Question for Lurk on HCS
MomentaryEckist
Regardless, I'd like your take on the exchanges with HCS that I have
posted here so far (of course, you can read them over there as well).
Ok then, Geoff
arelurker
MomentaryEckist wrote:
>
> Have you read the Ford Johnson book?
Yes, half of it. I didn't read much of the book after the critique of eckankar.
Have you read it yet?
If not, don't you think it behooves you to do so if you have some
intention of building bridges? I mean, that would seem to be a
prerequisite, eh?
>
> Regardless, I'd like your take on the exchanges with HCS that I have
> posted here so far (of course, you can read them over there as well).
The main post where you listed your definitions, I think you got spanked
with the HCS responses. <g> Has it been hard for you to sit down
comfortably? <lol>
Ford backs up what he asserts quite elegantly and thoroughly, eh? It has
been quite obvious and my contention that eckankar doctrines and masters
speak out of both sides of their mouths, so I naturally agree with HCS
assertions along this line.
Your responses seem to come from an energy of wanting to salvage what is
seen by others as unsalvageable by highlighting the positive attributes
of eckankar, by pointing out the spiritual growth successes, etc. I have
spoken to many eckists over the years regarding their discovery and
admissions to the lies and deception on this newsgroup. There is a
common theme expressed that if they personally were inspired or grew as
a result of their association with eckankar, then this somehow makes the
lies and deceptions, which is abuse, okay. My opinion had been that is
does not.
That's like saying it is okay that a man physically abuses his wife
because he makes beautiful love to her at times. This abusive context I
don't think will produce a healthy balanced relationship. Sure, the
women might have fantastic orgasms (spiritual experiences) which will
give her temporary reprieve from the overriding fear and something to
latch onto. This is no way to go about forming a healthy relationship
between man and women no more than lying (abusing) to student on a path
of truth leads to healthy spiritual practices. Fear is a self defeating
context to form a healthy relationship just as lying is a self defeating
context for a path of truth.
The best you can say about eckankar is that it is such a terrible
abusive religion that it might prompt those who follow it to become
disillusioned and wake up. Just like the abuse bestowed upon a women in
an abusive relationship could be the wake up call for her. The gift of
an abusive relationship can be for the women to recognize her emotional
dependence which causes her to pursue her own independence. She could
come to understand why she allowed herself to take it.
Same is true for the man. He could see and come to terms with his
emotional dependence on being abusive to get what he wants. (This part
of the analogy doesn't translate too well, since Holding Tank Harold has
not come to terms with how abusive he has been. He acts like the man who
blames his wife for the beating she got.)
Another quick point while I have this analogy running....The orgasm the
women experiences seems really really wonderful and deep when in the
abusive relationship. I would guess this is because it occurs in an
abusive context and seems real special. However the women who leaves
this abusive context and deals with her shadows soon comes to realize
the orgasms she experienced and reveled in the context of pain and fear
were nothing compared to the fullness of life this is experienced when a
healthier context is espoused.
So when I hear this sentiment from eckists about how much spiritual
growth they have gotten and how that outweighs the deception and lies, I
am quick to point out and question the quality of this stated spiritual
growth that thinks the lies and deception is okay just so long as they
get theirs! What kind of spiritual path, what kind of spiritual growth
allows the continued abuse of self and others?
From a nondualistic perspective, if there is such a thing, observing
wives and students being abused by husbands and unbalanced teachers, is
seeing it is all played out perfectly according to the realities of both
parties. Given the parties respective beliefs, it makes perfect sense
why they come together and abuse is the result. This is a level of
acceptance that says it should be happening because it is happening. A
teacher's self deception is unconsciously exuded and infused in the
doctrines and org structure that he creates or perpetuates. A student's
self deception is drawn to the teachers self deception and such self
abuse by both is consummated and manifested. Thus, the self defeating paradigm.
So for those folks who do not reside in such a paradigm, what are they
to do when observing such abuse? What would you do if your sister whom
you love was in an abusive marriage? Would you use a nondualistic
perspective and proclaim it all to be perfect to justify passivity and
do nothing?
How do you intervene and allow both to learn what they need to learn? I
mean, if my sister leaves her husband on my word because I persuaded her
instead of her own conclusion, is this not a stop gap measure and she is
surely doomed to repeat her mistake since she was doing it for me
instead of coming to terms with her own dependency?
My personal answer is to take an educative approach: I would pull my
sister aside and tell her what I see and how sad it makes me to see her
be in a space where she feels like she has to endure the abuse and do so
in a way that allows her to come to her own conclusions. To make her
aware of other options. If she chooses to stay, after hearing how it is
possible to leave and heal and eventually have a relationship that will
not involved abuse, then that is her decision and I have to honor it.
And I would point out to her husband about how there are other ways to
deal with his anger and powerlessness, etc. The tendency is to look at
the situation and to condemn the husband. Is it fair to condemn those
folks who reside in a different paradigm? I don't think so. I don't have
to like how he deals with his anger by taking it out on my sister, but I
never want to lose sight that he is human and has problems like the rest
of us and somewhere he is trying to serve some need of his in his
violence. To condemn him and make him an enemy is to use the same
violent psychological mechanics (in lesser degree) on him as he uses to
strike my sister. So I would be, in effect, perpetuating violence.
So Geoff, overall, I see you talking about your eckankar orgasms and
holding those up as somehow making the abuse in eckankar as palatable.
It saddens me to see such a bright congenial person like yourself stay
in an abusive relationship. I think you deserve better. I understand
from past exchanges with you that you want to hang in there with
eckankar and hope to make a positive impact in some kind of methodical
quality process controls. I think that is admirable, but highly naive
given the circumstances of how receptive Harold has been. If you read
Ford's book you can gain some insight on the level of paranoia you are
dealing with in Harold by reading his letters to Ford and others. This
reminds me of the abused wife hoping her actions will somehow change her
abusing husband.
I would encourage you to submit your concerns to Harold has you have
said you were going to do as soon as possible so you can get some
feedback and bearing on where such efforts will stand. Past history says
you are wasting you time. However, if you go through the process and
come to understand you are fighting a pathological city hall, then maybe
this is the very thing you need to help you decide to leave. Maybe not.
Maybe a miracle will happen and paranoid Harold will be receptive since
many of his long time students are leaving him.
Anyway, if you decide to hang in there and continue to take a beating
from Harold, that's okay, I feel confident that, in time, you will grow
tire of the abuse and find the inspiration to explore new horizons.
Lurk
MomentaryEckist
> MomentaryEckist wrote:
> >
> > Have you read the Ford Johnson book?
>
> Yes, half of it. I didn't read much of the book after the critique of eckankar.
Right. The exit interview stuff.
>
> Have you read it yet?
Only everything on the publically available sites, both on "truth
seeker" and on "HCS". This included all the book excerpts, the
bulletin board posts and responses, the "inspirational quotes", the
"open letter to Harold", the FAQs, all about the contributions and
levels of participation in The (not "a") Great Work. I even read the
copyright notice (I found it funny that you could interpret it to mean
that the TS site has a "monopoly on Truth").
>
> If not, don't you think it behooves you to do so if you have some
> intention of building bridges? I mean, that would seem to be a
> prerequisite, eh?
I don't know. I can get enough of a flavor for now, and Ford is
clearly not interested in bridges as his last post states. So I will
content myself to complete the current threads and let them get past
the indignation phase for a while.
>
> >
> > Regardless, I'd like your take on the exchanges with HCS that I have
> > posted here so far (of course, you can read them over there as well).
>
> The main post where you listed your definitions, I think you got spanked
> with the HCS responses. <g> Has it been hard for you to sit down
> comfortably? <lol>
Do you really think so? Hmmm... Guess I should go back and look
again.
>
> Ford backs up what he asserts quite elegantly and thoroughly, eh? It has
> been quite obvious and my contention that eckankar doctrines and masters
> speak out of both sides of their mouths, so I naturally agree with HCS
> assertions along this line.
I thought Ford's answers were very unsatisfying. In the beginning he
was acting in a knee jerk fashion, making totally wrong assumptions
about where I was coming from and what I was saying/asking.
>
> Your responses seem to come from an energy of wanting to salvage what is
> seen by others as unsalvageable by highlighting the positive attributes
> of eckankar, by pointing out the spiritual growth successes, etc.
Things are not always as they seem where energy is concerned.
Rememember that I am invading their turf and I am respectful of that.
One thing that is as it seems: the fundamentals I point out have
always been what the path of Eckankar I know is all about. So I have
never taken a beating from anyone.
> I have
> spoken to many eckists over the years regarding their discovery and
> admissions to the lies and deception on this newsgroup. There is a
> common theme expressed that if they personally were inspired or grew as
> a result of their association with eckankar, then this somehow makes the
> lies and deceptions, which is abuse, okay. My opinion had been that is
> does not.
We have been down this road before. We disagree about: a) whether the
contradictions truly exist given the right semantic context, b)
whether plagarism is lying, and c) whether lying constitutes abuse,
especially in the same vein as the analogy you are about to use.
Whenever you write like this, especially that below, it doesn't seem
to come from a non-dualistic place like some of your other writings.
But I do appreciate your concern about me that you express in the end.
Ok then, Geoff
arelurker
MomentaryEckist wrote:
>
> arelurker <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<4027FDCB...@charter.net>...
> > MomentaryEckist wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you read the Ford Johnson book?
> >
> > Yes, half of it. I didn't read much of the book after the critique of eckankar.
>
> Right. The exit interview stuff.
>
> >
> > Have you read it yet?
>
> Only everything on the publically available sites, both on "truth
> seeker" and on "HCS". This included all the book excerpts, the
> bulletin board posts and responses, the "inspirational quotes", the
> "open letter to Harold", the FAQs, all about the contributions and
> levels of participation in The (not "a") Great Work. I even read the
> copyright notice (I found it funny that you could interpret it to mean
> that the TS site has a "monopoly on Truth").
>
> >
> > If not, don't you think it behooves you to do so if you have some
> > intention of building bridges? I mean, that would seem to be a
> > prerequisite, eh?
>
> I don't know. I can get enough of a flavor for now, and Ford is
> clearly not interested in bridges as his last post states. So I will
> content myself to complete the current threads and let them get past
> the indignation phase for a while.
Well...I think, at a minimum, you have to read his critique of eckankar
in his book in order to be taken seriously when challenging viewpoints
or building bridges. The whole notion of building bridges requires
seeing things from the other person's perspective. His perspective is
contained in his book.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Regardless, I'd like your take on the exchanges with HCS that I have
> > > posted here so far (of course, you can read them over there as well).
> >
> > The main post where you listed your definitions, I think you got spanked
> > with the HCS responses. <g> Has it been hard for you to sit down
> > comfortably? <lol>
>
> Do you really think so? Hmmm... Guess I should go back and look
> again.
He took one of your doctrine points and explained thoroughly the
duplicity in eckankar and revealed how inadequate your goddies list of
eckankar was.
>
> >
> > Ford backs up what he asserts quite elegantly and thoroughly, eh? It has
> > been quite obvious and my contention that eckankar doctrines and masters
> > speak out of both sides of their mouths, so I naturally agree with HCS
> > assertions along this line.
>
> I thought Ford's answers were very unsatisfying. In the beginning he
> was acting in a knee jerk fashion, making totally wrong assumptions
> about where I was coming from and what I was saying/asking.
Maybe he was. Maybe he misjudged you. However, when it came to
confronting your points, he prevailed.
>
> >
> > Your responses seem to come from an energy of wanting to salvage what is
> > seen by others as unsalvageable by highlighting the positive attributes
> > of eckankar, by pointing out the spiritual growth successes, etc.
>
> Things are not always as they seem where energy is concerned.
> Rememember that I am invading their turf and I am respectful of that.
> One thing that is as it seems: the fundamentals I point out have
> always been what the path of Eckankar I know is all about. So I have
> never taken a beating from anyone.
>
> > I have
> > spoken to many eckists over the years regarding their discovery and
> > admissions to the lies and deception on this newsgroup. There is a
> > common theme expressed that if they personally were inspired or grew as
> > a result of their association with eckankar, then this somehow makes the
> > lies and deceptions, which is abuse, okay. My opinion had been that is
> > does not.
>
> We have been down this road before. We disagree about: a) whether the
> contradictions truly exist given the right semantic context,
There is no other way to put it, Geoff, this is cultic thinking on your
part. To dismiss blatant contradictions and the duplicity in eckankar as
a context problem or we "just don't understand the master" is such bull
and a very common rationalization seen in other spiritual groups.
b)
> whether plagarism is lying, and
When Paul takes words from another author and puts them into Rebazar
Tarz's mouth and tells his readers Reb spoke those words, that is lying.
c) whether lying constitutes abuse,
> especially in the same vein as the analogy you are about to use.
You don't think lying to students on a path of truth is abuse? Oh my!
"To deceive or trick" is one of the dictionary definitions of abuse.
I think the abuse analogy works great for a couple of different reasons:
1) It's abuse occurring in a relationship.
2) It's abuse that is a result of one person passing their pain on to
another in an unconscious reactive manner. Paul and Harold pass on their
self hatred to others and the husband passes on the physical abuse he
saw his father do to his mother.
3) There are self abuse aspects being played out.
4) Both parties have their roles and contribution in the abuse.
5) Both parties have a dependency of some sort that keeps them bound in
the abusive relationship.
I can understand why you might object to the analogy because it
highlights physical abuse and the stigma attached to that in terms of
societal morality...that it is not the same as lying abuse. However,
psychic abuse, which is what Paul and Harold have engaged in, I can
argue, is even worse than physical abuse. It's more subtle and insidious
and therefore harder to pin point and identify. Sure a physical beating
is different than a psychic beating, but this is not enough to render
the analogy useless. So I think the analogy works fine.
>
> Whenever you write like this, especially that below, it doesn't seem
> to come from a non-dualistic place like some of your other writings.
> But I do appreciate your concern about me that you express in the end.
Well I'm sorry you view my words this way. I asked some interesting
questions below and I'm disappointed you chose not to respond. Perhaps
it is uncomfortable for you to consider such questions. So be it.
Perhaps you could own that instead of telling me I'm not coming from a
nondualistic perspective.
As far as not coming from a nondualistic place?.....I don't really know
what that means in relation to my words below.
I thought I was being very fair to violent husband and the abusive Paul
and Harold. I also was being very fair to the abused wife and student
who must own up to their reasons for staying and taking a physical or
psychic beating.
I thought I was being fair to raise the question about judging other
people who reside in one paradigm from another paradigm. To question
what action could be taken and how to take such action. In other words,
to abstain from using more violence to end violence. Narcissistic,
unbalanced Gurus need our compassion every bit as much as the student
whom they abuse. It serves no one to make them out to be monsters or
evil, or enemies. They're people too who have lost their way.
And the question that I think is most pertinent for you is this one:
What kind of spiritual path, what kind of spiritual growth allows the
continued abuse of self and others? The reason I think this is pertinent
question for you is because you are holding up your spiritual growth and
the positive aspects of eckankar as a response to the stated negative
aspects. I think it is a fair question and would like to hear your
answer if you're up for it.
Lurk
spark
Nice writing! Ford should hire you as his writing is nowhere near as good,
but I fear it would reduce your perceptions to the HCS channel including
the commercials.
My memory ain't what it should be but I don't remember arelurker being
quite this skillful with words way back when, is it the same or has
arelurker become a 'title' like Mahanta that is passed on or earned through
specific attainments ;-). - CSK
cher
If this is true, then what would be left out of this equation if one
only skimmed the known detractor views and eliminated all those other
nasty ideas that ford presents that don't fit into the anitcult box?
See... this is highly irregular as a suggestion from one who apparently
has only read those things that he's already read elsewhere and ardently
accepted as truth. ford's perspective is highly dependent upon on his
view of higher consciousness, not simply on trashing Harold and Paul and
their path. If you cannot bring yourself to read those areas that
disclose ford's spiritual viewpoint and discuss how they work in his
conclusions, then you've missed the point of his premise. You've managed
to negate his argument for the sake of latching onto familiar negative
material and expect people to believe that this is the point of ford's
book. Odd thing about most truths, they are usually relative. If you
were courageous and honest you'd read the entire book and discover these
conclusions for yourself instead of heckling people over the same old
tired material that has been plaguing this ng for so long.
<snipo the fundamentalist conversion tactics>
Pathapp
> Have you read it yet?
>
>Only everything on the publically available sites, both on "truth
>seeker" and on "HCS". This
Geoff, please read the book first, then come and discuss it.
cher
this book is solely for the sake of sales. No one here bothers to read
it... they just use it as a basis for Eckankar bashing. Trust me when I
say that if you've read david lane's opinions, you've got the whole
story short of a new guru named graham who apparently was a follower of
charan, just like david lane. Oh... and ford does throw in some basis
buddhism for those who haven't traveled down that block of the spiritual
community. Beyond that.... you're prefectly capable of discussing this
information as anyone who has read this book. I own it and have read
it.... and there's nothing new there! Take out graham, praying on your
fingers and the so called mythomania and all you have left is the
archives of a.r.e.! <smile> But this tactic does suit those who are
using ford as a weapon in discussions here. Afterall, if you haven't
read it, what could you discuss? And if you have, then most certainly
you'll be converted to the new path of higher consciousness.... because
there is no room to disagree with fords holy suppositions. <wink>
Pathapp
> No one here bothers to read
>it... they just use it as a basis for Eckankar bashing. Trust me when I
>say that if you've read david lane's opinions, you've got the whole
>story short of a new guru named
Trust me Geoff, we have read the book. And if you can read it with an open
mind, I will bet that it will make you think about a lot of things in a new
way. Then, one can make their own decision about whether it bothers them
enough to leave Eckankar, or if they can still go on with the teachings.
Please, just read it (maybe you can borrow it if you need to.)
Sean
"Pathapp" <pat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040210193043...@mb-m27.aol.com...
No, No, No .......... trust ME Geoff ..... because I know the book ain't
worth reading.
Pathapp, what YOU SHOULD do is read ALL the ECKANKAR books, And if you can
read them with an open mind, and heart, I will bet that it will make you
think about a lot of things in a new way. Then, one can make their own
decision about whether it bothers them enough to JOIN Eckankar, or if you
still go on with the HCS teachings.
Please, just read the books, (maybe you can borrow it if you need to.), in
fact check your local library.
Oh gosh, truth is so important, I can't live without you reading all about
it! <G>
And while you're at it Pathapp, check out Doug's online book, and read every
golden word .............. http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
Here's the first paragraph to whet your appetite
Our society seems to be in love with criticism and controversy. The public
eats it up. Everyone seems to enjoy seeing reputations smeared and ideals
shattered, unless, of course, it is our own lives being put up for display.
In fact, a good negative rumor is lapped up and swallowed much more readily
than a real story showing character, heroism and selflessness.
MomentaryEckist
The Graham saga is the only thing that interests me. And not because
of his inner experience and what it could mean, but rather makes me
realize how much Eckankar truly is a path of the Masters.
That is, Eckankar students are expected to "get it" and be their own
master. My trouble is that I am too willing to give you a spoon and
some sugar to go with your truth. And the trouble with most people is
that they not only are willing to take it that way, that is the only
way they will take it. This approach only leads to dependency between
mentor and protege.
Ok then, Geoff
cher <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<402951A1...@worldnet.att.net>...
cher
>
> You did hit the nail on the head about having the whole story already.
> The Graham saga is the only thing that interests me. And not because
> of his inner experience and what it could mean, but rather makes me
> realize how much Eckankar truly is a path of the Masters.
Now doesn't that depend upon what one expects a Master to be? So much
dross that has to be removed before one can reach an understanding of
what the path is about. That's why I stand back and allow the
imagination to find it's balance in a students life before I take too
much of what they share as gospel. Their inner experiences might be
right for them in the moment, but that doesn't make it spiritual truth
for all. It just means they're expanding from their former connection to
the outer world.
> That is, Eckankar students are expected to "get it" and be their own
> master. My trouble is that I am too willing to give you a spoon and
> some sugar to go with your truth. And the trouble with most people is
> that they not only are willing to take it that way, that is the only
> way they will take it. This approach only leads to dependency between
> mentor and protege.
Geez.... that's rather jaded. <smile> I recall Sri Harold suggesting
some time ago that there would be a portion of those members who would
be socially oriented. I have learned to see them with love.... or at
least remind myself that's this is what I need to do, let it go and let
them (???) BE. As to dependency, well.... whose to judge such a thing?
Hmmmm? I mean, who is it that sits by the side and watches others
behavior and decides whose more dependent and whose more independent...
and which one is correct, in that moment? Life is change, afterall.
Broad generalizations about others basically means that ones attention
is focused on the external and not within. <smile>
neuralsurfer
> this book is solely for the sake of sales. No one here bothers to read
> it... they just use it as a basis for Eckankar bashing. Trust me when I
> say that if you've read david lane's opinions, you've got the whole
> story short of a new guru named graham who apparently was a follower of
> charan, just like david lane. Oh... and ford does throw in some basis
> buddhism for those who haven't traveled down that block of the spiritual
> community. Beyond that.... you're prefectly capable of discussing this
> information as anyone who has read this book. I own it and have read
> it.... and there's nothing new there! Take out graham, praying on your
> fingers and the so called mythomania and all you have left is the
> archives of a.r.e.! <smile> But this tactic does suit those who are
> using ford as a weapon in discussions here. Afterall, if you haven't
> read it, what could you discuss? And if you have, then most certainly
> you'll be converted to the new path of higher consciousness.... because
> there is no room to disagree with fords holy suppositions. <wink>
>
Dear Cher:
I think you are being a tad inaccurate here, since Ford (regardless of
how you feel about his slants or biases) did uncover materials about
Paul Twitchell and Darwin Gross that most people do not have access
to.
I certainly have never seen Twitchell's marriage certificate to Gail,
nor the otehr materials relating to Paul's early life.
