligent person gets frustrated with a moron. <smile> It becomes
> obvious. You can't fake that as an impression, lurk.... but putting
> everyone down. It just doesn't work.
Cher, I got an exercise for you to do....a little homework. It appears
you're concern about insults that might be contained in my responses to
you. I'll tell you what you do: Read your own responses and tally up the
number of insults contained in your posts for a week. If you need help
identifying them, I'll give you a hand. My impression is that your
insults are second nature and you are not even aware of your insults.
You're so externally identified with eckankar and feel so powerless when
it is critiqued, that the only way you know how to empower yourself is
to lash out with insults one right after the other. Eckists have even
expressed disgust with your demeanor. Yeah, you try to hide your insults
in your rhetorical questions and back handed passive aggressive ways, but
mature people can easily see your tortured mind at play here.
So count up your insults and report back to me.
Lurk
cher
>
> cher wrote:
> >
> > Tell us what your really think, lurk. LOL..... Everyone on this group
> > who disagrees with you is a member of the walking wounded.
>
> I don't think that is true, nor have I said this. This is your
> fabrication, your "all or nothing" thinking at work. For example, I
> don't view Ken as part of the wounded...a little slow on the uptake, but
> that's different. <g>
Then perhaps you could take a look at how many times you use the phrase
"the eckists" or "you eckists" in your writing. You write to the entire
group, you speak of the entire group, you group all eckists into one
group and summarily judge them in every post you send to this newsgroup!
> And you
> > always point out that you are of course important in comparison to the
> > one you're putting down. <smile>
>
> When there are competing theories and ideas, mine prevail most often
> with eckists here simply because many eckists start out speaking from
> their delusions and do not have a chance. What can I say. I've done the
> work, have you?
A legend in your own mind, hey? tsk...... Who's going to measure the
work that I've done? You? I don't think so. LOL.....
> >
> > You know, if you truly wanted to be respected, you could start by ending
> > this viscious need to demonize anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> You don't get it, I don't expect to be respected here by eckists who
> react as though food is being taken out of their mouth when expressing
> opinions about Paul and Harold being liars and dishonest.
So you use defensiveness as an excuse. I've seen many fair and
reasonable responses to you over the years, and I've seen you react to
what you hear in your mind instead of what was being said. I've seen you
stubbornly insist that people accept your viewpoint or accept your
judgment of delusional. Cut and dry, black and white.... Your mind is
made up, and now everyone on the group needs to accept what you say,
period. What you think of anyone or their behavior is nothing but an
opinion, a subjective opinion. And the desire to gossip about that
subjective opinion endlessly has taken on a life for you. Let's be
honest here for a change, lurk... you have more at stake in this
newsgroup then any one of the eckists who post here. You state it daily,
this is where you prove your great mental abilities. This is where you
show the world your mind. What you can't comprehend is that this is all
subjective opinion, and there is no winning on subjective opinion.
> Seriously,
> > intelligent people are confident in their knowledge and don't stoop to
> > this sort of juvenille tactic constantly. That's why we can see when an
> > intelligent person gets frustrated with a moron. <smile> It becomes
> > obvious. You can't fake that as an impression, lurk.... but putting
> > everyone down. It just doesn't work.
>
> Cher, I got an exercise for you to do....a little homework. It appears
> you're concern about insults that might be contained in my responses to
> you. I'll tell you what you do: Read your own responses and tally up the
> number of insults contained in your posts for a week. If you need help
> identifying them, I'll give you a hand. My impression is that your
> insults are second nature and you are not even aware of your insults.
> You're so externally identified with eckankar and feel so powerless when
> it is critiqued, that the only way you know how to empower yourself is
> to lash out with insults one right after the other. Eckists have even
> expressed disgust with your demeanor. Yeah, you try to hide your insults
> in your rhetorical questions and back handed passive aggressive ways, but
> mature people can easily see your tortured mind at play here.
>
> So count up your insults and report back to me.
You guys want to play bitch slap and when you get slapped back, you
whine and point fingers. <sigh> I have an image of Milarepa here....
<smile> Ever had nettle tea? See, social shaming is the bane of teenage
girls, lurk. Fit the mold and be accepted, that's what being a 13 year
old is about. Once you survive that, there's no going back. <grin> I
graduated. What happened to you? Let's see.... you felt ignored by
fellow eckists, not admired for your mighty mind. In fact, once you
learned that one had to drop the mind, that Soul was meant to be the
master not the mind.... you freaked out and walked away. But that wasn't
the end of the story, nope.... you mulled it over in your head til it
became an obsession! A guess what! Here's lurk.... daily trying to prove
that his mundane mind can stand up against any ECKist and win. You win
everyday... you do your little lurkie strut and claim yourself the
winner of every thread. Over and over again, til you burn out that
obsessive need to win against that voice in your head. <smile> Be
careful of the whispers lurk.... they'll get you everytime! :-)
arelurker
cher wrote:
>
> arelurker wrote:
> >
> > cher wrote:
> > >
> > > Tell us what your really think, lurk. LOL..... Everyone on this group
> > > who disagrees with you is a member of the walking wounded.