MomentaryEckist
Ford's perspective is not contained in the book. No Soul's
perspective is contained in a book. It spills out into all aspects of
his life. It certainly spills out onto his site, especially his
posts, which are much more indicative of his perspective in the
Moment. I found it rather funny that he tells folks on the message
board that the excerpts can't be taken at face value, that they need
to be read in context. It seems to me Ford needs some standalone
excerpts. Actually, Ford should know that a book is dead the minute
you write it. The best you can hope for is that it leads the "seeker"
to some kind of practice.
And BTW. I am perfectly willing to build bridges, but I am not there
to storm the gate when the portcullis drops down and the drawbridge
comes up.
Do you remember the Kurt Vonnegut concept about Ice-9? It was a
special isotope of water that turns solid at room temperature because
it "teaches" the other water molecules a new way of stacking
themselves. I think of Ford Johnson like a molecule of Ice-9 in the
Sea of Eckists. He tries to convince you through a really silly
logical loop that you cannot be an Eckist without being ignoble and
duplicitious, and boom! he (and you evidentally you), feel that you
are somehow rigidly locked into his way of thinking.
So there is a lot of rigidity going on at HCS and even within Eckankar
currently because of Ford's influence, and unfortunately, because the
ripple effect from David Lane's book is still being felt. Funny
thing, if you read David's reply to my query to him of late, he has
nothing but affection for Paul. And to more or less quote David: "I
just didn't buy the guru thing". The truth of Eckankar's fundamental
practices was never the question, so to call Darwin and Harold abusive
for wanting to maintain the focus on these truths does not ring true
to me, nor do I suspect it does with David either (more on this
later).
Thankfully, being a free spirit works in a similar way, except in
reverse. Say someome just goes over there and is "themselves" in the
Moment. You could think of them as a molecule of "Ice-10" (not Ice-T
please <g>), that by simply being Present in the Moment can start the
melting process again with all the Souls in that person's sphere of
influence. And the benefit to all is that this time they are free
with even more awareness than before (that is why it would be called
Ice-10). Kind of like Soul descends into the lower worlds to immerse
itself in the worlds of duality so that it can appreciate the joys of
unity.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regardless, I'd like your take on the exchanges with HCS that I have
> > > > posted here so far (of course, you can read them over there as well).
> > >
> > > The main post where you listed your definitions, I think you got spanked
> > > with the HCS responses. <g> Has it been hard for you to sit down
> > > comfortably? <lol>
> >
> > Do you really think so? Hmmm... Guess I should go back and look
> > again.
>
> He took one of your doctrine points and explained thoroughly the
> duplicity in eckankar and revealed how inadequate your goddies list of
> eckankar was.
>
Ford did go off on quite a tizzy about the word "the" in my accidental
mistyping: Eckankar is the Religion of the Light and Sound of God:
-----
First, Eckankar is not “THE” religion of the light and
sound of God but at best “A” religion of the light and
sound of God. The history of Eckankar is clear that it is a derivation
of Radhasoami Satsang Beas and more specifically the Ruhani Satsang,
the organization founded by Kirpal Singh. Thus, to call it "THE"
religion of the light and sound is disingenuous at best. (See
Confessions Chapter 6 – Eckankar: Revealed by Truth)
----
Eckankar is much more and much less than RS. It is more in that it
brings together parts from other paths and some real invention from
Paul Twitchell (the EK symbol for one, the idea of Eckankar as a
system by where all religions eventually lead to the path of EK and
God for another). It is less in that it leaves out unnecessary
aspects of RS (vegetarianism for one, admonition against abortion for
another). Net: Eckankar as a whole is greater than the sum of its
parts. Should I make a judgement about Ford on this point?
By the way. I should mention that the "official" Eckankar definition
is "Eckankar, Religion of the Light and Sound of God." So getting
"spanked" and sent home because I am a nobody rings pretty hollow here
too. Eckankar would agree with this definition after all. So, in
truth, my definitions are actually quite adequate.
And there was a point that Ford's Higher Consciuousness missed in the
Moment. I was talking about MY definitions of Eckankar terms. I was
trying to build a bridge to HCS for ME. He lost himself a Momentary
HCS Great Worker. Not to worry though. That Moment has passed, and
we have had much better Moments since. See the HCS site for much more
reasonable exchanges.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Ford backs up what he asserts quite elegantly and thoroughly, eh? It has
> > > been quite obvious and my contention that eckankar doctrines and masters
> > > speak out of both sides of their mouths, so I naturally agree with HCS
> > > assertions along this line.
> >
> > I thought Ford's answers were very unsatisfying. In the beginning he
> > was acting in a knee jerk fashion, making totally wrong assumptions
> > about where I was coming from and what I was saying/asking.
>
> Maybe he was. Maybe he misjudged you. However, when it came to
> confronting your points, he prevailed.
No maybes in that Moment. And to see why I disagree that Ford
prevailed in the future Moments, let's see how the disingenuous shoe
fits on the HCS foot. With all the tizzy he threw, what should I
think about his calling the HCS "The Great Work?" Or how about:
Truth* and theTruth-seeker.com
Copyright © 2002-2003 Friends of Truth.
All rights reserved.
So, this makes it seem like HCS has got an actual monopoly on the
Truth (or at least a copyright <ggg>). It would be ridiculous for
anyone to say that an unsuspecting seeker may get entrapped by either
of these statements. But had Paul, Darwin or Harold made such an
honest mistake, I can tell you that Chapter Six would have Ford's
laser sharp lawyerly mind dissecting and connecting the dots to evil.
Serious point: I do not find Ford affording Eckankar and its leaders
the same benefit of the doubt. He claims to be way higher than
Eckists and Christians, but he hasn't even learned the principle of
"do unto others". Or maybe he has and is way beyond it.
But there's more. Ford also writes of "Truth so essential it needs to
be dispersed."
But not so essential that he didn't look on "dictionary.com" for the
thesaurus entries of "dispersed":
4 entries found for dispersed.
Entry: diffuse
Function: adjective
Definition: spread out
Synonyms: broadcast, catholic, circulated, diluted, dispersed,
disseminated, distributed, expanded, extended, general, prevalent,
propagated, radiated, scattered, separated, strewn, thin,
unconcentrated, universal, widespread
Antonyms: compressed, concentrated, confined, focused, limited,
restricted
Concept: separateness
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Entry: fractional
Function: adjective
Definition: partial
Synonyms: apportioned, compartmental, compartmented, constituent,
dismembered, dispersed, divided, fractionary, fragmentary, incomplete,
parceled, part, piecemeal, sectional, segmented
Concept: minor part
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Entry: sparse
Function: adjective
Definition: few
Synonyms: dispersed, exiguous, inadequate, infrequent, meager,
occasional, poor, rare, scant, scanty, scarce, scattered, scrimpy,
skimpy, spare, sporadic, thin, uncommon
Concept: quantity (small)
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Entry: thin
Function: adjective
Definition: diluted
Synonyms: diffuse, dilute, dispersed, fine, light, rarefied,
refined, runny, subtle, watery, weak, wishy-washy
Concept: weakness
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
To paraphrase Indigo Montoya in Princess Bride: I do not think that
word means what Ford thinks it means. Yes, there are one or two
synonyms that mean "disseminate" or "distribute" (what I think he
intended, giving him the benefit of the doubt). But the prevailing
meanings of this word seems to mean exactly the opposite. In other
words, a CONTRADICTION!!!
One could even say that the truth is so essential that it needs to be
catholic!!! And to think that was the religion that I gave up simply
because I cannot say the apostle's creed.
As funny as this is, it makes me wonder why he was afraid to use the
word "distribute", which seems to be a natural one to have used in
that poem. It shouldn't take much contemplation to figure this one
out.
Hopefully, you can see why I do not feel like Ford "prevailed" at all.
And it is hard to give his hypocracy the benefit of the doubt since
the whole HCS gang is so virulently anti-hypocracy and contradiction.
That said, I am willing to forgive them instantly, because I am not so
contrained. My favorite quote from "Harold and Maude": consistency is
not a human trait.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Your responses seem to come from an energy of wanting to salvage what is
> > > seen by others as unsalvageable by highlighting the positive attributes
> > > of eckankar, by pointing out the spiritual growth successes, etc.
> >
> > Things are not always as they seem where energy is concerned.
> > Rememember that I am invading their turf and I am respectful of that.
> > One thing that is as it seems: the fundamentals I point out have
> > always been what the path of Eckankar I know is all about. So I have
> > never taken a beating from anyone.
> >
> > > I have
> > > spoken to many eckists over the years regarding their discovery and
> > > admissions to the lies and deception on this newsgroup. There is a
> > > common theme expressed that if they personally were inspired or grew as
> > > a result of their association with eckankar, then this somehow makes the
> > > lies and deceptions, which is abuse, okay. My opinion had been that is
> > > does not.
> >
> > We have been down this road before. We disagree about: a) whether the
> > contradictions truly exist given the right semantic context,
>
> There is no other way to put it, Geoff, this is cultic thinking on your
> part. To dismiss blatant contradictions and the duplicity in eckankar as
> a context problem or we "just don't understand the master" is such bull
> and a very common rationalization seen in other spiritual groups.
>
First off, I have always been talking about my semantic context. I
understand the words just fine, and never give the excuses you think
are bull.
And frankly, I don't care about all the advertising copy and what it
means with respect to entrapment and duplicity. Calling Eckankar "the
most direct path to God" is not disingenuous at all. It is a natural
part of trying to attract attention. Here is an analogy that really
works: two brands of aspirin both contain the maximum dosage per
tablet allowed by law: 500mg. They can both say that they are the
strongest over the counter pain reliever.
And I don't agree with Colleen's recent post that HCS is a cult or
headed that way either. Commiting non-linear experience to paper is
hard to do. Ford will learn that just like everyone else.
Paul, a free thinker like me, didn't worry about it. He wrote a
number of different books from a number of different points of view.
One elephant, ten or twelve angles. He says in so many words: Sorry
if they sound contradictory. If you can't handle it, go find a
spiritual welfare program somewhere else. And take your spoon with
you.
As I wrote to Cher tonight: this go round on A.R.E. has taught me that
Eckankar really is the true Path of the Masters. Thanks to you for
making that realization posssible.
>
> b)
> > whether plagarism is lying, and
>
> When Paul takes words from another author and puts them into Rebazar
> Tarz's mouth and tells his readers Reb spoke those words, that is lying.
>
Unlike Ford, and like Paul Twichell, the words I choose are very
precise. Plagarism in and of itself is not lying.
You asked two questions below that were of the "do you still beat your
wife" bent, because to even answer your questions implies I buy in to
your hackneyed analogy about Paul, Darwin and Harold in any way being
like wife beaters. A smart guy like you can come up with a far better
analogy, especially since I came up with a far better one for you 18
months ago.
The change that I have seen in my consciousness since then: I am
trying to shift away from being the Lone Ranger. What change have you
been through since then?
>
> As far as not coming from a nondualistic place?.....I don't really know
> what that means in relation to my words below.
You were the one who brought up non-dualistic points of view, and I
thought your non-dualistic paradigm about wife beating sounded rather
contrived in ANY paradigm (never-the-less, more on this later) and not
at all like your words of the other day:
----
The way I express this [Celebrating Life's Moments and all the aspects
of ones life] is there is no longer identification with
physical, emotional, mental. To identify with one or all of these as
defining you, is to limit your experience. To identify with the
absolute
as a context or backgroup in which all these attributes arise allows
for
them to exist as part of all that is.
If by celebrate you mean acknowledge accept without judgment, then I'm
with you. For me, experiencing a strong presence in the moment means
there is a connection physically, emotionally, mentally, energetically
to this entity in the now. The vitality of spirit is expressed in
these
embodied qualities now in this moment, and our awareness abiding in
the
absolute can be aware of their expressions. To me this is the meaning
the phrase to feel one's soul in their body. It is not about leaving,
retreating, disassociating with the physical, emotion and mental, it
is
about integration and allowing all parts to show up now.
Enjoy the awakened state. If it wanes, it wanes. If it stays ten
years,
it stays ten years. Try to capture it, bottle it, make a goal out of
being in the moment, or make a concept out of soul (which is really is
an ego clothed in spiritual robes), and the moment will have already
eluded you and you'll be back asleep spinning around your ego bound
hell. <g>
----
These words of yours are Great Words. Great words that we all would
do well to try and live by. Here and Now. Eckist and detractor
alike. Thank you again for taking the trouble to write them.
But interestingly enough, your <g> above nothwithstanding, to listen
to most of your (ex)poser posts, some wimp out there should construe
your admonition against seeking as a fear inducing tactic to keep them
under your control. But you and I know that nothing could be further
from the truth.
And I have been asking you and other posters of Great Words lately:
are these yours? All of them? Do you think I could find a similar
passage in books you have read?
Frankly, I do not care. I am inspired by the word You wrote and
brought to My attention in this Moment. Thanks again (as I bask in
them).
So what is the point if I do not care? We always seem to give
ourselves the benefit of the doubt because we know our own mind and
that our cause is just. Our intentions are pure. It is much more
challenging to puzzle out how someone else may deserve the same
benefit.
>
> I thought I was being very fair to violent husband and the abusive Paul
> and Harold. I also was being very fair to the abused wife and student
> who must own up to their reasons for staying and taking a physical or
> psychic beating.
>
> I thought I was being fair to raise the question about judging other
> people who reside in one paradigm from another paradigm. To question
> what action could be taken and how to take such action. In other words,
> to abstain from using more violence to end violence. Narcissistic,
> unbalanced Gurus need our compassion every bit as much as the student
> whom they abuse. It serves no one to make them out to be monsters or
> evil, or enemies. They're people too who have lost their way.
>
> And the question that I think is most pertinent for you is this one:
> What kind of spiritual path, what kind of spiritual growth allows the
> continued abuse of self and others? The reason I think this is pertinent
> question for you is because you are holding up your spiritual growth and
> the positive aspects of eckankar as a response to the stated negative
> aspects. I think it is a fair question and would like to hear your
> answer if you're up for it.
>
> Lurk
A fair question is an earnest one. Earnest means to me that you are
really interested in hearing my answer to it, and putting yourself in
my place to understand the truth of it, even if you do not fully agree
with it. In giving me the benefit of the doubt, the dualism between
"your truth" and "my truth" disappears, and there is "our truth" for
at least that Moment. After that we can hate each other again...
<kidding... Please know that I love you and you are truly the only
reason I hang around here... No kidding on that point.>
That said. Here is my truth from where I stand on your question
above: Two points.
Point 1. I would not stand for what I perceive as abuse. If I saw my
brother in law beating my sister, then I would kick his ass in a NY
Moment. No question about letting him and her "learn their lessons".
What a crock of New Age garbage. God/Life/EK/All That Is/Chance
brought the wife beating of MY SISTER to my attention, and it is up to
me to act in that Moment as I see fit. I looked deeper into your
hypothetical Moment, and after kicking my B-I-L's bony ass, I asked my
sister if she had been beaten by him before. And since the answer was
yes, I hugged her to told her I am so sorry that she had a loser for a
husband, and then yelled at her for not coming to me or others who
love her before to help her get out. Then, I grabbed a bag and took
her over to my house where my wife and I helped her get back on her
feet again. Moment over. She can deal with her next Moments later.
Maybe she learns a lesson, maybe not. I feel good about it Here and
Now. Thanks for the seed of contemplation.
Point 2. Eckankar is not abusive to me or others in any definition I
have of the word abuse. You and Ford can wind yourselves up all
frickin day long about how bad it is that Paul made up Rebazar and put
words in his mouth, but that does not make it abuse.
Now before you go off and reply to that, please answer an earnest
question from me. Can you think of one *good* reason why Paul might
have wanted to put other authors words in various Varaigi Masters and
Lords of the World without attribution?
Ok then, Geoff
Sean
> MomentaryEckist wrote:
> >
> > You did hit the nail on the head about having the whole story already.
> > The Graham saga is the only thing that interests me. And not because
> > of his inner experience and what it could mean, but rather makes me
> > realize how much Eckankar truly is a path of the Masters.
>
> Now doesn't that depend upon what one expects a Master to be? So much
> dross that has to be removed before one can reach an understanding of
> what the path is about. That's why I stand back and allow the
> imagination to find it's balance in a students life before I take too
> much of what they share as gospel. Their inner experiences might be
> right for them in the moment, but that doesn't make it spiritual truth
> for all. It just means they're expanding from their former connection to
> the outer world.
>
I always like the "hey I had a dream and you were in it!!!", therefore my
thinking now goes: you are supposed to be involved in meeting my needs now
in the outer, just like it was in the dream, it was soooo real you know.
<G>
> > That is, Eckankar students are expected to "get it" and be their own
> > master.
sidebar: that's true in a sense, yet at the same time everyone knows, no
matter where you're at that there is always some thing more to "get" .... or
do people not get that either? ;-)
anyway, if what you said was really the case, there wouldn't be so many
people out there putting on classes for the ECKANKAR students .......... I
really don't think students are expected to be anything more than who they
are. occasional exceptions aside.
that's only my general perspective of course, who knows every situation.
My trouble is that I am too willing to give you a spoon and
> > some sugar to go with your truth. And the trouble with most people is
> > that they not only are willing to take it that way, that is the only
> > way they will take it. This approach only leads to dependency between
> > mentor and protege.
>
> Geez.... that's rather jaded. <smile> I recall Sri Harold suggesting
> some time ago that there would be a portion of those members who would
> be socially oriented. I have learned to see them with love.... or at
> least remind myself that's this is what I need to do, let it go and let
> them (???) BE.
YES
As to dependency, well.... whose to judge such a thing?
> Hmmmm? I mean, who is it that sits by the side and watches others
> behavior and decides whose more dependent and whose more independent...
> and which one is correct, in that moment? Life is change, afterall.
and people will judge you anyway.... which takes us back to the point above.
> Broad generalizations about others basically means that ones attention
> is focused on the external and not within. <smile>
>
True. imho
still the outer does lead to the inner too. Things unfold, and change.
<smile>
Love Sean
@aloha.net Rich
"Sean" <whyb...@all.com> wrote
> "Pathapp" <pat...@aol.com> wrote
A basic study of the Eckankar books will reveal that everything Ford
touts as his new 'higher consciousness' path is already contained within
the teachings of Eckankar. A few different terms, same stuff. Don't
believe it Pathapp? Show us one basic spiritual principle that is not
within the body of Eckankar writings. Bet you can't.<G>
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
arelurker
In your zeal to refute the mighty Lurk, you forget that I'm not trying
to critique Ford's viewpoints or build bridges as Geoff has stated he is
doing. This is why I made those common sense comments to Geoff. If I was
going to critique Ford's spiritual viewpoints, then I would certainly read
them closely. The first half of his book, the critique of eckankar,
stands on its own without the second part of his book. Ford's
conclusions are referenced and cited to supported in the first half of
the book. I've stated before that I'm not interested in his spiritual
viewpoints in the sense that they seem to be a variation of the stairway
to heaven approach to spirituality. That's not my cup of tea. However,
my reluctance does not preclude me from pointing out to Geoff his error
in engaging Ford without reading his book.
Lurk
arelurker
spark wrote:
>
> Nice writing! Ford should hire you as his writing is nowhere near as good,
> but I fear it would reduce your perceptions to the HCS channel including
> the commercials.
>
> My memory ain't what it should be but I don't remember arelurker being
> quite this skillful with words way back when, is it the same or has
> arelurker become a 'title' like Mahanta that is passed on or earned through
> specific attainments ;-). - CSK
Well Spark, I don't know......maybe you're finally coming around to
understanding my words and now they suddenly appear skillful to you. <lol>
Lurk
cher
Bullshit! He did nothing but send in the money for copies of accessible
documents about darwin that even you could have resourced if you'd not
been such a tightwad cheapskate! No grand detective work here,
david..... and way too much inaccurate supposition and gossip to be of
any value to thinking individual. As to the so called information about
Paul, please be so kind as to share with us what you find so compelling
in what ford shared! I do hope it isn't that pathetic garbage about
mythomania. That is just laughable!
> I certainly have never seen Twitchell's marriage certificate to Gail,
> nor the otehr materials relating to Paul's early life.
Why not? You like to believe that you're a watergate sort of guy. ford
is a lawyer. He has private detectives to do this sort of work for him.
It's common practice. So why are you so cheap and lazy that you'd sit in
your ass all these years? Hmmmm? The information has always been there,
david. It doesn't lead to any earth shattering new revelations but it's
been there all along. Just proof of what a crappy job you do in your
watergate fantasy world.
cher
I can! The memorized affirmations! Geez, they're wordy! And the need to
count them off on ones fingers for a start. Yep.... ford took a great
deal from Eckankar including many spiritual laws verbetim, but he took
from other paths too. I guess he figured that one out for himself.
<chuckle>
cher
The second half of his book is filled with support of the first half as
well. I would've thought you'd be interested to see first hand how
hatred and anger can build a premise for a religion! I guess it's safer
for you to just stick with what you already believe. Okay then. <grin>
Whatever....... But til you read THE BOOK.... you're just blowing
smoke.
neuralsurfer
Dear Cher:
I think, once again, you are missing my very simple point. I found
things in Ford's book that I didn't know before, including Gail and
Paul's marriage certificate and other materials I hadn't read.
It is pretty funny what you say about me sitting on my ass and be so
cheap and all that..........
Of course, this has nothing to do with my point that FORD had provided
new materials.....
Tightwad cheapskate.... now that is an ad hominen I haven't been
called before....
Actually, pretty funny.
In any case, my point remains the same. Ford has stuff in his book I
have never seen before, regardless of how thick my wallet is or isn't.
signed:
counting those pennies.
cher
You're spinning my point.... and it's obvious. Nothing ford found and
presented was that difficult to produce. Where were you all that time?
Hmmmm? Sitting on your hands waiting for someone to bring the material
to you!
> It is pretty funny what you say about me sitting on my ass and be so
> cheap and all that..........
Yeah... <grin> Pro who? Not Sonny! Oh bono!!!!
> Of course, this has nothing to do with my point that FORD had provided
> new materials.....
Sure does! I bet you don't want to believe it, but it does. See.... you
held the title of basher of the path all these decades, and yet ford
pops up with documents that have just been sitting there waiting for the
cost of a stamp. <chuckle> What do I call that? Cheap and lazy!
> Tightwad cheapskate.... now that is an ad hominen I haven't been
> called before....
It's a new millinium! :-)
> Actually, pretty funny.
>
> In any case, my point remains the same. Ford has stuff in his book I
> have never seen before, regardless of how thick my wallet is or isn't.
Like I said... you were the supposed expert. What a joke! tsk....
> signed:
>
> counting those pennies.
Pathapp
>Pathapp, what YOU SHOULD do is read ALL the ECKANKAR books, And if you can
>read them with an open mind, and heart, I will bet that it will make you
>think about a lot of things in a new way. Then, one can make their
I was in Eckankar for fifteen years. During that time I was in constant
Satsang classes on the discourses, and also participated in many book
discussion classes. I went to seminars, read the books, and listened to the
tapes. I had many dreams that were of a spiritual nature. Then I got a
computer about six years ago and found the David Lane material. I checked what
he wrote. I got a copy of "Path of the Masters" by Julian Johnson (from the
library), and checked out what David Lane said about the stolen passages. My
heart stopped when I saw word for word passages coming out of Rebezar Tarsz's
mouth. I started to do more research, but didn't leave Eckankar for another
three years. It then came to a point that I could not go on with the teachings
that I couldn't believe were based on truth. ( By the way, I still have
spiritual dreams.) It is obvious from reading this board that nobody changes
their mind. My only point in ever writing on this board is to maybe help
someone who is on this board to research Eckankar before joining it. I only
would like to help at least on person not go through the painful feelings of
betrayal and loss that I went through.
C. Plachowitz
> > spark wrote:
> > My memory ain't what it should be but I don't remember arelurker being
> > quite this skillful with words way back when, is it the same or has
> > arelurker become a 'title' like Mahanta that is passed on or earned through
> > specific attainments ;-). - CSK
> >
>
> arelurker <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
Sean
Pathapp, hi, I had a very painful divorce with bucket loads of betrayal and
loss. Can you help me? [a rhetorical question only]
Anyway, I think you missed the point of my post which was really about
detachment and letting go, but that's OK, <G>
FWIW This is an VERY interesting line you used:
"checked out what David Lane said about the stolen passages"
Have you ever heard about research that looked at how influenced people are
by what they are told FIRST about a subject ??? Say two children do
something wrong, but one child gets to talk to the parents first
.........................................
In reality, nothing was stolen. Used yes, but stolen? NO - it's really that
simple.
David Lane, as you may know was found GUILTY of actual Copyright breaches -
but even he didn't steal anything.
Now given that NO ONE has ever even made a claim of copyright infringement,
let alone theft, common sense says nothing was ever stolen.
I highly recommend Doug Marmon's Chapter 12 which sumarizes quite well the
issue you raised and a thing called the whole of ECKANKAR
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Twelve.htm
Quite frankly, anyone who hasn't read this chapter by Doug doesn't have a
chance of getting a glimpse of the whole picture.
Yes, you simply have to read THE book, because obviously, you don't yet get
it. ;-))
[ for the record, that's a pun on Ford btw I don't really mean it ]
take it easy
Love Sean
ps It's amazing how many times Doug uses the word "whole" in his writings.
Sean
It's a miracle! <G>
"C. Plachowitz" <cayi...@trust-me.com> wrote in message
news:d3144124.04021...@posting.google.com...
K.Lebans
> >Pathapp, what YOU SHOULD do is read ALL the ECKANKAR books, And if you can
> >read them with an open mind, and heart, I will bet that it will make you
> >think about a lot of things in a new way. Then, one can make their
>
> I was in Eckankar for fifteen years. During that time I was in constant
> Satsang classes on the discourses, and also participated in many book
> discussion classes. I went to seminars, read the books, and listened to the
> tapes. I had many dreams that were of a spiritual nature. Then I got a
> computer about six years ago and found the David Lane material. I checked what
> he wrote. I got a copy of "Path of the Masters" by Julian Johnson (from the
> library), and checked out what David Lane said about the stolen passages. My
> heart stopped when I saw word for word passages coming out of Rebezar Tarsz's
> mouth. I started to do more research, but didn't leave Eckankar for another
> three years. It then came to a point that I could not go on with the teachings
> that I couldn't believe were based on truth. ( By the way, I still have
> spiritual dreams.) It is obvious from reading this board that nobody changes
> their mind. My only point in ever writing on this board is to maybe help
> someone who is on this board to research Eckankar before joining it. I only
> would like to help at least on person not go through the painful feelings of
> betrayal and loss that I went through.
Right you are. Here's a short list of Paul Twitchell's literary crimes:
The entire foundation of ECKANKAR was built on Paulji's plagiarism of
Julian Johnson and other writers.
Paulji's testament, THE TIGER'S FANG, contains plagiarized passages
from Walter Russell's THE SECRET OF LIGHT and SantMat books. Where
Paulji is telling us about his "inner experiences," he's actually just
giving us page after page of stuff he copied from books.
Paulji's other early testament to his alleged training with the Eck
Master "Rebezar Tarzs," THE FAR COUNTRY, is absolutely riddled with
hundreds of paragraphs plagiarized from the writings of Dr. Julian
Johnson.
THE SHARIYAT KI SUGMAD, Eckankar's "Bible," contains plagiarized
passages.
ILLUMINATED WAY LETTERS, a compilation of a series of monthly letters
sent to the Eck membership, also contains plagiarized passages.
THE KEY TO ECKANKAR, an early Twitchell book, contains plagiarism.
THE FLUTE OF GOD contains plagiarized passages.
STRANGER BY THE RIVER contains plagiarized passages.
THE SPIRITUAL NOTEBOOK contains plagiarized passages.
ECKANKAR: THE KEY TO SECRET WORLDS contains plagiarized passages.
THE ECK VIDYA contains plagiarized passages.
LETTERS TO GAIL contains plagiarized passages.
THE ECK DISCOURSES contain plagiarized passages.
HERBS THE MAGIC HEALERS contains plagiarized passages.
Those all are Paul Twitchell Eck books.
In each case, evidence of plagiarism is clear. All plagiarized
passages are from copyright protected texts, and Paulji is not on
record for ever asking permission, om any of the copyright holders,for
the use of their literary property.
The fact is,
Most every book Paulji wrote on Eckankar contains documented evidence
of plagiarism.
That being so,
There's absolutely no way to tell what Paulji actually wrote, and what
he copied from others.
There's absolutely no way to tell what Paulji experienced "on the
inner," versus what he saw in someone else's book and claimed for his
own.
There's absolutely no way to TRUST Paul Twitchell about anything he
had to say about himself or his experiences.
In short,
ECKANKAR is founded upon the claims of Paul Twitchell, and
Paul Twitchell has been exposed as a liar and a plagiarist.
Those are the hard facts.
It's time for ECKANKAR, its Clergy, and its members to check
themselves:
Tell the unadorned truth about Paul Twitchell.
People who are checking out Eckankar deserve to know this truth up
front, before they part with their money, energy and devotion to Eck
org and its fictions.
Your Bud
Sean
Dear Old K Lebans.
Yes sir Mr Lebans LOL
You're entire post here is plagarised you dastardly "anonymous" literary
criminal you.
Have you ever read any of the list you mention in full?
Just one?
ladidadida.
Another day of waffle and conjecture by folks who know jack shit and have
nothing better to do that hang out on a.r.e. talking shit. <G>
Poor old aflie.
Love Sean
"K.Lebans" <bud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fc59d9a.04021...@posting.google.com...
K.Lebans
Dear Old K Lebans.
Yes sir Mr Lebans LOL
You're entire post here is plagarised you dastardly "anonymous"
literary
criminal you.
Have you ever read any of the list you mention in full?
Just one?
ladidadida.
Another day of waffle and conjecture by folks who know jack shit and
have
nothing better to do that hang out on a.r.e. talking shit. <G>
Poor old aflie.
Love Sean
Me:
If you knew your Eckankar history you would know who I am. As it is,
you are another in a long, long line of pitiful adherents of Eckankar
desperately trying to fill up that huge inner hole with some new age
gobbley-gook. I've read all of Paul's books and I knew him well. As
notorious and unethical as he was he wouldn't have given the likes of
you and the rest of the Eckankar rabble on this newsboard the time of
day. He did not like fools. He was a liar, not a fool. I've forgotten
more about Eckankar than you know, child.
Not Your Bud
neuralsurfer
Dear Cher:
Whether you believe it or not, Eckankar hasn't been my focus in any
sustained way since I wrote that term paper back when I was 20.
After that, I wrote my M.A. thesis on the genealogical history of
Radhasoami.....
and after that, my Ph.D. dissertation on the politics of guru
succession.
Along the way, there was J.R., Sai Baba, articles for FATE, book
reviews, science stuff, Wilber stuff, Faqir Chand stuff..... along
with teaching.
So, yes, I am glad that Ford did the extra leg work. I think it adds
an important dimension to the discussion, as has Doug's e-book.
I still deeply enjoy posting and reading about Eckankar, specifically
Paul Twitchell.
I find Darwin less interesting and Harold even more so.
Also, it is better for an Eckist.... someone on the inside.... to
write further on what he thinks of Eckankar than me......
So for that I tip my hat to Ford, Doug, and others.
Keep your ad hominens coming...........
Otherwise, we might end up being civil with each other.
arelurker
You've responded twice to me since you have been back and you're already
over your head. I read up to page 256 in Ford's book which is basically the
critique and deconstruction of eckankar. This is the only information I
have commented on. Pages 257 to 466 I have not read. This is his
viewpoint about higher consciousness and spirituality. Ford felt he was
obligated to not only tear something down, but to construct something.
You saying it is not appropriate for me to comment on the deconstuction
section since I have not read the construction section is absurd.
Especially in the context of you attempting to equate this with me
commenting on Geoff not reading the book as he attempts to engage Ford
and others in HCS.
You need another vacation from a.r.e..
Lurk
arelurker
His critique of eckankar is contained in the book. If you hold the
intention to build bridges, as you have stated, reading his book would
ground you in the facts and thrust of his critique of eckankar. Your
comments to him were about listing eckankar's doctrine/belief
points. He addresses these things in the first half of his book.
It spills out into all aspects of
> his life. It certainly spills out onto his site, especially his
> posts, which are much more indicative of his perspective in the
> Moment.
Sure, you can tell a lot about a person by the way they respond to
posts. However, you're always going to be in the dark since you will
have a deficit in knowledge about his viewpoints because you have not read
the book. Of course, if you simply want to make Ford the issue and
discredit his the points in his books that way, I can see how not
reading he book and spouting off uninformed opinions on his message
boards and here could be useful. Other eckists have done this as well.
I found it rather funny that he tells folks on the message
> board that the excerpts can't be taken at face value, that they need
> to be read in context. It seems to me Ford needs some standalone
> excerpts. Actually, Ford should know that a book is dead the minute
> you write it. The best you can hope for is that it leads the "seeker"
> to some kind of practice.
Not necessarily. For some people stopping all practices might be
appropriate, if not enlightening.
>
> And BTW. I am perfectly willing to build bridges, but I am not there
> to storm the gate when the portcullis drops down and the drawbridge
> comes up.
A good start to building those bridges would be to read his book. I
can't believe this is not evident to you. When I critique eckankar it is
evident that I know more about the religion than most eckists here.
>
> Do you remember the Kurt Vonnegut concept about Ice-9? It was a
> special isotope of water that turns solid at room temperature because
> it "teaches" the other water molecules a new way of stacking
> themselves. I think of Ford Johnson like a molecule of Ice-9 in the
> Sea of Eckists. He tries to convince you through a really silly
> logical loop that you cannot be an Eckist without being ignoble and
> duplicitious, and boom! he (and you evidentally you), feel that you
> are somehow rigidly locked into his way of thinking.
So this notion of ignobleness stuck in your crawl, eh?
If you know about the lies and abuse and are still an eckist, it seems
your choices are to stay and rationalize in all the creative ways eckists
have asserted on this newsgroup over the years, to stay and work to make
eckankar more honest by informing other eckists and prospective eckist
of the lies and allowing them to make an informed decision about staying
or leaving, or to simply leave . Since any reform movement in eckankar
would be construed as heretical and discipline taken and headed off at
the pass, that's not a real option. In Ford's book, Ford was disciplined
for telling a group of eckists he was speaking to that the master
consciousness or mahanta was inside not outside (i'm paraphrasing). Even
if people privately disagree with So the choices are narrowed down to
maintaining the lies by not speaking up and/or pretending they are not
lies or abuse (which is ignoble), or leaving (which is honorable and
self respecting thing to do).
>
> So there is a lot of rigidity going on at HCS and even within Eckankar
> currently because of Ford's influence, and unfortunately, because the
> ripple effect from David Lane's book is still being felt. Funny
> thing, if you read David's reply to my query to him of late, he has
> nothing but affection for Paul. And to more or less quote David: "I
> just didn't buy the guru thing". The truth of Eckankar's fundamental
> practices was never the question, so to call Darwin and Harold abusive
> for wanting to maintain the focus on these truths does not ring true
> to me, nor do I suspect it does with David either (more on this
> later).
Now now Geoff, you're doing some semantic dancing here. Show me where I
called Darwin and Harold abusive for wanting to maintain the focus on
truths. I call them abusive for lying and deceiving their students.
Let's not reframe the issue here.
And to whether Lane thinks it is abusive, perhaps you should ask him
instead of almost putting words into his mouth by assigning meaning to a
positive statement he made about Paul that was said in a different context.
That's not why I thought you got spanked by Ford. Here's part of his
response to your doctrine list:
****************
First, you have stated only a tiny fraction of what constitutes the
doctrine and teachings of Eckankar. Other contributors to this web
site have provided details on the numerous instances of falsehood and
deception contained in the works. Then too, there is the problem of
“internal contradictions,” for this was one of
Paul’s and Eckankar’s primary techniques of deception. By
stating both sides of an issue the student is left to choose whichever
one appeals to them even though they are in stark contradiction to
each other. I include one example of this taken from Confessions
(Chapter 7 pg. 160).
“Issue 2 - Does the Eck student have the freedom to leave
should he or she choose?
The Benign Face of Eckankar:
"The Master always grants total spiritual freedom to his students.
They are never controlled or manipulated, and they have complete
freedom of choice in every aspect of life.187"
"ECKANKAR’s respect for the sanctity of the individual shows
itself in how ECKANKAR is taught and honors the rights, privacy, and
personal space of others.188"
The Entrapping Face of Eckankar:
"Within the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad is found the quotation, “He who
leaves the path of ECK, or refuses to follow it, shall dwell in the
astral hells until the Master takes mercy upon him and brings him upon
the path again.”189"
"Woe be unto him if he does [resign], for it is known among those who
have reached these lofty heights and witnessed the consequences of the
few who have. Those few have found that spiritual decay sets in
immediately, affecting the health, material life and spiritual life,
and brings death more swiftly.190"
"This doesn’t exactly sound like “total spiritual
freedom,” or like a group whose members “are never
controlled or manipulated” and have “complete freedom of
choice in every aspect of life.”191 The double-talk could not be
more apparent. The newcomer is lulled into a sense of total freedom
until she asks too many questions, hints at dropping out, or otherwise
acts in a manner that goes against something the Living Eck Master has
said, done or written."
This example illustrates the point that simply agreeing on what
statements in Eckankar doctrine are true or not is not as easy as you
suggest for Eckankar routinely tries to have it both ways. That is why
I do not consider it fruitful to engage in your exercise because even
if one could reach agreement on some of the principles you present, it
does not mean that Eckankar has not also put forth the opposite
position in some of its other publications. This is the culture of
double-talk and deception. It runs so deep and is at times so subtle
that it took me over one year to unravel and expose the many tricks of
deception that Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp employed to support the
Eckankar teachings. If you are prepared to read the book, as I have
suggested, you will see the patterns about which I am speaking. But
this is not the forum for trying to untangle the web of deception that
is ubiquitous in Eckankar’s teachings. I will, however, take a
few of your illustrations and be more specific in pointing out were
the deception lies.
*********************
Geoff, he is basically making a point I've made all along: the best you
can say about eckankar doctrines and belief system is that it is
duplicitous. You can't make that go away. I will agree with the positive
aspects are prevalent, but I also acknowledge the contradictions that
arise out of what I believe to be the dissonance the eck masters and
eckankar leaders prominently exude.
So in light of this greater context, your doctrine list is rather
shallow treatment of a complex subject. Ford gave you an old fashion
intellectual ass whooping. <g> I think you kind of sensed it since you
asked us here if you got spanked.
> Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edi tion (v 1.0.0)
Hey Geoff, your quibbling over words here is not helping your case about
whether your points prevailed after Ford responded to them. I mean,
listing repeated dictionary definitions and thesaurus entries for the word
disperse in an inconsequential statement indicates a certain desperation
on your part from where I sit.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Ford. And I have some reservations
about some of the points in his book. I think his book deserves a
critical review. As it stands, you posted
doctrinal points on his message board and don't have the background
information contained in his book to have a competent exchange. You're
left critiquing his personality or quibbling over words. I expect better
from you. Read the damn book!
As I mentioned earlier, a deeper inspection arising out of your own self
knowledge of seeing your own duplicity or dissonance (as I have seen my
own) will make the dissonance that is rampant in eckankar glaringly
obvious. However, if one chooses not to look at their own dissonance and
duplicity, then, when it is presented to them externally, this will be
denied as well.
>
> And frankly, I don't care about all the advertising copy and what it
> means with respect to entrapment and duplicity. Calling Eckankar "the
> most direct path to God" is not disingenuous at all. It is a natural
> part of trying to attract attention. Here is an analogy that really
> works: two brands of aspirin both contain the maximum dosage per
> tablet allowed by law: 500mg. They can both say that they are the
> strongest over the counter pain reliever.
That's a poor analogy....but perhaps I can give it a makeover: To make the
analogy more accurate, the one aspirin bottle would claim that it is the
only pain reliever that works. That all others are fake and if you take
the other pain relievers you will surely experience your personal hell
of pain. The other aspirin makers are evil. And for those who take this
strongest aspirin, if they stop taking it, they will turn into a
vegetable, etc.
>
> And I don't agree with Colleen's recent post that HCS is a cult or
> headed that way either. Commiting non-linear experience to paper is
> hard to do. Ford will learn that just like everyone else.
>
> Paul, a free thinker like me, didn't worry about it. He wrote a
> number of different books from a number of different points of view.
> One elephant, ten or twelve angles. He says in so many words: Sorry
> if they sound contradictory. If you can't handle it, go find a
> spiritual welfare program somewhere else. And take your spoon with
> you.
Yes Paul appeals to people who fashion themselves "free thinkers" or
"independent thinkers." However, when you deconstruct such self
perceptions in yourself, you'll see that Paul was a highly dependent,
emotionally unstable person whose rebellious streak says more about his
attachments than his liberation from them.
>
> As I wrote to Cher tonight: this go round on A.R.E. has taught me that
> Eckankar really is the true Path of the Masters. Thanks to you for
> making that realization posssible.
>
> >
> > b)
> > > whether plagarism is lying, and
> >
> > When Paul takes words from another author and puts them into Rebazar
> > Tarz's mouth and tells his readers Reb spoke those words, that is lying.
> >
>
> Unlike Ford, and like Paul Twichell, the words I choose are very
> precise. Plagarism in and of itself is not lying.
I disagree. The dictionary definition is this: "a piece of writing that
has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own
work."
To present writing as your own, when it is not, is lying. Do I need to
post the definition of lying?
>
> >
> >
> > c) whether lying constitutes abuse,
> > > especially in the same vein as the analogy you are about to use.
> >
> > You don't think lying to students on a path of truth is abuse? Oh my!
> >
> > "To deceive or trick" is one of the dictionary definitions of abuse.
> >
> > I think the abuse analogy works great for a couple of different reasons:
> >
> > 1) It's abuse occurring in a relationship.
> > 2) It's abuse that is a result of one person passing their pain on to
> > another in an unconscious reactive manner. Paul and Harold pass on their
> > self hatred to others and the husband passes on the physical abuse he
> > saw his father do to his mother.
> > 3) There are self abuse aspects being played out.
> > 4) Both parties have their roles and contribution in the abuse.
> > 5) Both parties have a dependency of some sort that keeps them bound in
> > the abusive relationship.
> >
> > I can understand why you might object to the analogy because it
> > highlights physical abuse and the stigma attached to that in terms of
> > societal morality...that it is not the same as lying abuse. However,
> > psychic abuse, which is what Paul and Harold have engaged in, I can
> > argue, is even worse than physical abuse. It's more subtle and insidious
> > and therefore harder to pin point and identify. Sure a physical beating
> > is different than a psychic beating, but this is not enough to render
> > the analogy useless. So I think the analogy works fine.
Why no response to these points above? Are they irrefutable? I thought so.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Whenever you write like this, especially that below, it doesn't seem
> > > to come from a non-dualistic place like some of your other writings.
> > > But I do appreciate your concern about me that you express in the end.
> >
> > Well I'm sorry you view my words this way. I asked some interesting
> > questions below and I'm disappointed you chose not to respond. Perhaps
> > it is uncomfortable for you to consider such questions. So be it.
> > Perhaps you could own that instead of telling me I'm not coming from a
> > nondualistic perspective.
>
> You asked two questions below that were of the "do you still beat your
> wife" bent, because to even answer your questions implies I buy in to
> your hackneyed analogy about Paul, Darwin and Harold in any way being
> like wife beaters.
No no no....It has been established that Paul lied. I showed that the
dictionary definition revealed lying as abuse.
What you are doing here is using the strategy that many eckists have
used over the years. It is called denial. As long as you can deny there
is any abuse, then it continues to happen. Denial is what has kept
eckankar going for so many years. Imagine that, a path of truth that has
created this insidious context where a student feels he/she must deny
the lying the goes on in order to pursue truth. I'm here to tell you
that denial of anything negative is not truth.
A smart guy like you can come up with a far better
> analogy, especially since I came up with a far better one for you 18
> months ago.