> >
> > I don't think that is true, nor have I said this. This is your
> > fabrication, your "all or nothing" thinking at work. For example, I
> > don't view Ken as part of the wounded...a little slow on the uptake, but
> > that's different. <g>
>
> Then perhaps you could take a look at how many times you use the phrase
> "the eckists" or "you eckists" in your writing. You write to the entire
> group, you speak of the entire group, you group all eckists into one
> group and summarily judge them in every post you send to this newsgroup!
If I say "you eckists," you can ask whom I'm referring to gain
clarification. Could be talking about the a.r.e. eckists or could be
talking about a segment of a.r.e. eckists, or could be talking about all
eckists in general.
But this is beside the point. You are trying to slap my hand for making
over generalized statements when the fact is, you made an over generalized
statement when you claimed that I think anybody who disagrees with me is
walking wounded. When the truth of the matter is, I have only used this
expression on you. See your mistake? And see your projection?
>
> > And you
> > > always point out that you are of course important in comparison to the
> > > one you're putting down. <smile>
> >
> > When there are competing theories and ideas, mine prevail most often
> > with eckists here simply because many eckists start out speaking from
> > their delusions and do not have a chance. What can I say. I've done the
> > work, have you?
>
> A legend in your own mind, hey? tsk...... Who's going to measure the
> work that I've done? You?
It is self evident you have not done much work.
I don't think so. LOL.....
>
> > >
> > > You know, if you truly wanted to be respected, you could start by ending
> > > this viscious need to demonize anyone who disagrees with you.
> >
> > You don't get it, I don't expect to be respected here by eckists who
> > react as though food is being taken out of their mouth when expressing
> > opinions about Paul and Harold being liars and dishonest.
>
> So you use defensiveness as an excuse. I've seen many fair and
> reasonable responses to you over the years, and I've seen you react to
> what you hear in your mind instead of what was being said.
Point them out as they occur and let's discuss. Otherwise you're just
making unsupported generalizations.
I've seen you
> stubbornly insist that people accept your viewpoint or accept your
> judgment of delusional.
I make very compelling arguments, don't I? So much so that many eckists
take it as a demand in the face of their delusional arguments.
Cut and dry, black and white.... Your mind is
> made up, and now everyone on the group needs to accept what you say,
> period.
I officially give you space to be as delusional as you want. But that
will not keep me from pointing out the delusional nature of your
responses or Doug's
creative tall tales.
> What you think of anyone or their behavior is nothing but an
> opinion, a subjective opinion.
And your fear of the truth of my opinion is what makes you jump, eh?
And the desire to gossip about that
> subjective opinion endlessly has taken on a life for you. Let's be
> honest here for a change, lurk... you have more at stake in this
> newsgroup then any one of the eckists who post here. You state it daily,
> this is where you prove your great mental abilities. This is where you
> show the world your mind. What you can't comprehend is that this is all
> subjective opinion, and there is no winning on subjective opinion.
I'll translate what I hear you saying: You're saying that you're having
trouble accepting the truth behind the strong conclusions about Paul,
Harold and eckankar because it is painful for you....and a way for you
to not have to deal with such pain is to make everything
relative...."it's all subjective!" Unfortunately for you and Doug,
strong conclusions based upon the facts are strong conclusions no matter
how much you or he wants to evoke relativistic stances.
So are you going to count the number of times you insult people in your
responses or not? Start with the gibberish in this paragraph.
Lurk
eckboy
Eckboy <Smile>
(arel...@charter.net) wrote:
<Snip> Cher I don't know what else to say except you are over your head.
Sean
Short and to the point. I like that! <G>
"eckboy" <eck...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:13d740bd.0401...@posting.google.com...
sam....@gmail.com
garlander...@gmail.com
> Jane and others,
>
> In my opinion, ANYONE who is capable of lying and knowingly perpetuating a
> lie to thousands of people for 20+ years is very dangerous.
>
> I would like to see the eckist suicide rate. Many people on that pathway
> are borderline as it is...match that up with the feelings of personal
> failure after years of attempting "soul travel". Add in the initiates who
> read the shariyat seriously and look at their own growth and compare this
> to the "standards" set forth in the shariyat....their "bible".....and then
> brand themselves as failures, or "not good enough".
>
> Please also consider that many people who get the inner urge to explore
> certain "psychic" forms of study or practice are definitely discouraged to
> persue this avenue, as eckankar brands almost anything other than it's own
> teachings as "negative", or "evil", or "Kal".....thus a study that very
> well could have produced personal growth is never accomplished.