My questions are so pertinent, it seems you're having trouble with them.
Let me reword them for you: Hypothetically speaking, if Paul and Harold
lied to the students, and the students, upon finding out about the lies,
said they don't care because they've advance so much spiritually, what
kind of spiritual growth allows the
continued abuse of self and others?
Maybe this question is easier to answer in hypothetical form. But I
think it is important for you to answer it.
Geoff, these words arose in me when I was responding to one of your
posts where you specifically ask me to comment on your experience you
had recently. I really don't want anybody to live by them. They served
their purpose and now you killed them by imploring us to live by them.
But that's okay...
> Here and Now. Eckist and detractor
> alike. Thank you again for taking the trouble to write them.
Your welcome.
>
> But interestingly enough, your <g> above nothwithstanding, to listen
> to most of your (ex)poser posts, some wimp out there should construe
> your admonition against seeking as a fear inducing tactic to keep them
> under your control. But you and I know that nothing could be further
> from the truth.
If I was an authoritarian guru with students and told them that if they
seek they will suffer a living astral hell, and that they need to follow
me and stop seeking immediately, with me creating a whole dogmatic
system for not seeking, then, yes, it would be a fear inducing tactic.
The form, the context often is a more powerful message than the content
as I have explained to you in the past.
A context of an authoritarian guru disseminating spiritual information
often yields dependent students who want to be told what to do, even
when, ironically enough, the message is telling the students rely on
their own experiences. I think I inadvertently described Harold's folly.
>
> And I have been asking you and other posters of Great Words lately:
> are these yours? All of them? Do you think I could find a similar
> passage in books you have read?
I think I answered you....that I created those words and thoughts based
upon my personal understand derived from reading and experiences.
Your questions, though, trivialize the importance of Paul plagiarizing
and what that means. I mean, Paul told people he had certain spiritual
experiences and they turn out to be descriptions from someone else's
books. This is not the same has repeating learned knowledge in our own
unique way. Nor is copying word for word other people's books and
telling people you wrote them the same as regurgitating learned
material. Paul was obviously trying to build
himself up as an authority. What better way to do so than to created
books by copy other people writing?
>
> Frankly, I do not care. I am inspired by the word You wrote and
> brought to My attention in this Moment. Thanks again (as I bask in
> them).
I think any self respecting person would care if I represent my words as
mine when they are someone else's. That would be lying to you. People who
respect themselves care when others lie to them. Why? Because lying is
abuse.
People who allow themselves to be trampled upon, need to do some
psychological work in service of their spirituality as John Welwood
called in in that article I posted recently.
>
> So what is the point if I do not care?
The point is that it is sad to see such poor self regard. Often the wife
of the abusing husband tries to downplay the abuse: "it is not such
a big deal, he's a good man."
We always seem to give
> ourselves the benefit of the doubt because we know our own mind and
> that our cause is just. Our intentions are ure. It is much more
> challenging to puzzle out how someone else may deserve the same
> benefit.
Geoff, your comparison of my words about nonduality and Paul's
plagiarism again is a sign of desperation in my view. Paul doesn't get
the benefit of the doubt because he is a proven and know liar.
You are free to pretend that he is not, but facts are stacked up against
you.
I enjoy our exchanges as well. You're an refreshing oasis.
>
> That said. Here is my truth from where I stand on your question
> above: Two points.
>
> Point 1. I would not stand for what I perceive as abuse.
Then why do you stand for the abuse that occurs in eckankar?
You know, Ford had a similar viewpoint to yours back in the early
eighties which has evolved. It is good to seek to understand people who
have held your viewpoint and have changed to a different viewpoint. Pick
their brain why they changed their mind. You can learn and benefit from
the efforts of others.
If I saw my
> brother in law beating my sister, then I would kick his ass in a NY
> Moment. No question about letting him and her "learn their lessons".
> What a crock of New Age garbage. God/Life/EK/All That Is/Chance
> brought the wife beating of MY SISTER to my attention, and it is up to
> me to act in that Moment as I see fit. I looked deeper into your
> hypothetical Moment, and after kicking my B-I-L's bony ass, I asked my
> sister if she had been beaten by him before. And since the answer was
> yes, I hugged her to told her I am so sorry that she had a loser for a
> husband, and then yelled at her for not coming to me or others who
> love her before to help her get out. Then, I grabbed a bag and took
> her over to my house where my wife and I helped her get back on her
> feet again. Moment over. She can deal with her next Moments later.
> Maybe she learns a lesson, maybe not. I feel good about it Here and
> Now. Thanks for the seed of contemplation.
Your sentiments here mirror and even go beyond the anti-cult factions
that want to kidnap people out of cults. You not only want to rescue
her, you want to kick his ass. Your solution creates more violence and
is directly violent to both your sister and your to brother in law.
>
> Point 2. Eckankar is not abusive to me or others in any definition I
> have of the word abuse.
It is a common tactic to deny abuse as I explained earlier. That lead
nowhere except to more abuse for yourself and others.
You and Ford can wind yourselves up all
> frickin day long about how bad it is that Paul made up Rebazar and put
> words in his mouth, but that does not make it abuse.
Geoff, read Ford's book and come back and tell me if you think it is
abuse.
>
> Now before you go off and reply to that, please answer an earnest
> question from me. Can you think of one *good* reason why Paul might
> have wanted to put other authors words in various Varaigi Masters and
> Lords of the World without attribution?
Sure. Paul was a loser and had spent his whole life fighting his demons.
One of the ways he fought his demons was to be a part of cultic groups.
After years of doing that, he didn't have much to show for his efforts.
You can only go through so many groups before the self hatred emerges.
So a new method of keeping the self hatred at arms length had
to be employed. He found a way to surppress his self hatred by becoming
a guru, becoming an authority to students. This is interesting in and of
itself.
Paul's self hatred was documented and pronounced. What you find with
folks who hate themselves is they tend to disconnect from who they are
or put their true natures into shadow. Who they are is not acceptable
(in Paul's case, his mother passed on her self hatred to him) and they
hide who they are and take personas in order to be love. Their sense of
self is painful so they opt to have no sense of self.
They're sense of self is so intensely and consistently rejecting and
steeped with negative judgments that, in order to alleviate the pain and
adapt, they simply lose their sense of self all together...they
disassociate. This can be seen in people who live vicariously through
others. There are a whole range of characters that fit this bill.
One of the more severe cases would be a person who gets caught up in an
authoritarian cultic group and who surrenders his/her sense of negative
self. I recall an interview with one of the Heaven's Gate survivors by a
television reporter. After a series of questions, the interviewer asked
the Heaven's Gate guy what HE like to do for fun. This stopped the guy
in his tracks. He did not know how to respond. The thought of a personal
preference befuddled him. Very poignant moment. His sense of self was so
caught up with the group consciousness, the idea of him having a desire
to have fun did not compute. Was this because of a no self state he
achieved where he no longer identified with ego? My view is no, this is
a type of no self that is fueled by a reaction to, and compensation for,
a severely negative sense of self that is implied and assumed in the
stance. To have a sense of self means pain, so identifying with
something externally solves this problem—temporarily, at least.
I think this no self can be confused with the no self (beyond ego) many
spiritual groups talk about because there are elements of freedom in
disassociating with a negative sense of self via identification with
external agencies whatever they might be. People who join cultic groups
often feel a sense of expansion and freedom in renouncing their former
life which included all internal references and structures to their
negative self. The freedom experienced is real in the sense of the
feelings associated with it, but the foundation on which it rest is a
psychological house of cards because it requires repressing negative
sense of self and merging with, and identifying with, the group
consciousness. Again, a distinction needs to be made here between
feeling of oneness of merging with all and merging with a group
consciousness in a codependent manner.
This explains why cultic members can be vehement/fanatical about
defending and staying with such group. There's a psychological double
whammy in operation to keep members tied to the group: Not only will
they lose the feelings of expansion which are externally dependent, but
they will have to face their negative sense of self they were avoiding
in the first place. Double ouch!
Joining a cult group would be a severe example of loss of a sense of
self. It could be something as simple and subtle as living through a
spouse and confuse such living through the spouse as love when it is
dependency. The same dynamic is in operation as with the cultic group
member: A partner's negative sense of self can be suspended or repressed
by living through the other in which this person derives positive
feelings from such "hiding out." If you have ever been around severely
codependent people who are obsessively concerned about fixing and
reforming others, you might think you are in that movie "Invasion of the
body snatchers." There's a powerful self denial energy that gets
expressed as helping and living vicariously.
This was very much Paul Twitchell's psychological make up. Yes he was
excited to teach people. Yes he was well read and read some good stuff.
But let's face it....Paul had a negative sense of himself he had not
adequately dealt with in his life. And such condition is naturally
expressed in the way he went about starting his group and teaching
people. In fact, I would argue that often people starting spiritual
groups and healing centers, etc do so as a symbolic gesture to heal
themselves. Unconsciously, they attempt to create the conditions for
their own healing through healing and guiding others.
I think it is necessary to view Paul as person who went from loser to
suddenly finding success to going on a big ego trip. People steeped in
self hatred will find ways to sabotage their success. One of the ways
Paul did this was to lie to people. Why? He felt so small and inadequate
internally, he naturally assumed the rest of the world viewed him this
way. So what does he do? He crafts a grandiose view of himself, makes up
shit, and to the world to make himself an authority to others.
One way he became an authority was to publish books that contained
plagiarized material. He
could use other people's spiritual experiences and pass them off as his
own and/or take people's words and pretend like and eck master said
them. It made him look bigger than he was. The more he was viewed as a
spiritual authority, the more students. More followers meant more money
for him. So there was some economic incentive, and some emotional
incentive of being an authority that were "good" reasons for Paul to
plagiarized. Paul satisfied his needs the best way he knew how.
Unfortunately, his moral and psychological development was lacking and
his way of satisfying his needs hurt others. Same with Harold....he has
made decisions over the years in how to handle the lies in eckankar in
the best way he knew how given his moral and psychological development
and lack of a sense of self.
Geoff, that you do not acknowledge the lies and abuse in eckankar and
feel hurt concerns me.
Lurk
p
Sean
news:<Q5qdnRmsnLt...@inspired.net.au>...
>
>
> Dear Old K Lebans.
>
> Yes sir Mr Lebans LOL
>
> You're entire post here is plagarised you dastardly "anonymous"
> literary
> criminal you.
>
> Have you ever read any of the list you mention in full?
>
> Just one?
>
> ladidadida.
>
> Another day of waffle and conjecture by folks who know jack shit and
> have
> nothing better to do that hang out on a.r.e. talking shit. <G>
>
> Poor old aflie.
>
> Love Sean
>
>
> Me:
>
> If you knew your Eckankar history you would know who I am. As it is,
> you are another in a long, long line of pitiful adherents of Eckankar
> desperately trying to fill up that huge inner hole with some new age
> gobbley-gook. I've read all of Paul's books and I knew him well.
Can I kiss your feet now?
As
> notorious and unethical as he was he wouldn't have given the likes of
> you and the rest of the Eckankar rabble on this newsboard the time of
> day. He did not like fools. He was a liar, not a fool. I've forgotten
> more about Eckankar than you know, child.
>
> Not Your Bud
sniffle sniffle poor boy - are you now budless?
LOL
arelurker
"C. Plachowitz" wrote:
>
> Lurk has had a short, childlike moment. Enjoy it.
Blow me.
Ken
"arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
>
>
> "C. Plachowitz" wrote:
> >
> > Lurk has had a short, childlike moment. Enjoy it.
>
> Blow me.
You know Lurk, Plachowtiz's statement wasn't necessarily derogatory.
Being childlike, approaching Life with a fresh and new attitude, is
necessary to truly perceive reality openly and without the usual blinding
preconceptions we adults carry around with us.
cher
Thanks for the map around your core being! Don't leave home without it!
<chuckle> It would be nice to see you take responsibilty for what you've
written, but obviously that is too much to ask. My point still stands,
that after all these years, here you are and what are we discussing?
We're talking about your interest in Eckankar. Play it down all you want
to, it was a great many years after the term paper when you set up your
yahooclub named eckankarhistory! So don't try to play me.... I'm not a
surfer groupie. <g> My point still stands, that with your continued
participation on this topic and your desire to resist attempts to show
where you're wrong in your material are more telling then all the
rationalizations you present here. When push comes to shove david, your
term paper is flawed and you have not corrected it. If you cared about
what you do, you'd be the first one to show growth in yourself as the
author instead of hanging onto your childhood so diligently.
As to being civil, I don't find our exchanges uncivil. Direct, to the
point and blunt, but certainly not uncivil. If you can't handle this
style of approach, oh well..... I certainly have no desire to wrap my
questions in hallmark cards so you don't feel the squirm too
uncomfortable in the moment. But I have to say that I am beginning to
wonder what you expect from your students for their grades, if your need
to be liked is this dominient in your personality.
cher
Well lurk, if you'd read the rest of the book..... that information
you're so disgusted with, you'd discover that the deconstruction and
critique of Eckankar doesn't end with page 256. <g> tsk.... in fact
you'd discover that the basis for what ford writes in pages 1-256 are
dependent upon what ford presents in pages 257-466. Just in case you
were wondering what you'd missed out on.
> You saying it is not appropriate for me to comment on the deconstuction
> section since I have not read the construction section is absurd.
> Especially in the context of you attempting to equate this with me
> commenting on Geoff not reading the book as he attempts to engage Ford
> and others in HCS.
That's right..... I'm saying that because you make an issue out of
reading the book that you're partical skimming of the material in
support of your previous bias and belief structure makes this
hypocritical. Yep.... that's what I'm saying. <g> Now if you do get
around to reading the rest of the book..... perhaps you could then tell
someone that they need to read it before they can discuss it. As it
stands, for Geoff or anyone to discuss the material with you, all they
need is a familiarization of the standard detractor platform. The
material is all identical.
> You need another vacation from a.r.e..
You should try a vacation sometime lurk! You'd be amazed at how clear it
all becomes after a bit of time off. <g>
Jan4litsnd
>From: bud...@hotmail.com (K.Lebans)
>Date: 2/12/04 2:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3fc59d9a.04021...@posting.google.com>
BUD:
>Right you are. Here's a short list of Paul Twitchell's literary crimes:
>
>The entire foundation of ECKANKAR was built on Paulji's plagiarism of
>Julian Johnson and other writers.
JAN:
The entire foundation of ECKANKAR is built upon the truth of the Light and
Sound, and Soul as the experiencer of ALL, and the truth of one's own spiritual
experiences with Inner Masters.
Of course Pathapp still has spiritual dreams and experiences, as that is the
truth of Paul Twitchell's teachings, that Soul is the experiencer, independent
of any need for or belief in any outer written words. Some would say Paul's
mission was to open one's consciousness to the ability to translate inner
experiences to one's physical world consciousness. In Paul's time, his teaching
was referred to as Eckankar, the Ancient Science of Soul Travel. Paul's
mission was to again point to this methodology of spiritual training; perhaps
keeping in mind twentieth century Western perspectives on living.
From ECKANKAR THE KEY TO SECRET WORLDS, Paul Twitchell, pg. 23:
"...the field of Eckankar has grown rapidly and developed along several
different paths. These offspring include Anahad Yoga, Sufism, and Lamaism.
Last is my own system codified into a study of the various Soul Travel methods
of getting out of the body. Eckankar is the ancient path of Soul Travel; I have
only streamlined it."
If we look closely at what Paul was saying in that passage quoted, he was
referring to a "system" which he called "Eckankar", that included the teachings
of Anahad Yoga, Sufism, and Lamaism, as well as Eckankar the outer
organization/teaching we are talking about here. The reason I point that out is
that when reading the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad every time one reads the word
"Eckankar", if bearing that in mind, it takes on a slightly different meaning
than just thinking of it in terms of Eckankar the organization and religion
which is the subject of this newsgroup.
It's seems sad to me when someone comes across Lane's material or Ford's
material, and takes it for gospel. Ford picked up much from Lane without
checking many of the facts, critics do as well. Doug Marman's research has
shown that Lane's original thesis contained much hearsay, assumption of
motivations, as well as exaggerations about plagiarism and the meaning.
Marman's research brought more of the facts to light, his ebook 'Dialogue in
the Age of Criticism' can be read at:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialogue_TOC.htm
BUD:
>Paulji's testament, THE TIGER'S FANG, contains plagiarized passages
>from Walter Russell's THE SECRET OF LIGHT and SantMat books. Where
>Paulji is telling us about his "inner experiences," he's actually just
>giving us page after page of stuff he copied from books.
JAN:
THE TIGER'S FANG is Paul's own words for the most part, with only some passages
shown to be the words of or similar to those of another.
In his manuscripts early on and prior to publication in book form, Paul had
mentioned Rebazar Tarzs as his Inner Master, as well as other Masters--not just
Kirpal Singh. That he chose to delete Kirpal Singh's name from The Tiger's Fang
and other books at the time of publication was Paul's prerogative as the
author. Some feel he had good reason in his decision. Again, see Marman's ebook
and research for more understanding of Paul's experiences and history with
Kirpal Singh in this regard.
BUD:
>Paulji's other early testament to his alleged training with the Eck
>Master "Rebezar Tarzs," THE FAR COUNTRY, is absolutely riddled with
>hundreds of paragraphs plagiarized from the writings of Dr. Julian
>Johnson.
JAN:
Certainly the books are not the path, nor are they the inner Master, nor are
they our connection to Spirit. If the books disappear, the inner Master and the
experiences continue. .
Doug Marman wrote about 'The Far Country' in 'Dialogue in the Age of
Criticism' Chapter Six:
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Six.htm -----
"Reading David's comments, you might think that all, or even many of
Paul's books contain borrowed materials to the same extent as The Far Country,
but this isn't true. Although most of Paul's books, as far as I know, do
contain some passages, even if only a few sentences or a paragraph here and
there copied from other authors, showing that this practice of Paul's was not
unique to The Far Country, still, these other cases are insignificant compared
to The Far Country. In fact, if The Far Country had never been printed, I
doubt any controversy over plagiarism would have been raised at all."
"If we remember that Paul had authored over sixty texts, as David has told
us, then this portion of The Far Country that David is referring to would
account for around 1% of Paul's writings, and from what I've seen all of the
other passages borrowed would amount to less than this."
BUD:
JAN:
People who are checking out Eckankar deserve to know the extent to which
critics have exaggerated and blown up the plagiarism issue.
Chapter Six of 'Dialogue in the Age of Criticism'
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Six.htm
also has interesting information about changes in regard to plagiarism in the
last century and during the time that Paul Twitchell wrote his books.
Regardless of misleading claims of critics, paragraphs in Twitchell's books
thusfar found to be similar to anothers have been counted and are approximately
.8% of his writings, which is less than 1%.
To learn more about ECK Masters:
http://eckankar.org/Masters/whoaremasters.html
@aloha.net Rich
"K.Lebans" <bud...@hotmail.com> wrote
<SNIP>
Joe's list sums it up for so many.
The teachings of Spirit, written by others, existed before Eckankar.
All(in reality it's a very small portion) of Paul's writings have
unattributed bits from those writings. The _horror_(hear Marlon:) of
plagiarism proves Eckankar is fiction.
yawn...
neuralsurfer
Dear Cher:
I have responded repeatedly on this newsgroup and elsewhere to so many
things concerning Eckankar.
I have even responded to Doug and have already put my response to his
first five chapters on my website. With plans on responding to each
and every chapter.
I tend not to indulge in using ad hominens when speaking with you.
That was what I meant by civility versus uncivility.
In any case, Cher, it is always good to get critical feedback.
It actually juices up the system and makes one get work done that
probably wouldn't otherwise.
Presently, I think Ford is doing this and the heat that gets generated
helps all concerned.
I would say the same about Doug's work.
It gets people to think.
Always a good thing.
In any case,
Sean
Don't be silly Cher .......... Lurk has had numerous time outs from a.r.e.
and everytime he comes back he's worse, not clearer.
It's a neverending spiral in the downward direction as far as his
particpation in this ng is concerned. He still does NOT hear what other
people say and it's getting worse for the old codger. <G>
I'm still waiting for my name to go up in lights in his ebook and his top
ranking websites too, but guess what, I'm not holding my breath.
ladidadida
Pathapp
> The _horror_(hear Marlon:) of
>plagiarism proves Eckankar is fiction.
Rich, when the highest consciousness on Earth, a Godman, takes (steals?) words
from another author, puts them coming out of the mouths of his teachers -
highly spiritual masters (who if they were true, I can't believe that they
would have allowed this - if PT was lucky enough to have a lecture by a
spiritual giant like RT - why would he have to use Julian Johnson's words -
wouldn't he just use RT's own words?) Yes, to me, it does prove that Eckankar
is fiction. Not the spiritual truths that PT wrote about, but the Vairagi
Masters, and his religion, Eckankar, being the originator of all other
religions.
Sean
David, here's another version.
It's 2004, the ng is alt.religion.eckankar and you are still here.
Not only that you recently said you are in the process of a 25th Anniversay
Edition of the Making.
Not only that but you are interested in what Ford has done and support his
work which IS to tear down the foundation of Eckankar - the LEM/Mahanta.
Then there is the archives of discussions here on a.r.e. since 1995 you have
been involved in.
But if you wish to describe the above as NOT being in "any sustained way"
since you were 20 years old, well sure, who am I to suggest otherwise. <G>
I still find it funny that after all this time the conjecture you can up
with that totally belies the known FACTS of a matter is astounding - a real
personal talent of yours. Oblivious to the obvious is your forte, even about
yourself!!!
But rip another top off the coke bottle and enjoy yourself! ;-))
If you were fair dinkum about your stated "interests", imho you'd be
investigating the HCS and doing an expose on Ford as a leader, while the
issue were ripe and happening.
But you're not, and that's a fact worth considering in connection with your
"stated views". There's ample fodder in the HCS about "guru succession" and
those that blindly follow the leader............. but the REAL issue is
Eckankar and all it stands for, not Paul Twitchell imho.
You are yet to separate the two because you still do not understand what
Eckankar is yet. So, here you are, still trying to understand. And I think
that's cute, especially after 25 years of SUSTAINED interest.
But at least you're not a moron like the trolls here. I appreciate that very
much.
Love Sean
Sean
"Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
news:XsNWb.23577$fV5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> >
> >
> > "C. Plachowitz" wrote:
> > >
> > > Lurk has had a short, childlike moment. Enjoy it.
> >
> > Blow me.
>
>
> You know Lurk, Plachowtiz's statement wasn't necessarily derogatory.
>
I thought it was clearly a compliment for a good natured humourous post for
once, without any irrationality.
But like I said elsewhere, Lurk doesn't actualy hear what people say here.
;-)
> Being childlike, approaching Life with a fresh and new attitude, is
> necessary to truly perceive reality openly and without the usual blinding
> preconceptions we adults carry around with us.
>
HUH, speak for yourself. Nothing wrong with my perceptions!!! My rose
coloured glasses work just fine.
Yeah right! <G>
Sean
"Jan4litsnd" <jan4l...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040212165450...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Hi Jan,
great post ..........
See summary in Chapter 12 ........... half way down the page is this info.
In one of Harold's talks, he describes an old letter of Paul's that he
found, where Paul writes about a being who visited him when he was eight
years old. "The being said he would look after Paul's spiritual welfare
until Paul reached maturity," said Harold. Paul would have turned eight in
1917, only a few years after Babuji became the Sant Sat Guru of the Parent
Faith. Babuji died in October 1949, only one year before Paul joined Swami
Premananda's ashram, as Paul began looking for his new spiritual teacher.
Eventually Paul made contact with Rebazar Tarzs, who showed him the complete
teachings of ECKANKAR.
In other words, Paul did not give out all of the teachings during his
six years as the Living ECK Master, nor can any Master, because it is the
search and discovery of the untold teachings that make up the Path Itself.
This is an inner path, but there is also a physical connection that needs to
be made. The physical link also carries some of the current to complete the
circuit, which is why a physical Master is also needed.
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Twelve.htm
Jan4litsnd
>From: pat...@aol.com (Pathapp)
>Date: 2/12/04 8:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20040212204423...@mb-m13.aol.com>
>
>> The _horror_(hear Marlon:) of
>>plagiarism proves Eckankar is fiction.
PATHAPP:
>Rich, when the highest consciousness on Earth, a Godman, takes (steals?)
>words
>from another author, puts them coming out of the mouths of his teachers -
>highly spiritual masters (who if they were true, I can't believe that they
>would have allowed this - if PT was lucky enough to have a lecture by a
>spiritual giant like RT - why would he have to use Julian Johnson's words -
>wouldn't he just use RT's own words?) Yes, to me, it does prove that
>Eckankar
>is fiction. Not the spiritual truths that PT wrote about, but the Vairagi
>Masters, and his religion, Eckankar, being the originator of all other
>religions.
JAN:
You said: "wouldn't he just use RT's own words?"
"Words" as we know them aren't what are used when it comes to the
communications taking place on levels beyond this one, but more of a direct
communication much like telepathy.
Here's a quote from ASK THE MASTER, Book, by Harold Klemp:
[Q] "I assume the personal dialogues in the ECK works were recorded practically
word for word. How do the Masters have such precise recall?"
[HK] "Paul Twitchell wasn't an ECK Master yet when he had the experiences
recorded in several of the ECK works."
"In general, however, the ECK Masters often speak to one with a highly compact
form of communication, much like telepathy. It is like a computer program that
compresses a document file for storage."
"The chela must decompress the file. He tries to keep the intent of the
discourse as he converts it into everyday language. There is no word-for-word
utility program that will exactly translate an inner conversation into outer
words."
"It is even harder than trying to keep the exact meaning of a message in
English that is translated into French, then from French into Spanish, and
finally from Spanish back into English. The several stages of translation can
easily jumble the original message by the time it finishes the loop."
Jan4litsnd
>From: "Sean" whyb...@all.com
>Date: 2/12/04 9:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <DtudnXsNNOI...@inspired.net.au>
JAN:
Thanks, Sean, I had forgotten about this, will have to re-read this chapter
again soon. Doug certainly has given us great information that puts some of
the pieces of the puzzle together.
Sean
"neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d975b1d5.04021...@posting.google.com...
Hi David, just wondering if you've ever read the numerous ad hominens laid
at Doug's feet around these parts by trolls and sincere detractors alike?
The last thing they usually say about it is that it gets them thinking.
Maybe what you meant was, it gets "some" people thinking. <g>
Some others just turn into blathering idiots I reckon. And that's OK, of
course! <VBG>
Sean
And it sure is a puzzle that's for sure. <G>
I really like this line by Doug: "because it is the search and discovery of
the untold teachings that make up the Path Itself."
Love Sean
Michael
I will second the last sentence!
I far prefer the oblique side shifting commentary that takes a year to nail
down to a single fact (before it is changed again) to the verbose blandness
of the rest of the "stuff" here.
Oh...Personally speaking, I specifically exclude Werner from the blandness.
A ray of dark light in the muddle.
Love
michael
>
>
Michael
"Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
news:XsNWb.23577$fV5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> >
> > "C. Plachowitz" wrote:
> > >
> > > Lurk has had a short, childlike moment. Enjoy it.
> >
> > Blow me.
>
>
> You know Lurk, Plachowtiz's statement wasn't necessarily derogatory.
>
> Being childlike, approaching Life with a fresh and new attitude, is
> necessary to truly perceive reality openly and without the usual blinding
> preconceptions we adults carry around with us.
Of course, Lurk will NOT understand this... <G>
That's the charm of the lad!
Love
Michael
neuralsurfer
Dear Sean:
There is no denying that I definitely enjoy alt.religion.eckankar and
that I have a deep and abiding interest in Paul Twitchell's life and
work.
I do.
But I have almost no interest in Harold Klemp, and very little in
Darwin Gross.
I just find them boring.....
Personally, I am not here to destroy Eckankar or to accomplish some
deep seated spiritual mission.
Eckankar will survive me and Ford.
That's obvious.
I just happen to like the dynamics here...... because it is an
unmoderated newsgroup and since about 1994 people have been writing
all sorts of stuff about me and my research.....
Aaron told me about this group back then and I have been interested
since that point.
Yes, I certainly don't think Twitchell was enlightened and I do think
he made lots of stuff up.
But I also don't think my own guru was enlightened.
I also don't think perfect masters exist (and even Twitchell used to
use that sort of terminology back in his early discourses).
And, yes, there are certainly many sides to the Twitchell/Eckankar
story.
You then raise the issue about why I am not going after HCS and Ford.
Well, I am not really very interested in his group, just as I have
written very little (comparatively speaking) on John-Roger, even
though I know that guy personally and have a lot more PERSONAl HISTORY
with him.
Why not?
J.R. simply bores me.
Nothing more sophisticated than that, whereas Twitchell is
continuously interesting to me on some level...... something I cannot
say about Klemp or Gross.
Same with R.S. history...... Certain gurus interest me, like Kirpal
Singh or Faqir Chand or Charan Singh.
But I find others to be a snooze fest.
Thus, one tends to write on one's interests......
I realize that some may think I have some great motive in mind, but I
don't.
What happens is this:
I usually post on R.S. studies and other groups I check...... Work on
other projects and when I am bored I come over here and see what's
happening.
And, occasionally, slug it out with Cher or Doug or whoever.......
Learning always in the process of how to react.
This is a great arena to test how one reacts...... One learns a lot.
It also helps motivate me to think deeper on these kinds of issues and
hopefully get back to other writing projects with some juice.
In any case, my present view is that all gurus are merely human.
neuralsurfer
I realize that we are in the realm of pure speculation, but why would
anyone want to connect Paul Twitchell with Babuji (especially since we
have zip in terms of any evidence)?
Having been to Soami Bagh and having read the teachings of Babuji, I
would think the last thing an Eckist would want to do is connect to
Radhasoami directly like this..... even in imagination.
In the realm of metaphysics, one can believe in anything............
even beings like Rebazar Tarzs.
By the way, as a little sidenote here, I once interviewed Babuji's
personal assistant at Soami Bagh, S.D. Maheshwari.
I informed him about Eckankar since he had never heard of it.
Sean
I know that, I didn't say you were, only that you have supported Ford, and
that IS his mission imho. ;-)
> Eckankar will survive me and Ford.
>
> That's obvious.
>
Sure. It will survive me too. <g>
> I just happen to like the dynamics here...... because it is an
> unmoderated newsgroup and since about 1994 people have been writing
> all sorts of stuff about me and my research.....
>
I know, you popular pumpkin you. Responding to the fan mail and that's it.
<G>
The dynamics can be fun here that's for sure
> Aaron told me about this group back then and I have been interested
> since that point.
>
> Yes, I certainly don't think Twitchell was enlightened and I do think
> he made lots of stuff up.
>
Words can be funny things, so rather than use the term enlightened, I'd put
it this way: He knew exactly what he was doing and why it was necessary. I
think his skill at conveying the knowledge he had in talks and writings was
extraordinary.
You're entitled to your view of course, and I can see why people, including
Ford, see it that way.
> But I also don't think my own guru was enlightened.
>
Man you need a better guru then. Have you discussed this with Ford, he
thinks he's enlightened. ;-)
> I also don't think perfect masters exist (and even Twitchell used to
> use that sort of terminology back in his early discourses).
>
Oh come on, neither do I. The outer master is not perfect, and the three we
know of never said they were, and repeatedly so!
Harold Klemp in talk at a seminar in Sydney 11-23-91
"I wish I was more perfect. I'm afraid I'm not."
I think you'll find words like perfect in the teachings are associated with
the ECK and the Inner Master, a completely different kettle of fish
altogether than Paul saying HE was a "perfect master".
> And, yes, there are certainly many sides to the Twitchell/Eckankar
> story.
>
I don't know, it is what it is. Not too many people are capable grasping the
whole, and prefer to focus on the sides that interest them most.
> You then raise the issue about why I am not going after HCS and Ford.
>
> Well, I am not really very interested in his group, just as I have
> written very little (comparatively speaking) on John-Roger, even
> though I know that guy personally and have a lot more PERSONAl HISTORY
> with him.
>
> Why not?
>
> J.R. simply bores me.
>
> Nothing more sophisticated than that, whereas Twitchell is
> continuously interesting to me on some level...... something I cannot
> say about Klemp or Gross.
>
> Same with R.S. history...... Certain gurus interest me, like Kirpal
> Singh or Faqir Chand or Charan Singh.
>
> But I find others to be a snooze fest.
>
>
> Thus, one tends to write on one's interests......
>
I know, that's what I said above. It depends on one's own "limited"
interests.
Your knowledge about Eckankar is therefore limited, which is why it was nice
to see someone like Ford, an insider support your own work and conclusions.
The assumption may be that Ford is a typical ECKist who has risen in the
ranks. But David, he isn't a typical ECKist, he's just Ford. Still some
people see things exactly the same way as he does ........... such are the
"sides of Eckankar"
> I realize that some may think I have some great motive in mind, but I
> don't.
>
It's pretty hard to really know other peoples true motives isn't it?
<VBG>
>
> What happens is this:
>
> I usually post on R.S. studies and other groups I check...... Work on
> other projects and when I am bored I come over here and see what's
> happening.
>
> And, occasionally, slug it out with Cher or Doug or whoever.......
>
> Learning always in the process of how to react.
>
> This is a great arena to test how one reacts...... One learns a lot.
>
I pretty well do the same .......... I have learnt a lot here too, and also
about the ECK teachings themselves and many mnay other things.
> It also helps motivate me to think deeper on these kinds of issues and
> hopefully get back to other writing projects with some juice.
>
>
> In any case, my present view is that all gurus are merely human.
I agree. <G>
cheers sean
Sean
I guess I'd put it this way David.
It's NOT about a physical connection between the Eckankar the religion, and
Radhasoami as if they are the same outer path.
Doug was speaking of the "inner guidance" of masters in one's life. In that
chapter he also talks about the writings that most seem similar to Paul's
ideas about the spiritual life.
The evidence is simple, there isn't any but an observation by Doug. If
anyone interested in knowing more the answer is simple, seek the answer
within.
And of course it is in the realm of metaphysics and spirituality, where else
would you expect these types of things to occur? It's an INNER path!!!
If you don't believe in inner spiritual worlds, and the ECK current, and
spirit guides and masters fine, but try getting off the "where's the
physical evidence" bandwagon and just accept it for it is.
I think it is obvious in the lexicon of Eckankar that there were leaders of
various religions thru the ages that were connected to the inner path or
brotherhood of the ECK, although they may not have called it that at the
time. IT's another side of Eckankar.
Maybe Babuji and the Parent Faith carried some of that ECK flame into his
writings more than other santmat gurus ........... and maybe Paul had the
inner protection of Babuji or another as a child. What possible difference
does it make to anything?
Paul started ECKANKAR, the teachings are there, the opportunity to try the
spiritual exercises are there, the dream state is there no matter what,
people are either inspired by listening to Sri Harold's talks or they
aren't, and life goes on. Eckankar either works for people or it doesn't. I
think it's all real simple.
IF Ford thinks he has some good advice on how to live life, or live the
spiritual life better, then go for it, people need guidance and support and
ideas, and encouragement. Great. Affirmations fine, I wouldn't use them but
if that's what people feel good about then go for it.
But let's not forget this thread is about the HCS. Ford has repeated rumours
and gossip that have been proven to be completely unreliable if not total
lies about Paul.
The new marriage certificate changes nothing execpet we have the marriage
certificate. You can still believe he lied about his age so he could decieve
people and marry a younger woman if you like, I find the whole idea a bit
rediculous especially given the feedback of dozens of people about how Paul
about this issue.
Accept that or reject it has NOTHING to do wiht the teachings, but Ford
points it as if it is fundamental, and now he's come up with the term
mythomania to basically suggest that EVERYTHING Paul did and said was a lie,
and the entire teachings is false.
Well, it's so ludicrous, I can't help but think that Ford is purposely lying
himself about things, and has other motivations than helping other people
escape a dangerous cult.
cheers
@aloha.net Rich
"Pathapp" <pat...@aol.com> wrote
> > The _horror_(hear Marlon:) of
> >plagiarism proves Eckankar is fiction.
>
> Rich, when the highest consciousness on Earth, a Godman,
As Jan pointed out. Paul wasn't in that SOC when he wrote his earlier
books. So hopefully you learned something you'll keep in mind.
> takes (steals?) words...
The difference between stealing and plagiarism has been explained ad
nauseam. You confuse the two and think it's horrible? Fine, that puts
you in the group I was talking about.
> from another author, puts them coming out of the mouths of his
teachers -
> highly spiritual masters (who if they were true, I can't believe that
they
> would have allowed this - if PT was lucky enough to have a lecture by
a
> spiritual giant like RT - why would he have to use Julian Johnson's
words -
> wouldn't he just use RT's own words?)
("if's" aside)
He did, for the most part. No one knows what his thinking was, including
you. You like speculating? Perhaps it was for expediency that he
improved on Johnson's words in his story? Want more? There's plenty of
possibilities that do not attempt to demonize Paul.
> Yes, to me, it does prove that Eckankar is fiction.
Fine, believe what you like. When you find a perfect living master,
please let me know.
> Not the spiritual truths that PT wrote about,
That's what's more important to me. I learned these from *his* efforts.
Likely you did too. To cliche' it simply, I see no spiritual benifit to
bite the hand that fed me, to throw the baby out with the bath water...
It was clear to me from my earliest days in Eckankar that Paul sought
out and taught the thread of spiritual truths he recognized from every
spiritual path known. You missed that? C'est la vie.
> but the Vairagi
> Masters, and his religion, Eckankar, being the originator of all other
> religions.
Again this is a myth that has been explained ad nauseam. It's well know
that Eckankar teaches that it began in 1965, that it is the EK, Spirit
Itself, from which all religions originate.
arelurker
Ken wrote:
>
> "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> >
> >
> > "C. Plachowitz" wrote:
> > >
> > > Lurk has had a short, childlike moment. Enjoy it.
> >
> > Blow me.
>
> You know Lurk, Plachowtiz's statement wasn't necessarily derogatory.
>
> Being childlike, approaching Life with a fresh and new attitude, is
> necessary to truly perceive reality openly and without the usual blinding
> preconceptions we adults carry around with us.
Ken, blow me.
Lurk
arelurker
To deconstruct the lies in eckankar requires someone to create a path of
their own first? You're not making sense.
>
> > You saying it is not appropriate for me to comment on the deconstuction
> > section since I have not read the construction section is absurd.
> > Especially in the context of you attempting to equate this with me
> > commenting on Geoff not reading the book as he attempts to engage Ford
> > and others in HCS.
>
> That's right..... I'm saying that because you make an issue out of
> reading the book that you're partical skimming of the material in
> support of your previous bias and belief structure makes this
> hypocritical.
I didn't skim, I read what I stated. I'm haven't been interested in what
Ford created nor does knowing what he created shed any light on the
validity of his critique....unless of course, you're a rabid eckists and
what to impugn his motives.
Yep.... that's what I'm saying. <g> Now if you do get
> around to reading the rest of the book..... perhaps you could then tell
> someone that they need to read it before they can discuss it.
It is perfectly legitimate to tell Geoff to read the book when he is
engaging Ford even when I have read only the first 256 pages. If you
read Ford's responses to Geoff's comments, he simply references what is
in his book on several occasion to Geoff.
That can be annoying. I know, because that is what many of you eckists
did around here: tried to engage the ideas in Ford's book without
reading it when it first came out.
As it
> stands, for Geoff or anyone to discuss the material with you, all they
> need is a familiarization of the standard detractor platform. The
> material is all identical.
Nah, Geoff or anyone would have to read the first 256 page if they want
to discuss the book with me. If they want to discuss the other part of
the book, I can't presently do that nor care to at this point. I think the
mythomania information is interesting stuff. Kind of juicy isn't it?
>
> > You need another vacation from a.r.e..
>
> You should try a vacation sometime lurk! You'd be amazed at how clear it
> all becomes after a bit of time off. <g>
You're far from clear dear.
Lurk says, you need more time away.
Lurk
arelurker
Sean wrote:
>
> "Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
> news:XsNWb.23577$fV5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > >
> > >
> > > "C. Plachowitz" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lurk has had a short, childlike moment. Enjoy it.
> > >
> > > Blow me.
> >
> >
> > You know Lurk, Plachowtiz's statement wasn't necessarily derogatory.
> >
>
> I thought it was clearly a compliment for a good natured humourous post for
> once, without any irrationality.
>
> But like I said elsewhere, Lurk doesn't actualy hear what people say here.
> ;-)
I heard what plachopuss said, I thought my response was kind of funny.
Lurk
arelurker
Jan4litsnd wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Question for Lurk on HCS
> >From: pat...@aol.com (Pathapp)
> >Date: 2/12/04 8:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <20040212204423...@mb-m13.aol.com>
> >
> >> The _horror_(hear Marlon:) of
> >>plagiarism proves Eckankar is fiction.
>
> PATHAPP:
> >Rich, when the highest consciousness on Earth, a Godman, takes (steals?)
> >words
> >from another author, puts them coming out of the mouths of his teachers -
> >highly spiritual masters (who if they were true, I can't believe that they
> >would have allowed this - if PT was lucky enough to have a lecture by a
> >spiritual giant like RT - why would he have to use Julian Johnson's words -
> >wouldn't he just use RT's own words?) Yes, to me, it does prove that
> >Eckankar
> >is fiction. Not the spiritual truths that PT wrote about, but the Vairagi
> >Masters, and his religion, Eckankar, being the originator of all other
> >religions.
>
> JAN:
> You said: "wouldn't he just use RT's own words?"
>
> "Words" as we know them aren't what are used when it comes to the
> communications taking place on levels beyond this one, but more of a direct
> communication much like telepathy.
What a bunch of bull this is.
Again a path of truth that has a teacher that teaches his student to
rationalize. See Harold's comments below for proof:
>
> Here's a quote from ASK THE MASTER, Book, by Harold Klemp:
>
> [Q] "I assume the personal dialogues in the ECK works were recorded practically
> word for word. How do the Masters have such precise recall?"
>
> [HK] "Paul Twitchell wasn't an ECK Master yet when he had the experiences
> recorded in several of the ECK works."
>
> "In general, however, the ECK Masters often speak to one with a highly compact
> form of communication, much like telepathy. It is like a computer program that
> compresses a document file for storage."
>
> "The chela must decompress the file. He tries to keep the intent of the
> discourse as he converts it into everyday language. There is no word-for-word
> utility program that will exactly translate an inner conversation into outer
> words."
>
> "It is even harder than trying to keep the exact meaning of a message in
> English that is translated into French, then from French into Spanish, and
> finally from Spanish back into English. The several stages of translation can
> easily jumble the original message by the time it finishes the loop."
This sounds like a politician making shit up to sound like he answered
the question.
Harold is so childish and he is obviouly still not out of the woods.
Lurk
arelurker
Okay, let me get this straight: Upon finding out that putting other
people's words in the mouth of Rebazar Tarzs, the common sense
explanation, (Occam's Razor) is that Paul, the plagiarist, made up
Rebazar and indeed, did not have such experiences, otherwise, he would
simply relate his own experience.
Rich comes along and deems this explanation as demonizing Paul and then
offers, as an alternative, the notion the Paul plagiarized Julian
Johnson's words and put them in Rebezar's mouth was because it was
expedient for Paul to do so.
HA HA HA HA HA!
This is so cultic. This is Doug Marman's legacy: convincing eckists that
if they think of any explanation, that it automatically makes it of
equal value to other more obvious explanations.
This is an example of the con on top of the con energy I allude to often.
Lurk
Bee
> >Subject: Re: Question for Lurk on HCS
> >From: pat...@aol.com (Pathapp)
> >Date: 2/12/04 8:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <20040212204423...@mb-m13.aol.com>
> >
> >> The _horror_(hear Marlon:) of
> >>plagiarism proves Eckankar is fiction.
>
>
> PATHAPP:
> >Rich, when the highest consciousness on Earth, a Godman, takes (steals?)