>
> I look at the broken marriages and marriages that never happened...the
> families that have been tossed apart by eckankars self serving attitudes
> and demands for exclusivity, and I am repulsed.
>
> Look at eckankars constant urging to its membership to donate to this, and
> give money for that...yet NONE of this money goes to the public good, the
> public tax roles, or to the needy. In fact, most of the eckists I met
> were fairly needy themselves and could hardly afford to purchase their own
> discourses, far less afford to give to these worthless causes to enhance
> eckankars coffers.
>
> Look at the High Initiates who are doing spiritual counseling.
>
> I met several who are outright thieves, one who was certainly a pedophile,
> another who thought a good seduction would "cure" at lot of young ladies
> personal problems.....
>
> Not to mention another lady ESA who was so bigoted against anyone with gay
> or lesbian tendencies and even outright tried to "ban" a gay man from the
> local eck center based on his sexual preference even though he was
> discreet, yet open, about his preferences.
>
> Another H.I. I knew thought that having an automatic weapon in his trunk
> was good insurance against alien abduction.
>
> Another actually told me that anyone with "Downs Syndrome", especially if
> they worked at a MacDonald's Restaurant, was most likely an alien
> crossbreed!
>
> Let's also look at the peddlers with their off shore investment schemes
> that seldom if ever paid off and normally resulted in loss to the well
> meaning chela who was just trying to get by and perhaps make a little
> money from the trusted High Initiates who proposed these schemes.
>
> And the healers who charge according to ones pocketbook rather than by
> cost incurred, or service for exactly the same remedy.
>
> The vitamin pushers, the Jewelry pushers who overcharge for low quality
> gems telling folks that the gems will enhance their personal spiritual
> growth.....
>
> Not to mention the endless Diet pushers etc etc....
>
> I could go on and on about the "enlightened" High Initiates in eckankar.
>
> Now, consider that these folks have been studying this pathway, propagated
> by Harold Klemp for at least 15 years in most cases....and this is what
> eckankar has turned them into? is this spiritual growth?
>
> Should your priest be a bigot, a thief, a pervert? Shouldn't your
> religion help its members become better people?
>
> Does eckankar actually build spiritual mastership as is its claim? If so,
> WHO?
>
> My personal definition of a spiritual master could NOT fit any living
> person in eckankar that I know of, or that I knew, after being a member
> for over 28 years and a 6th initiate.
>
> Not One! Including Paul the plagiarist, Darwin the drunken womanizer or
> Harold the nutcase!
>
> They say that if the path doesn't work for you then you should get
> out.....It definitely did not work for me, even though for years and
> years, I worked for it......I got out - and I have NEVER been happier in
> my life!
>
> If there is anyone here, anyone at all, who thinks they were better off in
> eckankar, I'd sure like to hear from them.
>
> Harold is dangerous. Dangerous to the spiritual growth of his followers.
> Dangerous in granting high status to people whom he has never met, and
> actually knows nothing about, except the time they have subscribed to
> eckankar discourses. His followers in turn are often dangerous to the
> newer members who, in their mistaken "awe" of the spiritual state of the
> H.I., allow themselves to become victims in one way or another....
>
> Personally, I would LOVE to see the government come down on eckankar.
> Perhaps the media would be a better starting point....Eckankar is
> intentionally low key and does avoid media attention unless they control
> 100% of the media content. Perhaps someday eckankar will come under the
> national spotlight and it's dark shadow will be revealed to the masses.
Etznab
"Another old pseudonym was JR as Lurk / arelurker AT charter.net"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/MwVhvQxuLz0/4Q6m8O3IAwAJ
Henosis Sage
yes, that arelurker ..... can't prove it 100% certain, nor want to ... it was a long time ago, things (and people) change.
Here's one guy worth looking up on a.r.e. Sam Hofer (RIP)
You two would have been great buddies imho. I really liked him and appreciated him and what he brought to this little place of negativity and respected him far more than any other here back then and I still miss him greatly.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/z_JOgYxJoso/EpiZIc62YWcJ
devin...@gmail.com
vb14...@gmail.com
vb14...@gmail.com
fife
This is just a suggestion, but you might want to disassociate yourself from Eckankar entirely and get into something with more emotional and mental stability to it.
Etznab
If not, I want to ask: How did you learn about this group? Have you ever posted here before? under a different pseudo?
I'm ust a little curious what brings you by today? Because, we have posters here who like to change pseudonyms as if to appear as a different person. Kinda like what Twitchell did when changing the names of so many authors to Rebazar Tarzs. It is a deception of intent in order to gain certain influence over others. Some posters (Kinpa) have even claimed they had a group of people who support them and share their views. Like what Twitchell did with his supposedly unbroken line of ancient masters.