> >words
> >from another author, puts them coming out of the mouths of his teachers -
> >highly spiritual masters (who if they were true, I can't believe that
they
> >would have allowed this - if PT was lucky enough to have a lecture by a
> >spiritual giant like RT - why would he have to use Julian Johnson's
Jan ...
Put so precisely and so true to heart ..
>
Bee
"Michael" <phu...@fluff.com> wrote in message
news:402c...@news1.veridas.net...
Good lingo Michael .<g>
I am sure he will appreciate it ..
love
Bee
>
> >
> >
>
>
Michael
"Bee" <rub...@hooha.com> wrote in message
news:402ce139$2...@news1.veridas.net...
I hadn't read that one.. It is particularly well explained regarding the
nature of inner experience and how we have to translate it to an outer form.
I find it hard to believe that people are still barking up the plagiarism
tree, however. To date we haven't even had anyone manage to define more than
2% of the entire body of Pauls work as being plagiarized. We all know he
took bits from here and there, and we all know this was common practice in
his day... The question is why people want to make such a big deal out of
such a small issue.
Whatever
Love
michael
>
>
> >
>
>
cher
And still we see no changes in your book. Isn't that strange? I guess
the suppositions are weeds that need deeper roots? <g>
> I have even responded to Doug and have already put my response to his
> first five chapters on my website. With plans on responding to each
> and every chapter.
I was here during that time. Many years ago.... in fact. And of course
all those promises of documents to support many of problem areas of your
book are still unanswered. In fact, I'm still waiting for the changes in
your book. But alas, now that ford has republished much of your
material, it is a moot point that you would be responsible for your
original material.
> I tend not to indulge in using ad hominens when speaking with you.
> That was what I meant by civility versus uncivility.
LOL..... poor david. Can't control the woman. <g>
> In any case, Cher, it is always good to get critical feedback.
>
> It actually juices up the system and makes one get work done that
> probably wouldn't otherwise.
Nice idea. Hasn't worked that way with you..... but what the heck, it
sounds good.
> Presently, I think Ford is doing this and the heat that gets generated
> helps all concerned.
Even the uncivil heat? <chuckle> tsk.... <g>
> I would say the same about Doug's work.
>
> It gets people to think.
You must live a very boring life if anything thing is a reason to think
about. No filters?
cher
Only if you believe that lurk doesn't use other aliases. <g>
> It's a neverending spiral in the downward direction as far as his
> particpation in this ng is concerned. He still does NOT hear what other
> people say and it's getting worse for the old codger. <G>
That IS true! He's really lost his ability to do anything but lecture.
How boring.
> I'm still waiting for my name to go up in lights in his ebook and his top
> ranking websites too, but guess what, I'm not holding my breath.
>
> ladidadida
I can think of better reasons for the color blue! <g>
cher
Amen! <smile>
cher
Not to mention the ad hominens in david's own book! But at least I know
know he can recognize them! <g>
cher
Perhaps this is proof of the limits of mundane mind? Just a thought....
<g>
Sean
Nah, Lurkie wouldn't do that would he? He's such an honourable upright chap
> > It's a neverending spiral in the downward direction as far as his
> > particpation in this ng is concerned. He still does NOT hear what other
> > people say and it's getting worse for the old codger. <G>
>
> That IS true! He's really lost his ability to do anything but lecture.
> How boring.
>
That is true too!
Sean
One small step for man, one giant leap for a professor. ;-))
I guess we are back at missing the bleeding obvious again.
I asked myself today how does one actually address the obvious when it seems
the other is oblivious. Teaching by way of example does not appear to hit
it's mark very often.
And then I thought "You can paint a picture anyway you want to. But it is
still only a picture you painted and not the subject itself."
That the two are so readily confused is amazing to me. ;-)
So I am at a loss at times when people suggest that to find out the truth
about Eckankar one must read Ford's or David's book. The classic
non-sequitur as usual.
Love Sean
cher
In this instance, yes! But of course if you'd read the book you'd
understand. <g>
> >
> > > You saying it is not appropriate for me to comment on the deconstuction
> > > section since I have not read the construction section is absurd.
> > > Especially in the context of you attempting to equate this with me
> > > commenting on Geoff not reading the book as he attempts to engage Ford
> > > and others in HCS.
> >
> > That's right..... I'm saying that because you make an issue out of
> > reading the book that you're partical skimming of the material in
> > support of your previous bias and belief structure makes this
> > hypocritical.
>
> I didn't skim, I read what I stated. I'm haven't been interested in what
> Ford created nor does knowing what he created shed any light on the
> validity of his critique....unless of course, you're a rabid eckists and
> what to impugn his motives.
The book is about the method of reaching a higher state of consciousness
and how his former path didn't do it for him. I can't imagine you read
any of the material and missed that point in what he was writing. So
much for your insistence that you read any of the material.
> Yep.... that's what I'm saying. <g> Now if you do get
> > around to reading the rest of the book..... perhaps you could then tell
> > someone that they need to read it before they can discuss it.
>
> It is perfectly legitimate to tell Geoff to read the book when he is
> engaging Ford even when I have read only the first 256 pages. If you
> read Ford's responses to Geoff's comments, he simply references what is
> in his book on several occasion to Geoff.
And I'm saying that from your perspective, all you see is the detractor
propaganda as what Geoff is meant to read. You're not up to speed here,
lurk. Get with boy!
> That can be annoying. I know, because that is what many of you eckists
> did around here: tried to engage the ideas in Ford's book without
> reading it when it first came out.
You mean instead of assuming it said what you already believed and then
pretended you read it, such as you apparently did? Hmmmmm?
> As it
> > stands, for Geoff or anyone to discuss the material with you, all they
> > need is a familiarization of the standard detractor platform. The
> > material is all identical.
>
> Nah, Geoff or anyone would have to read the first 256 page if they want
> to discuss the book with me. If they want to discuss the other part of
> the book, I can't presently do that nor care to at this point. I think the
> mythomania information is interesting stuff. Kind of juicy isn't it?
Not really. In fact, I think that is just outright meanspirited and
unprofessional. But I'd expect you'd love something of this sort being
of the mythoholic detractors of the order of david lane. Chose the myths
wisely, lurk. You'd be amazed what shape wrong takes on this planet. <g>
cher
>
> Sean wrote:
> >
> > "Ken" <kah...@attachments.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:XsNWb.23577$fV5.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "arelurker" <arel...@charter.net> wrote ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "C. Plachowitz" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Lurk has had a short, childlike moment. Enjoy it.
> > > >
> > > > Blow me.
> > >
> > >
> > > You know Lurk, Plachowtiz's statement wasn't necessarily derogatory.
> > >
> >
> > I thought it was clearly a compliment for a good natured humourous post for
> > once, without any irrationality.
> >
> > But like I said elsewhere, Lurk doesn't actualy hear what people say here.
> > ;-)
>
> I heard what plachopuss said, I thought my response was kind of funny.
>
> Lurk
Again, the subtleties fail lurk. Even the difference between childish
and child-like is beyond his keen.
cher
Good point! Apparently thinking for oneself is a illusion. <g> Gotta get
that group consensus to weed ones way to that critical thought process
that we know and love as propaganda! <g>
neuralsurfer
Personally, I think every individual to some degree indulges in
mythomania. What we are debating, actually, is to what degree.
But let's laser this a bit and focus on one thing:
Paul Twitchell in DIFFICULTIES..... says he visited Paris, France
(Paul actually says France, not Kentucky), and he also claims to have
visited India to meet Sudar Singh.
Are these physical events?
If so, the proof for such is a tad lacking.
If spiritual, then why not simply say that?
I think Twitchell's myth making (invention of names, sources, beings,
etc.) gets troublesome when one thinks that these things historically
transpired.
That's what Ford finds troublesome, so did John Sutphin back in the
70s, and so does Darwin for that matter, since he hasn't budged an
inch on the literalness of Paul's account.
Even Darwin Gross wouldn't accept Doug's more enlightened version of
such events.
In any case, I now see almost all religious leaders doing myth making
of some sort...............
Even resumes have that padded effect these days.
I guess it depends on how much padding one can accept.
neuralsurfer
Dear Sean:
That was a very fair exchange.
thanks
Sean
You're welcome.
Sean
Yes, I think all here would accept that. Doug certainly has in his book. He
repeatedly points out the danger, for want of a better word, of ECKists
themselves buying into myths that aren't true. Of skimming the surface and
not getting to the real truth of things.
Ford does the same thing by blindly accepting the word of a dubious online
poster who said Gail said xyz, what is that if not mythomania?
The fact is, HE doesn't actually know personally if Gail ever said such a
thing, but there it is in lights in the open letter to harold as part of the
proof that it's all fake.
> But let's laser this a bit and focus on one thing:
>
> Paul Twitchell in DIFFICULTIES..... says he visited Paris, France
> (Paul actually says France, not Kentucky), and he also claims to have
> visited India to meet Sudar Singh.
>
> Are these physical events?
>
I don't know.
> If so, the proof for such is a tad lacking.
>
Yes it is. I don't have the Passenger Ticket if that's what you are looking
for.
> If spiritual, then why not simply say that?
>
If you were a Master you'd probably know why. <g>
My question is usually does it make any difference to the teachings or my
own personal experience? A. No.
If I'm having a powerful dream, or some other type of inner experience or
shift in awareness about myself, I don't stop and ponder if Paul really met
Sudar Singh in Kentucky or India. It really doesn't matter in the slightest.
Have you read Stranger by the River? Do you also worry if it's true the
ferry pulled into the wharf, or if the fish trully spoke with Rebazar tarz
or not as you read it? Who is this mystery lady Paul called his beloved?
;-))
I guess it depends on where your interest lays. One can read the Tiger's
Fang and take it for what it is, a book, or one can simply focus on WHY did
Paul change Kirpals name to Reb.
One could also ask, why did Paul mistake Kirpal for Reb when Paul had those
expereinces he wrote about?
If it was a cover up, why didn't Paul destroy the notes with the names
crossed out and keep it private? He's not real good for a "conman" at
covering his tracks is he?
> I think Twitchell's myth making (invention of names, sources, beings,
> etc.) gets troublesome when one thinks that these things historically
> transpired.
>
Is it invention, or correction? Maybe the first drafts were the myths, and
as Paul unfolded and grew spiritually he himself saw a bigger picture than
he had realized when the Tiger's Fang was first written in 1957.
That's not to deny Paul physically studied with Kirpal, or with others. The
experiences in the Tigers Fang weren't reports of sitting in an ashram in
India with Paul recounting what the Master said in a talk. So where is the
lie, if that is what yuo or Ford want to call it> It wasn't an autobiography
of his life, so why all the hullalabo about the author changing the names of
the characters in a book?
Inner experiences don't necessarily run linearly, with a start and a finish
like complete movie. May I say that they are more layered in effect and in
our awareness of what is occuring for us over time. Would it be any
different for Paul during his training for Mastership?
> That's what Ford finds troublesome, so did John Sutphin back in the
> 70s, and so does Darwin for that matter, since he hasn't budged an
> inch on the literalness of Paul's account.
>
Well I don't find it troublesome, nor do I take Paul's accounts literally.
And a lot of others don't either. That yuo can list 3 and all other
detractors doesn't really prove things one way or the other.
We are back to a personal judgement about degrees. As Doug pointed out in
Chapter 5, one of the problems here is sometimes as simple as how things are
couched influence people's attitudes.
You choose to label Paul's redactions as myth making, and mabe they are, but
all we have for facts is that names were changed. You don't know why, and
neither does Doug exactly. Presuming that the second name used must be the
false one, is creating a myth of your own making without any evidence imho.
That's all these issues are, opinion.
> Even Darwin Gross wouldn't accept Doug's more enlightened version of
> such events.
>
How would you know, have you asked him? Where's the evidence Darwin agrees
with you?
I don't accept all of Doug's versions, infact I think Doug hasn't signed off
on all his possible senarios either, but merely offered these things as
possinbilities given his persoanl experience and looking at the "available"
information. I think he's quite balanced about it all.
Ford and yuo on the other hand, scrap up minutae and blow it up into these
grand conclusions and label them as a faite accompli .......... mythomania -
everything is a lie, it's all made up. With as little evidence as Doug has
backing him up. OK for you, not ok for Doug.
> In any case, I now see almost all religious leaders doing myth making
> of some sort...............
>
Like Ford you mean, and how he has re-written history to suit his newfound
awareness?
Like I said elsewhere David, I don't see you challenging him and finding the
discrepencies between what Ford used to say as a HI in Eckankar 2 years ago,
to what he say today.
He has redacted his enitre philosophy of life, but for some strange reason
this redaction isn't a problem at all to you, or the other ECKANKAR
detractors here and elsewhere.
It's OK for Ford to chnage his mind about his entire spiritual path. For 27
years he's been saying the Inner master is real, and now what does he say?,
no worries mate, but gee, Paul crossed out Kirpals name and inserted Reb 40
years ago in an manuscript............ yikes look out it's a fraud and Paul
was obviously suffering from mythomania!
Really, can't you see the double standards that get laid on a dead man who
can't answer for himself, and yet right under your nose the exact same thing
is occuring and it's fine because it's Ford.
Why?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
> Even resumes have that padded effect these days.
>
> I guess it depends on how much padding one can accept.
Yes these things are a matter of degrees and consistency in application.
Cheers Sean
Bee
Mainly because those type of characters just love a good arguement ....
For some reasdon is it O.K if they read a bok that is other than anyone in
the teaching to
have re-written a piece of something that is relevant to their book.
However, Paul and anyone one else such as Harold are in the firing line due
to the fact that they are bringing
through all kinds og info that really "smarts" those who end up a little
twisted by something/somewhere along the line.
So they gotta pick on the teaching somehow/somewhere.
love
Bee!
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
neuralsurfer
> "neuralsurfer" <neural...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d975b1d5.04021...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I have responded repeatedly on this newsgroup and elsewhere to so many
> > things concerning Eckankar.
> >
> > I have even responded to Doug and have already put my response to his
> > first five chapters on my website. With plans on responding to each
> > and every chapter.
> >
> > I tend not to indulge in using ad hominens when speaking with you.
> > That was what I meant by civility versus uncivility.
> >
> > In any case, Cher, it is always good to get critical feedback.
> >
> > It actually juices up the system and makes one get work done that
> > probably wouldn't otherwise.
> >
> > Presently, I think Ford is doing this and the heat that gets generated
> > helps all concerned.
> >
> > I would say the same about Doug's work.
> >
> > It gets people to think.
> >
> > Always a good thing.
> > In any case,
>
> Hi David, just wondering if you've ever read the numerous ad hominens laid
> at Doug's feet around these parts by trolls and sincere detractors alike?
> The last thing they usually say about it is that it gets them thinking.
>
> Maybe what you meant was, it gets "some" people thinking. <g>
>
> Some others just turn into blathering idiots I reckon. And that's OK, of
> course! <VBG>
Yes, I am certainly aware how many of the discussions just sink into
name calling.
Indeed, one of the reasons I come here is to see how well I can react
with resorting to ad hominens, given that I have been called about
everything from Hitler, Bozo, Kal, to the latest lazy ass tightwad
(which is actually pretty funny).
Of course, it does seem that nobody really changes their position all
that much (except Nathan!!!), but that is the nature of our minds.....
I, of course, think Doug has done me a favor.
I think he is right about 1909, about Darwin being a fifth initiate,
and even though I disagree with him on some core issues, it at least
got me to think about it.
In any case, I like the to and fro, and, yes, it would be a nicer
place with less name calling.
signed:
Lazy tight wad, Hitler, and Kal's best buddy.
neuralsurfer
Well, no one book captures anything.
But clearly if you read Ford's book (let's forget me for the second
here), you are going to find out lots of stuff about Twitchell that is
not accessible anywhere else on Eckankar's official website.
Just look at the documents themselves or the early writings that are
included on the website......
That alone adds a dimension.
In my own tradition, Radhasoami, there are a number of detractors and
I absolutely loved reading their books..... even if they were slanted
or biased.
Because at the end of the day, the data that lasts is the stuff that
can be reproduced outside of the taints or biases of a particular
author.
That's why the plagiarism issue didn't die.
That's why Twitchell's historical past versus his "spiritual" one (to
be generous here) is not going away......
That's why Ford has caused people to leave.
The doubts arise because such info is ascertainable outside of the
tainting and biases.
cher
LOL... don't forget hyper-sensitive and thin skinned. <g>
cher
True.... no one wastes their time when what they are focusing on is
their spiritual awareness. What you're talking about is social
consciousness. Far different.
> Just look at the documents themselves or the early writings that are
> included on the website......
So much of what ford wrote is a direct copy of what you wrote that
there's nothing new in what he's sharing outside of his personal slant
on anger and his friend graham. If ford wants to create his own form of
Radhasoami, then that's his business.
> That alone adds a dimension.
>
> In my own tradition, Radhasoami, there are a number of detractors and
> I absolutely loved reading their books..... even if they were slanted
> or biased.
Not all people need to read the most biased or slanted of materials. But
it's true... those hungry for gossip do spend their time in such a
place.
> Because at the end of the day, the data that lasts is the stuff that
> can be reproduced outside of the taints or biases of a particular
> author.
No, human nature being what it is.... I'm surprised that you'd even
suggest this! If what you say is true then this would be the basis for
proof that spiritualism is a science of fact. We'd be expected to
believe that there is a being constructed face on Mars. <smile> I've
seen you argue just the opposite on this ng too many times to not point
this out to you. In fact there is snopes.com and urbanlegend.com that
prove you wrong in this instance. For some reason, we've gotten stuck on
the more is better regardless of the quality of the information. That's
sad. Truly sad.
> That's why the plagiarism issue didn't die.
No... that didn't die basically because instead of teaching those who
turned to you for understanding the truth about all spiritual works, you
gave them the viewpoint of an academic. That was one of your greater
mistakes in this whole experience.
> That's why Twitchell's historical past versus his "spiritual" one (to
> be generous here) is not going away......
That would be the useless details that lead to nothing of spiritual
significance, but keep the desturbed busy with something. The details
haven't lead to anything outside of fodder for your speculations on Paul
Twitchell and his motives in life.
> That's why Ford has caused people to leave.
No... ford has less to do with people leaving then he even realizes.
> The doubts arise because such info is ascertainable outside of the
> tainting and biases.
The doubts arise because people that feed off of this sort of thing
don't understand what good research is about. Unfortunately. Welcome to
the ashcan of the universe. <g>
Michael
No no no...
This is bad form for a.r.e.
You both should be shouting and abusing and cat calling.
Please get back into line or leave the pool
Love
Michael
>
>
Michael
While I accept what you say here, David... I call to question the rational
that doubts arise because of external factors to the degree that you
suggest.
What I would suggest is that people have their doubts about whatever it may
be, they have their negative insertions into the thought process. These
insertions either control decisions, or modify decisions.
People do not come to a teaching (any teaching) because they have everything
sorted, they come specifically because they do not. Because of the 'natural"
state of imperfection, the humanity we all share, the seeker tends to want
to set aside doubt and just believe. This makes them vulnerable to the state
of doubt that will inevidably arise somewhere down the track. It has to
happen, because it is suppressed. What is suppressed must bob up to the
surface of thought somewhere, somehow.
If we avoid looking at something, and put all our energy at sweeping it
under the rug, it will grow stronger in the unconscious shadows.
Specifically, Paul recommends that people have all their doubts before they
join. He says it is a good thing to doubt, to have the process fo the
negative run its course. I followed his advice, and doubted everything and
it took many years before I felt that the basic teachings were OK.
Now, when I go through a period of doubt, I know it is because there is a
process of doubt that is saying "Soimething needs looking at" and not
"Something is wrong" ... What I find, because I accept responsibility for my
own doubts, is that I can see far more clearly what is a doubt inside
myself, and what is a valid external issue. Generally, I find there is a
gradient fill between being absolutely me or absolutely external as far as
the issue goes.
You make a very interesting statement, and one that I basically agree with:
> Because at the end of the day, the data that lasts is the stuff that
> can be reproduced outside of the taints or biases of a particular
> author.
What you don't include in your view is how the Meme wraps itself into the
process of thought. What I find most people's heads are full of are
associations of facts and beliefs, not just facts, not just beliefs. It is
the Meme that tends to wrap people into a "gestalt" that is incomplete. I
suspect that because of this fragility of thought and emotion that so many
live in, that they use doubt as cement to hold the images together.
There is way too much to discuss on this issue, because it goes into the
fabric of the psyche.
Essentially, the principle I work with is that most people doubt because
they believe this is the best way for them to survive, and it is! The
problem is that the doubt process itself is clouded and confused with
unclear inner statements of self and the interaction of self with the
external realities.
Who can solve the puzzle box from the inside? That's is why people need
outer reference to help them make up their minds, and this is why they lok
for authorities and rational explanations ... But the fact remains, they can
only come into an agreement with these externals based on the state of
subjective belief from thier internal structure of doubt/belief.
To cut to the chase... David Hutt would always say "Suspend belief and
disbelief"
Moving to the neutral (Not neural) state means (among other things) we start
the sifting process of "me/non-me" and in this we start to see where we
INTERACT or CLASH with the external images before us. This allows us to find
the piece inside that fits the present moment most closely, or otherwise.
The fact is... People do not leave Eckankar 'because" of Ford. He may have
been a catalyst, and as such responsible for the reactions he creates, but
the reality is people choose what they do because it fits their inner set of
agreements or beliefs.
To illustrate this, your post views that there are issues regarding Paul
that won't go away... They don't go away only while someone is interacting
with them. If there is no doubt, there is no issue to interact with, ergo no
issue to contend with. If there is BURIED doubt, it can and will arise and
will have to be dealt with. Many believers fake the neutral state of neither
for nor against, or neither belief nor non-belief. However, in the end the
fact of the 'real" matter remains that people only interact with "stuff" in
the doubt/belief process while the process is running in their heads.
It reminds me of the two intellectuals who were debating this point of
politics regarding some course. A girl who studied the same course walked
into the room, and simply "I am really enjoying this course, you know. Maybe
I am dumb, but I just like to learn"
The two actually shut up for a few minutes <G>
Love
Michael
Michael
You know Sean... that's the part that sort of bugs me about Ford-ji....
He KNOWS it is wrong (as pretty much everything David from Arizona states as
facts is wrong) but he is hardly rushing out to change it... Why? Maybe
because the lawyer in him knows that if he backpeddles on that issue... the
letter that formed the basic argument... then his whole case gets dragged
down.
If he presented his "facts" as they stood to a judge, he would be paying the
other person's costs for sure.
I have little interest in the "Paul as Myth" stories... Personally I like
the fact that he created worlds within worlds and painted pictures that
delighted the audience. I am of the Bedouine belief that a good story tells
the truth better than the truth.
The core issue remain of Paul's INTENTION.
It has been canvassed a hundred times, but if Paul's intention were bad or
negative, of self deluded you would sort of think there would be some hard
evidence by now that attested to this fact.
The real facts remain that people get a lot from his books.
Plain and simple... He had a life worth living.
love
Michael
neuralsurfer
Dear Sean:
I am not unaware of Ford's own agenda. Indeed, his take on Radhasoami
history is more or less based on the SECRET history that was posted on
the net and which has lots of inaccurate facts, etc.
However, I reall do commend Ford for taking a closer and deeper look
at Faqir Chand's life and work, since I think Faqir's frankness and
honesty help us better understand the spiritual enterprise....
especially in relationship to how much gurus know and don't know.
So, like all books, one has to pick and choose what one likes and
dislikes.
For instance, I still happen to enjoy Paul Twitchell's TIGER'S FANG
and TALONS of TIME..... even if there are cribbed sections.
Recently I read Errol Flynn's MY WICKED, WICKED WAYS which is
absolutely delightful book............ Of course, it appears that some
of the stuff is simply not true..... Flynn probably just made it up.
But the book is still a great read.
So, yes, I think one has to be a selective critic and no one is exempt
from such a thing.
Another example: I have learned a lot from Da Free John, even though I
think he is about as creepy a guy as I have ever encountered.....
I love Ken Wilber, but he has a completely naive take on gurus in my
opinion.
But it also comes down to time and energy and interest.
Ford Johnson's work is very interesting to me in what he has uncovered
about Twitchell (see his website documents).
For instance, I didn't know that Paul's first wife divorced Paul over
desertion. It is in the divorce papers.
That kind of stuff is interesting to me since I have never encountered
it.
Ford's stuff on Graham and his new group is just not interesting to me
or sustaining..........
It seems like another organization to me.
Sean
No no no, the professor and I are going surfing together. But will he
respect me afterwards? <twinkle>
<VBG>
>
> Love
>
> Michael
> >
> >
>
>
MomentaryEckist
> MomentaryEckist wrote:
> >
> > arelurker <arel...@charter.net> wrote in message news:<4028F6FE...@charter.net>...
> > perspective is contained in a book.
>
> His critique of eckankar is contained in the book. If you hold the
> intention to build bridges, as you have stated, reading his book would
> ground you in the facts and thrust of his critique of eckankar. Your
> comments to him were about listing eckankar's doctrine/belief
> points. He addresses these things in the first half of his book.
>
>
>
> It spills out into all aspects of
> > his life. It certainly spills out onto his site, especially his
> > posts, which are much more indicative of his perspective in the
> > Moment.
>
> Sure, you can tell a lot about a person by the way they respond to
> posts. However, you're always going to be in the dark since you will
> have a deficit in knowledge about his viewpoints because you have not read
> the book. Of course, if you simply want to make Ford the issue and
> discredit his the points in his books that way, I can see how not
> reading he book and spouting off uninformed opinions on his message
> boards and here could be useful. Other eckists have done this as well.
>
>
> I found it rather funny that he tells folks on the message
> > board that the excerpts can't be taken at face value, that they need
> > to be read in context. It seems to me Ford needs some standalone
> > excerpts. Actually, Ford should know that a book is dead the minute
> > you write it. The best you can hope for is that it leads the "seeker"
> > to some kind of practice.
>
> Not necessarily. For some people stopping all practices might be
> appropriate, if not enlightening.
>
>
>
> >
> > And BTW. I am perfectly willing to build bridges, but I am not there
> > to storm the gate when the portcullis drops down and the drawbridge
> > comes up.
>
> A good start to building those bridges would be to read his book. I
> can't believe this is not evident to you. When I critique eckankar it is
> evident that I know more about the religion than most eckists here.
>
> >
> > Do you remember the Kurt Vonnegut concept about Ice-9? It was a
> > special isotope of water that turns solid at room temperature because
> > it "teaches" the other water molecules a new way of stacking
> > themselves. I think of Ford Johnson like a molecule of Ice-9 in the
> > Sea of Eckists. He tries to convince you through a really silly
> > logical loop that you cannot be an Eckist without being ignoble and
> > duplicitious, and boom! he (and you evidentally you), feel that you
> > are somehow rigidly locked into his way of thinking.
>
> So this notion of ignobleness stuck in your crawl, eh?
>
> If you know about the lies and abuse and are still an eckist, it seems
> your choices are to stay and rationalize in all the creative ways eckists
> have asserted on this newsgroup over the years, to stay and work to make
> eckankar more honest by informing other eckists and prospective eckist
> of the lies and allowing them to make an informed decision about staying
> or leaving, or to simply leave . Since any reform movement in eckankar
> would be construed as heretical and discipline taken and headed off at
> the pass, that's not a real option. In Ford's book, Ford was disciplined
> for telling a group of eckists he was speaking to that the master
> consciousness or mahanta was inside not outside (i'm paraphrasing). Even
> if people privately disagree with So the choices are narrowed down to
> maintaining the lies by not speaking up and/or pretending they are not
> lies or abuse (which is ignoble), or leaving (which is honorable and
> self respecting thing to do).
>
> >
> > So there is a lot of rigidity going on at HCS and even within Eckankar
> > currently because of Ford's influence, and unfortunately, because the
> > ripple effect from David Lane's book is still being felt. Funny
> > thing, if you read David's reply to my query to him of late, he has
> > nothing but affection for Paul. And to more or less quote David: "I
> > just didn't buy the guru thing". The truth of Eckankar's fundamental
> > practices was never the question, so to call Darwin and Harold abusive
> > for wanting to maintain the focus on these truths does not ring true
> > to me, nor do I suspect it does with David either (more on this
> > later).
>
> Now now Geoff, you're doing some semantic dancing here. Show me where I
> called Darwin and Harold abusive for wanting to maintain the focus on
> truths. I call them abusive for lying and deceiving their students.
> Let's not reframe the issue here.
Tell me again what Darwin and Harold's lies are?
>
> And to whether Lane thinks it is abusive, perhaps you should ask him
> instead of almost putting words into his mouth by assigning meaning to a
> positive statement he made about Paul that was said in a different context.
>
What different context? This note? Your lame attempt to stretch a
dictionary definition of abuse to what Paul did? David will obviously
speak for himself, but I think one can assume that his saying he has
nothing but affection for Paul after a direct question by me about how
much evil intent he attributes to Paul is exactly the context we are
discussing here. I will go so far as to assert that David would not
agree with you about it being abuse to the degree to which you try to
stretch it. Especially in unrequited attempts to manipulate me into
feeling somehow bad that I can tolerate it. If he did, I hardly
believe that he would have affection for Paul.
As a test of this, ask yourself: do you have any affection for Paul?
I am not talking about amusement. I am talking genuine affection.
>
> >
> > Thankfully, being a free spirit works in a similar way, except in
> > reverse. Say someome just goes over there and is "themselves" in the
> > Moment. You could think of them as a molecule of "Ice-10" (not Ice-T
> > please <g>), that by simply being Present in the Moment can start the
> > melting process again with all the Souls in that person's sphere of
> > influence. And the benefit to all is that this time they are free
> > with even more awareness than before (that is why it would be called
> > Ice-10). Kind of like Soul descends into the lower worlds to immerse
> > itself in the worlds of duality so that it can appreciate the joys of
> > unity.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regardless, I'd like your take on the exchanges with HCS that I have
> > > > > > posted here so far (of course, you can read them over there as well).
> > > > >
> > > > > The main post where you listed your definitions, I think you got spanked
> > > > > with the HCS responses. <g> Has it been hard for you to sit down
> > > > > comfortably? <lol>
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think so? Hmmm... Guess I should go back and look
> > > > again.
> > >
> > > He took one of your doctrine points and explained thoroughly the
> > > duplicity in eckankar and revealed how inadequate your goddies list of
> > > eckankar was.
> > >
> >
> > Ford did go off on quite a tizzy about the word "the" in my accidental
> > mistyping: Eckankar is the Religion of the Light and Sound of God:
> > -----
> > First, Eckankar is not “THE” religion of the light and
> > sound of God but at best “A” religion of the light and
> > sound of God. The history of Eckankar is clear that it is a derivation
> > of Radhasoami Satsang Beas and more specifically the Ruhani Satsang,
> > the organization founded by Kirpal Singh. Thus, to call it "THE"
> > religion of the light and sound is disingenuous at best. (See
> > Confessions Chapter 6 – Eckankar: Revealed by Truth)
> > ----
> >
> > Eckankar is much more and much less than RS. It is more in that it
> > brings together parts from other paths and some real invention from
> > Paul Twitchell (the EK symbol for one, the idea of Eckankar as a
> > system by where all religions eventually lead to the path of EK and
> > God for another). It is less in that it leaves out unnecessary
> > aspects of RS (vegetarianism for one, admonition against abortion for
> > another). Net: Eckankar as a whole is greater than the sum of its
> > parts. Should I make a judgement about Ford on this point?
> >
> > By the way. I should mention that the "official" Eckankar definition
> > is "Eckankar, Religion of the Light and Sound of God." So getting
> > "spanked" and sent home because I am a nobody rings pretty hollow here
> > too.
>
> That's not why I thought you got spanked by Ford. Here's part of his
> response to your doctrine list:
>
> ****************
> First, you have stated only a tiny fraction of what constitutes the
> doctrine and teachings of Eckankar. Other contributors to this web
> site have provided details on the numerous instances of falsehood and
> deception contained in the works. Then too, there is the problem of
> “internal contradictions,” for this was one of
> Paul’s and Eckankar’s primary techniques of deception. By
> stating both sides of an issue the student is left to choose whichever
> one appeals to them even though they are in stark contradiction to
> each other. I include one example of this taken from Confessions
> (Chapter 7 pg. 160).
>
> “Issue 2 - Does the Eck student have the freedom to leave
> should he or she choose?
> The Benign Face of Eckankar:
> "The Master always grants total spiritual freedom to his students.
> They are never controlled or manipulated, and they have complete
> freedom of choice in every aspect of life.187"
>
> "ECKANKAR’s respect for the sanctity of the individual shows
> itself in how ECKANKAR is taught and honors the rights, privacy, and
> personal space of others.188"
>
> The Entrapping Face of Eckankar:
> "Within the Shariyat-Ki-Sugmad is found the quotation, “He who
> leaves the path of ECK, or refuses to follow it, shall dwell in the
> astral hells until the Master takes mercy upon him and brings him upon
> the path again.”189"
> "Woe be unto him if he does [resign], for it is known among those who
> have reached these lofty heights and witnessed the consequences of the
> few who have. Those few have found that spiritual decay sets in
> immediately, affecting the health, material life and spiritual life,
> and brings death more swiftly.190"
>
> "This doesn’t exactly sound like “total spiritual
> freedom,” or like a group whose members “are never
> controlled or manipulated” and have “complete freedom of
> choice in every aspect of life.”191 The double-talk could not be
> more apparent. The newcomer is lulled into a sense of total freedom
> until she asks too many questions, hints at dropping out, or otherwise
> acts in a manner that goes against something the Living Eck Master has
> said, done or written."
>
> This example illustrates the point that simply agreeing on what
> statements in Eckankar doctrine are true or not is not as easy as you
> suggest for Eckankar routinely tries to have it both ways. That is why
> I do not consider it fruitful to engage in your exercise because even
> if one could reach agreement on some of the principles you present, it
> does not mean that Eckankar has not also put forth the opposite
> position in some of its other publications. This is the culture of
> double-talk and deception. It runs so deep and is at times so subtle
> that it took me over one year to unravel and expose the many tricks of
> deception that Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp employed to support the
> Eckankar teachings. If you are prepared to read the book, as I have
> suggested, you will see the patterns about which I am speaking. But
> this is not the forum for trying to untangle the web of deception that
> is ubiquitous in Eckankar’s teachings. I will, however, take a
> few of your illustrations and be more specific in pointing out were
> the deception lies.
> *********************
>
> Geoff, he is basically making a point I've made all along: the best you
> can say about eckankar doctrines and belief system is that it is
> duplicitous. You can't make that go away. I will agree with the positive
> aspects are prevalent, but I also acknowledge the contradictions that
> arise out of what I believe to be the dissonance the eck masters and
> eckankar leaders prominently exude.
>
> So in light of this greater context, your doctrine list is rather
> shallow treatment of a complex subject. Ford gave you an old fashion
> intellectual ass whooping. <g> I think you kind of sensed it since you
> asked us here if you got spanked.
>
I made a clear distinction between ECK and Eckankar in the definitions
I posted so the conflation argument doesn't cut it. For Ford to post
"the benign face" that talks about Eckankar, and "the entrapping face"
talks about ECK backs up my point very nicely. But neither you nor he
seem to see that. Oh well. Back to the drawing board on those
definitions. How many disclaimers must one make before folks stop
confusing the two concepts... Horse. Water.
>
>
> Eckankar would agree with this definition after all. So, in
> > truth, my definitions are actually quite adequate.
> >
> > And there was a point that Ford's Higher Consciuousness missed in the
> > Moment. I was talking about MY definitions of Eckankar terms. I was
> > trying to build a bridge to HCS for ME. He lost himself a Momentary
> > HCS Great Worker. Not to worry though. That Moment has passed, and
> > we have had much better Moments since. See the HCS site for much more
> > reasonable exchanges.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ford backs up what he asserts quite elegantly and thoroughly, eh? It has
> > > > > been quite obvious and my contention that eckankar doctrines and masters
> > > > > speak out of both sides of their mouths, so I naturally agree with HCS
> > > > > assertions along this line.
> > > >
> > > > I thought Ford's answers were very unsatisfying. In the beginning he
> > > > was acting in a knee jerk fashion, making totally wrong assumptions
> > > > about where I was coming from and what I was saying/asking.
> > >
> > > Maybe he was. Maybe he misjudged you. However, when it came to
> > > confronting your points, he prevailed.
> >
> > No maybes in that Moment. And to see why I disagree that Ford
> > prevailed in the future Moments, let's see how the disingenuous shoe
> > fits on the HCS foot. With all the tizzy he threw, what should I
> > think about his calling the HCS "The Great Work?" Or how about:
> >
> > Truth* and theTruth-seeker.com
> > Copyright © 2002-2003 Friends of Truth.
> > All rights reserved.
> >
> > So, this makes it seem like HCS has got an actual monopoly on the
> > Truth (or at least a copyright <ggg>). It would be ridiculous for
> > anyone to say that an unsuspecting seeker may get entrapped by either
> > of these statements. But had Paul, Darwin or Harold made such an
> > honest mistake, I can tell you that Chapter Six would have Ford's
> > laser sharp lawyerly mind dissecting and connecting the dots to evil.
> > Serious point: I do not find Ford affording Eckankar and its leaders
> > the same benefit of the doubt. He claims to be way higher than
> > Eckists and Christians, but he hasn't even learned the principle of
> > "do unto others". Or maybe he has and is way beyond it.
> >
> > But there's more. Ford also writes of "Truth so essential it needs to
> > be dispersed."
> >
> > But not so essential that he didn't look on "dictionary.com" for the
> > thesaurus entries of "dispersed":
> >
> > 4 entries found for dispersed.
> > Entry: diffuse
> > Function: adjective
> > Definition: spread out
> > Synonyms: broadcast, catholic, circulated, diluted, dispersed,
> > disseminated, distributed, expanded, extended, general, prevalent,
> > propagated, radiated, scattered, separated, strewn, thin,
> > unconcentrated, universal, widespread
> > Antonyms: compressed, concentrated, confined, focused, limited,
> > restricted
> > Concept: separateness
> > Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
> > Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
> >
> > Entry: fractional
> > Function: adjective
> > Definition: partial
> > Synonyms: apportioned, compartmental, compartmented, constituent,
> > dismembered, dispersed, divided, fractionary, fragmentary, incomplete,
> > parceled, part, piecemeal, sectional, segmented
> > Concept: minor part
> > Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
> > Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
> >
> > Entry: sparse
> > Function: adjective
> > Definition: few
> > Synonyms: dispersed, exiguous, inadequate, infrequent, meager,
> > occasional, poor, rare, scant, scanty, scarce, scattered, scrimpy,
> > skimpy, spare, sporadic, thin, uncommon
> > Concept: quantity (small)
> > Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edi tion (v 1.0.0)
> > Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
> >
> > Entry: thin
> > Function: adjective
> > Definition: diluted
> > Synonyms: diffuse, dilute, dispersed, fine, light, rarefied,
> > refined, runny, subtle, watery, weak, wishy-washy
> > Concept: weakness
> > Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
> > Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
> >
> > To paraphrase Indigo Montoya in Princess Bride: I do not think that
> > word means what Ford thinks it means. Yes, there are one or two
> > synonyms that mean "disseminate" or "distribute" (what I think he
> > intended, giving him the benefit of the doubt). But the prevailing
> > meanings of this word seems to mean exactly the opposite. In other
> > words, a CONTRADICTION!!!
> >
> > One could even say that the truth is so essential that it needs to be
> > catholic!!! And to think that was the religion that I gave up simply
> > because I cannot say the apostle's creed.
> >
> > As funny as this is, it makes me wonder why he was afraid to use the
> > word "distribute", which seems to be a natural one to have used in
> > that poem. It shouldn't take much contemplation to figure this one
> > out.
> >
> > Hopefully, you can see why I do not feel like Ford "prevailed" at all.
> > And it is hard to give his hypocracy the benefit of the doubt since
> > the whole HCS gang is so virulently anti-hypocracy and contradiction.
>
> Hey Geoff, your quibbling over words here is not helping your case about
> whether your points prevailed after Ford responded to them. I mean,
> listing repeated dictionary definitions and thesaurus entries for the word
> disperse in an inconsequential statement indicates a certain desperation
> on your part from where I sit.
The quibbling is with your statement of prevailing, not Ford in any
way. Notice I didn't bring it up over there. But in the end, you
are right. He prevails because I decided to drop the discussion and
let the HCS gang get past the angry, book burning, Master trashing,
remaining Eckist bashing phase (at least they are consistent... if
your path has no master, like the Jewish faith, it gets a pass-over
<g>). I also got tired of wondering what would make it through and
what wouldn't. If you notice, I did eventually get my notes posted
with no HCS response. I find that encouraging, but still found the
Ford filtering too constraining.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Ford. And I have some reservations
> about some of the points in his book. I think his book deserves a
> critical review. As it stands, you posted
> doctrinal points on his message board and don't have the background
> information contained in his book to have a competent exchange. You're
> left critiquing his personality or quibbling over words. I expect better
> from you. Read the damn book!
Maybe I'll read the second book that is all about the path he is
creating. Until then, I am content to be incompetent. Not sure where
I critiqued his personality though... Is asking about whether I
should judge him with the same yardstick that he judges others a
critique or an observation?
>
>
>
> >
> > That said, I am willing to forgive them instantly, because I am not so
> > contrained. My favorite quote from "Harold and Maude": consistency is
> > not a human trait.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your responses seem to come from an energy of wanting to salvage what is
> > > > > seen by others as unsalvageable by highlighting the positive attributes
> > > > > of eckankar, by pointing out the spiritual growth successes, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Things are not always as they seem where energy is concerned.
> > > > Rememember that I am invading their turf and I am respectful of that.
> > > > One thing that is as it seems: the fundamentals I point out have
> > > > always been what the path of Eckankar I know is all about. So I have
> > > > never taken a beating from anyone.
> > > >
> > > > > I have
> > > > > spoken to many eckists over the years regarding their discovery and
> > > > > admissions to the lies and deception on this newsgroup. There is a
> > > > > common theme expressed that if they personally were inspired or grew as
> > > > > a result of their association with eckankar, then this somehow makes the
> > > > > lies and deceptions, which is abuse, okay. My opinion had been that is
> > > > > does not.
> > > >
> > > > We have been down this road before. We disagree about: a) whether the
> > > > contradictions truly exist given the right semantic context,
> > >
> > > There is no other way to put it, Geoff, this is cultic thinking on your
> > > part. To dismiss blatant contradictions and the duplicity in eckankar as
> > > a context problem or we "just don't understand the master" is such bull
> > > and a very common rationalization seen in other spiritual groups.
> > >
> >
> > First off, I have always been talking about my semantic context. I
> > understand the words just fine, and never give the excuses you think
> > are bull.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, a deeper inspection arising out of your own self
> knowledge of seeing your own duplicity or dissonance (as I have seen my
> own) will make the dissonance that is rampant in eckankar glaringly
> obvious. However, if one chooses not to look at their own dissonance and
> duplicity, then, when it is presented to them externally, this will be
> denied as well.
You need to be really concise with your definitions here. Duplicity.
Dissonance. You must have a psychology degree, so enlighten me.
>
>
> >
> > And frankly, I don't care about all the advertising copy and what it
> > means with respect to entrapment and duplicity. Calling Eckankar "the
> > most direct path to God" is not disingenuous at all. It is a natural
> > part of trying to attract attention. Here is an analogy that really
> > works: two brands of aspirin both contain the maximum dosage per
> > tablet allowed by law: 500mg. They can both say that they are the
> > strongest over the counter pain reliever.
>
> That's a poor analogy....but perhaps I can give it a makeover: To make the
> analogy more accurate, the one aspirin bottle would claim that it is the
> only pain reliever that works. That all others are fake and if you take
> the other pain relievers you will surely experience your personal hell
> of pain. The other aspirin makers are evil. And for those who take this
> strongest aspirin, if they stop taking it, they will turn into a
> vegetable, etc.
The way I present Eckankar is the former analogy. If anyone in
Eckankar tries to espouse the latter, I balance their definition with
mine. I tend to clarify (i.e. "unconflate" if there is such a word)
the two concepts ECK and Eckankar, to make my point.
I can say without contradiction:
1. Eckankar is one of many paths where you can gain contact with the
ECK
2. ECK is the only path to God.
>
>
> >
> > And I don't agree with Colleen's recent post that HCS is a cult or
> > headed that way either. Commiting non-linear experience to paper is
> > hard to do. Ford will learn that just like everyone else.
> >
> > Paul, a free thinker like me, didn't worry about it. He wrote a
> > number of different books from a number of different points of view.
> > One elephant, ten or twelve angles. He says in so many words: Sorry
> > if they sound contradictory. If you can't handle it, go find a
> > spiritual welfare program somewhere else. And take your spoon with
> > you.
>
> Yes Paul appeals to people who fashion themselves "free thinkers" or
> "independent thinkers." However, when you deconstruct such self
> perceptions in yourself, you'll see that Paul was a highly dependent,
> emotionally unstable person whose rebellious streak says more about his
> attachments than his liberation from them.
So you are telling me that when I deconstruct myself, I will learn
about Paul? Interesting. Let me try. I call myself a free thinker
because I no longer carry a bunch of programs around in my head
guiding my thinking-feeling-doing. I see-know-be in the present
moment and try to allow the Light and sounf of Spirit flow through
unhindered. So, I have deconstructed my current state in terms of the
three-within-three:
1. light-sound-spirit
2. seeing-knowing-being
3. thinking-feeling-doing
So it really is about lack of attachments. Paul was a genius for
pointing these aspects out to me in books like the Spiritual Notebook
and the Tiger's Fang. I do know him better. Thanks! You too are a
genius.
>
>
> >
> > As I wrote to Cher tonight: this go round on A.R.E. has taught me that
> > Eckankar really is the true Path of the Masters. Thanks to you for
> > making that realization posssible.
> >
> > >
> > > b)
> > > > whether plagarism is lying, and
> > >
> > > When Paul takes words from another author and puts them into Rebazar
> > > Tarz's mouth and tells his readers Reb spoke those words, that is lying.
> > >
> >
> > Unlike Ford, and like Paul Twichell, the words I choose are very
> > precise. Plagarism in and of itself is not lying.
>
> I disagree. The dictionary definition is this: "a piece of writing that
> has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own
> work."
>
> To present writing as your own, when it is not, is lying. Do I need to
> post the definition of lying?
Just to be clear how much quibbling about words is going on here. You
are saying there is no difference between Paul's putting Julian's or
Walter's words in Rebazar's or Jot Niranjan's mouth without
attribution, and a student copying someone else's term paper as part
of a class assignment and calling it his own.
That's fine if you want to unify them. There is the unity of
plagarism where it serves no purpose to assign positive and negative
values to the reason. In this space, plagiarism just is. But in that
dimension it does not matter where the words come from. You only
measure the outcome. The outcome in Paul's case depends on your
attachments. If you were attached to the master and elitism, then
this outcome was bad. If you were attached to getting the message and
learning to find truth for yourself, then the outcome was good.
In other words: quibble all you want about plagiarism being good or
bad. In the end it is your attachments that decide the outcome. So
sayeth Obi-wan. My outcomes have been mostly good in this case. I
say mostly good because I must say that David's book came as a shock.
That shock hurt. But after an open minded second and third reading
and I saw that what David was actually attacking was the idea of an
outer perfect master and being in the oldest highest path to God.
Those were concepts that I never ascribed to, and saw the Eckankar
books actually agreed with David. So ironically enough, TMOASM only
strengthened my love for Eckankar.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > c) whether lying constitutes abuse,
> > > > especially in the same vein as the analogy you are about to use.
> > >
> > > You don't think lying to students on a path of truth is abuse? Oh my!
> > >
> > > "To deceive or trick" is one of the dictionary definitions of abuse.
> > >
> > > I think the abuse analogy works great for a couple of different reasons:
> > >
> > > 1) It's abuse occurring in a relationship.
> > > 2) It's abuse that is a result of one person passing their pain on to
> > > another in an unconscious reactive manner. Paul and Harold pass on their
> > > self hatred to others and the husband passes on the physical abuse he
> > > saw his father do to his mother.
> > > 3) There are self abuse aspects being played out.
> > > 4) Both parties have their roles and contribution in the abuse.
> > > 5) Both parties have a dependency of some sort that keeps them bound in
> > > the abusive relationship.
> > >
> > > I can understand why you might object to the analogy because it
> > > highlights physical abuse and the stigma attached to that in terms of
> > > societal morality...that it is not the same as lying abuse. However,
> > > psychic abuse, which is what Paul and Harold have engaged in, I can
> > > argue, is even worse than physical abuse. It's more subtle and insidious
> > > and therefore harder to pin point and identify. Sure a physical beating
> > > is different than a psychic beating, but this is not enough to render
> > > the analogy useless. So I think the analogy works fine.
>
> Why no response to these points above? Are they irrefutable? I thought so.
>
I'm bored. Especially with the "it's even worse" statement, which you
tried out 18 months ago too. Keep thinking. When you come up with a
different, better one, we can take up the thread again.
Of course, I love you so much, I take it up again later in this post
anyway...
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Whenever you write like this, especially that below, it doesn't seem
> > > > to come from a non-dualistic place like some of your other writings.
> > > > But I do appreciate your concern about me that you express in the end.
> > >
> > > Well I'm sorry you view my words this way. I asked some interesting
> > > questions below and I'm disappointed you chose not to respond. Perhaps
> > > it is uncomfortable for you to consider such questions. So be it.
> > > Perhaps you could own that instead of telling me I'm not coming from a
> > > nondualistic perspective.
> >
> > You asked two questions below that were of the "do you still beat your
> > wife" bent, because to even answer your questions implies I buy in to
> > your hackneyed analogy about Paul, Darwin and Harold in any way being
> > like wife beaters.
>
> No no no....It has been established that Paul lied. I showed that the
> dictionary definition revealed lying as abuse.
Lets see what I find:
-----
9 entries found for abuse.
a·buse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es
To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a
privilege.
To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
Obsolete. To deceive or trick.
n. (-bys)
Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.
Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
Sexual abuse.
An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses
against its citizens.
Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.
Idiom:
abuse oneself Vulgar
To masturbate.
----
The only definition of abuse that shows up that could possibly apply
is
the obsolete "to deceive or trick." I do not believe Paul was trying
to deceive or trick anyone when he put other people's words in various
Master's and Lords of the Worlds mouths, so even this one does not
apply.
The one that does apply fully is the last idiom. As to what you and I
seem to both be doing as we talk past each other on this issue.
Intercourse would be better.
Never mind. I don't love you *that* much.
>
> What you are doing here is using the strategy that many eckists have
> used over the years. It is called denial. As long as you can deny there
> is any abuse, then it continues to happen. Denial is what has kept
> eckankar going for so many years. Imagine that, a path of truth that has
> created this insidious context where a student feels he/she must deny
> the lying the goes on in order to pursue truth. I'm here to tell you
> that denial of anything negative is not truth.
>
Abuse implies harm. Not perceived, but actual. I had a long
conversation with orez a while back on this subject that I will not
buy into this "Paul was abusive cause he built me up" line of
reasoning. Go look it up if you are interested. No denial at all.
Rejection. Rejection of a lame argument you make to build up a huge
pyramid of abuse out of plagiarism, one stretched definition at a
time.
>
> A smart guy like you can come up with a far better
> > analogy, especially since I came up with a far better one for you 18
> > months ago.
>
> My questions are so pertinent, it seems you're having trouble with them.
> Let me reword them for you: Hypothetically speaking, if Paul and Harold
> lied to the students, and the students, upon finding out about the lies,
> said they don't care because they've advance so much spiritually, what
> kind of spiritual growth allows the
> continued abuse of self and others?
>
> Maybe this question is easier to answer in hypothetical form. But I
> think it is important for you to answer it.
>
How about I reword it one more time for you without the lame attempt
to use a charged words like abuse lies, and then use an analogy that
runs them up to the most negative end of the scale? And why be
hypothetical? How about:
Paul put other authors words into some of the Master's and Lord of the
World's mouths in his writings. Darwin, when finding out about this
fact, didn't address it (at least to the new students, like myself at
the time) and soon after turned the mantle of the Living Eck Master
over to Harold. Harold addressed the issue by admitting that
plagiarism happened, but downplayed it by saying that Paul was a
master compiler, and that it is the messages that matter. Many
students, upon finding out about this said they don't care because
they've advanced so much spiritually by listening to those messages.
So what kind of spiritual growth allows Eckankar to continue in the
face of this plagiarism and appropriating past historical figures and
possible amalgams as ECK Masters?
How about:
1. Learning to give the benefit of the doubt to others.
2. Forgive and forget
3. Focus on the fundamentals of ECK and not the teachers of them.
4. Recognition that the role of the Living ECK Master is to keep this
focus.
5. Become your own Master.
> >
> > The change that I have seen in my consciousness since then: I am
> > trying to shift away from being the Lone Ranger. What change have you
> > been through since then?
> >
And I think this one is important for you to answer.
> > >
> > > As far as not coming from a nondualistic place?.....I don't really know
> > > what that means in relation to my words below.
> >
> > You were the one who brought up non-dualistic points of view, and I
> > thought your non-dualistic paradigm about wife beating sounded rather
> > contrived in ANY paradigm (never-the-less, more on this later) and not
> > at all like your words of the other day:
> > ----
> > The way I express this [Celebrating Life's Moments and all the aspects
> > of ones life] is there is no longer identification with
> > physical, emotional, mental. To identify with one or all of these as
> > defining you, is to limit your experience. To identify with the
> > absolute
> > as a context or backgroup in which all these attributes arise allows
> > for
> > them to exist as part of all that is.
> >
> > If by celebrate you mean acknowledge accept without judgment, then I'm
> > with you. For me, experiencing a strong presence in the moment means
> > there is a connection physically, emotionally, mentally, energetically
> > to this entity in the now. The vitality of spirit is expressed in
> > these
> > embodied qualities now in this moment, and our awareness abiding in
> > the
> > absolute can be aware of their expressions. To me this is the meaning
> > the phrase to feel one's soul in their body. It is not about leaving,
> > retreating, disassociating with the physical, emotion and mental, it
> > is
> > about integration and allowing all parts to show up now.
> >
> > Enjoy the awakened state. If it wanes, it wanes. If it stays ten
> > years,
> > it stays ten years. Try to capture it, bottle it, make a goal out of
> > being in the moment, or make a concept out of soul (which is really is
> > an ego clothed in spiritual robes), and the moment will have already
> > eluded you and you'll be back asleep spinning around your ego bound
> > hell. <g>
> > ----
> >
> > These words of yours are Great Words. Great words that we all would
> > do well to try and live by.
>
> Geoff, these words arose in me when I was responding to one of your
> posts where you specifically ask me to comment on your experience you
> had recently. I really don't want anybody to live by them. They served
> their purpose and now you killed them by imploring us to live by them.
> But that's okay...
That moment can't be killed. It is was and always shall be. And I
didn't implore anyone, I just pointed out that anyone would do well to
live by whatever truth they find in them.
>
>
> > Here and Now. Eckist and detractor
> > alike. Thank you again for taking the trouble to write them.
>
> Your welcome.
>
> >
> > But interestingly enough, your <g> above nothwithstanding, to listen
> > to most of your (ex)poser posts, some wimp out there should construe
> > your admonition against seeking as a fear inducing tactic to keep them
> > under your control. But you and I know that nothing could be further
> > from the truth.
>
> If I was an authoritarian guru with students and told them that if they
> seek they will suffer a living astral hell, and that they need to follow
> me and stop seeking immediately, with me creating a whole dogmatic
> system for not seeking, then, yes, it would be a fear inducing tactic.
> The form, the context often is a more powerful message than the content
> as I have explained to you in the past.
>
The authoritarian nature of the Living ECK Master is only where
keeping the teachings of Eckankar are concerned. None are above
Harold where it comes to declaring something in or out of the path of
Eckankar. Ask Ford if he is not equally as authoritarian where HCS is
concerned. Similarly, if you create a path of "no seeking", then you
own the doctrines that go into it above all others until you hand over
the reins or die. And having this focal point is not a bad thing.
I think it helps not to conflate two clearly separate concepts. I
your hypothetical case the two are: 1) the inner path of not seeking
and simply being at one ment, and 2) the outer path where you are the
guru helping people attain this state in some manner or another (even
if simply by being in your presence). This is just like what happens
with ECK and Eckankar. Not that no one conflates these terms. But
when they do and I am around, I try to make the distinction clearer
because I think it is vitally important. The outer path is not the
path of ECK. The ECK is the narrow, inner way.
>
> A context of an authoritarian guru disseminating spiritual information
> often yields dependent students who want to be told what to do, even
> when, ironically enough, the message is telling the students rely on
> their own experiences. I think I inadvertently described Harold's folly.
>
Surprisingly enough I agree with you on the first part. I believe that
it is not the purpose of a spiritual path to find and polish the truth
for its students for this very reason. I believe its purpose is to
teach its students how to find and polish the truth for him or her
self. This is the only way that doesn't lead to dependency.
Where we disagree is that I have found Harold to be remarkable in not
telling people what to do or think, especially when it is a matter of
self discipline. Ask Ford and Graham. I would want to spoon feed my
students to show how smart I R. I am clearly not ready for mastership
yet.
>
> >
> > And I have been asking you and other posters of Great Words lately:
> > are these yours? All of them? Do you think I could find a similar
> > passage in books you have read?
>
> I think I answered you....that I created those words and thoughts based
> upon my personal understand derived from reading and experiences.
>
> Your questions, though, trivialize the importance of Paul plagiarizing
> and what that means. I mean, Paul told people he had certain spiritual
> experiences and they turn out to be descriptions from someone else's
> books. This is not the same has repeating learned knowledge in our own
> unique way. Nor is copying word for word other people's books and
> telling people you wrote them the same as regurgitating learned
> material. Paul was obviously trying to build
> himself up as an authority. What better way to do so than to created
> books by copy other people writing?
See below.
>
>
> >
> > Frankly, I do not care. I am inspired by the word You wrote and
> > brought to My attention in this Moment. Thanks again (as I bask in
> > them).
>
> I think any self respecting person would care if I represent my words as
> mine when they are someone else's. That would be lying to you. People who
> respect themselves care when others lie to them. Why? Because lying is
> abuse.
Did Kennedy attribute the source in the "Ask not" speech? No. It was
a great speech not just in spite of this, but also because of it. He
didn't break the flow of the speech in that moment. And I do not
think he ever attributed the words. many folks still think he is the
one to have said them. Lies? Abuse?
Please do better next time.
>
> People who allow themselves to be trampled upon, need to do some
> psychological work in service of their spirituality as John Welwood
> called in in that article I posted recently.
>
Did you just kill his words by: a) presuming that I am trampled upon,
and b) telling me what to do about it?
Thanks for your concern. But surely you do not think the internet is
a good vehicle to do psychoanalysis.
>
> >
> > So what is the point if I do not care?
>
> The point is that it is sad to see such poor self regard. Often the wife
> of the abusing husband tries to downplay the abuse: "it is not such
> a big deal, he's a good man."
The point is that I don't deny trouble when it finds me, but I don't
go seeking it either. I don't seek anything, good or bad.
I do get really tired of your psychoanalysis though. I hope you don't
do this to your friends.
>
>
> We always seem to give
> > ourselves the benefit of the doubt because we know our own mind and
> > that our cause is just. Our intentions are ure. It is much more
> > challenging to puzzle out how someone else may deserve the same
> > benefit.
>
> Geoff, your comparison of my words about nonduality and Paul's
> plagiarism again is a sign of desperation in my view. Paul doesn't get
> the benefit of the doubt because he is a proven and know liar.
Benefit of the doubt is benefitting you, not him. You might learn
something about the other side of the coin. Is there a unity or not?
>
> You are free to pretend that he is not, but facts are stacked up against
> you.
He has been proven to take other author's words and put them into the
mouths of Master's and Lords of the Worlds in his books. He has been
proven to "appropriate" historical figures as ECK Masters. I have
never denied the former as form of plagiarism. Never will. But I
never will find it as serious as you seem to either.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > I thought I was being very fair to violent husband and the abusive Paul
> > > and Harold. I also was being very fair to the abused wife and student
> > > who must own up to their reasons for staying and taking a physical or
> > > psychic beating.
> > >
> > > I thought I was being fair to raise the question about judging other
> > > people who reside in one paradigm from another paradigm. To question
> > > what action could be taken and how to take such action. In other words,
> > > to abstain from using more violence to end violence. Narcissistic,
> > > unbalanced Gurus need our compassion every bit as much as the student
> > > whom they abuse. It serves no one to make them out to be monsters or
> > > evil, or enemies. They're people too who have lost their way.
> > >
> > > And the question that I think is most pertinent for you is this one:
> > > What kind of spiritual path, what kind of spiritual growth allows the
> > > continued abuse of self and others? The reason I think this is pertinent
> > > question for you is because you are holding up your spiritual growth and
> > > the positive aspects of eckankar as a response to the stated negative
> > > aspects. I think it is a fair question and would like to hear your
> > > answer if you're up for it.
> > >
> > > Lurk
> >
> > A fair question is an earnest one. Earnest means to me that you are
> > really interested in hearing my answer to it, and putting yourself in
> > my place to understand the truth of it, even if you do not fully agree
> > with it. In giving me the benefit of the doubt, the dualism between
> > "your truth" and "my truth" disappears, and there is "our truth" for
> > at least that Moment. After that we can hate each other again...
> > <kidding... Please know that I love you and you are truly the only
> > reason I hang around here... No kidding on that point.>
>
>
> I enjoy our exchanges as well. You're an refreshing oasis.
>
>
> >
> > That said. Here is my truth from where I stand on your question
> > above: Two points.
> >
> > Point 1. I would not stand for what I perceive as abuse.
>
> Then why do you stand for the abuse that occurs in eckankar?
>
> You know, Ford had a similar viewpoint to yours back in the early
> eighties which has evolved. It is good to seek to understand people who
> have held your viewpoint and have changed to a different viewpoint. Pick
> their brain why they changed their mind. You can learn and benefit from
> the efforts of others.
Exactly why I poked my head in over there to see what was shaking.
Thanks for the reference.
But on the "similar viewpoint". I have to reject the Eckankar as a
lower rung on a step to spiritual liberation that somehow makes those
who have quit even more elitist than me, the most elite of all...
Seriously, Eckankar to me was simply a quick bridge to EK. EK is the
only path to God in my Book of Life. So why do I need HCS? Even they
say I do not need them for anything. Why do I need to hate Eckankar
and Eckists?
Maybe it's because the anti-Eckankar crowd seems to have a creed:
everything is OK except a path that says it is the only way back to
God. Well within this creed. Eckankar should actually be OK because
it says that Eckankar is one of many paths back to God. But under
this creed, Eck is not OK because it is claimed by Eckankar to be the
only path back to God. So Eckankar is not OK after all. But if Eck
is the Holy Spirit which is the energy that causes change and
movement, then it really IS the only way back to God.
So. I just as elegantly deconstructed the entire HCS argument, and in
the end, everything is OK, even Eckankar. Oops. That Ok-ness makes
HCS not OK until they take the focus off of hating all things Eckankar
and ECK. I am glad that Ford acknowledges this as a necessary next
step to unfoldment.
Will they then learn the truth that you never had to leave Eckankar?
That one just needs to drop their attachment to the path and the
masters, and focus only on Spirit (in a non-seeking simply wake up to
it in the Moment sort of way, of course)? That this is what the path
always was about?
>
>
> If I saw my
> > brother in law beating my sister, then I would kick his ass in a NY
> > Moment. No question about letting him and her "learn their lessons".
> > What a crock of New Age garbage. God/Life/EK/All That Is/Chance
> > brought the wife beating of MY SISTER to my attention, and it is up to
> > me to act in that Moment as I see fit. I looked deeper into your
> > hypothetical Moment, and after kicking my B-I-L's bony ass, I asked my
> > sister if she had been beaten by him before. And since the answer was
> > yes, I hugged her to told her I am so sorry that she had a loser for a
> > husband, and then yelled at her for not coming to me or others who
> > love her before to help her get out. Then, I grabbed a bag and took
> > her over to my house where my wife and I helped her get back on her
> > feet again. Moment over. She can deal with her next Moments later.
> > Maybe she learns a lesson, maybe not. I feel good about it Here and
> > Now. Thanks for the seed of contemplation.
>
> Your sentiments here mirror and even go beyond the anti-cult factions
> that want to kidnap people out of cults. You not only want to rescue
> her, you want to kick his ass. Your solution creates more violence and
> is directly violent to both your sister and your to brother in law.
>
When you presented this hypothetical situation, I decided to make a
moment out of it, and let the characters play out. So I walked in "my
sister's" house, and there was her husband beating her. In that
moment, I contemplated what to do, and kicked his ass. Not yelling
hate filled invectives and such, and being totally out of control.
Simply put boot to ass with loving attention so that he would stop
slapping my sister around and not interfere with the connection I made
with her afterwards.
The karma-less life is not about denial, it is about right action in
the moment based on a true (but swift) contemplation, and being
willing to fully accept the consequences of my thoughts, words, and
deeds unconditionally. Different moment, different response. I did
not become my own master for the kind of robotic thinking that you
presented as a "non solution". If you read your machinations of the
mind above, and let those play out in a real moment, it will be over
before you can act. Maybe fatally. But no one could blame you.
>
> >
> > Point 2. Eckankar is not abusive to me or others in any definition I
> > have of the word abuse.
>
> It is a common tactic to deny abuse as I explained earlier. That lead
> nowhere except to more abuse for yourself and others.
And the abuse you keep trying to manufacture is equally, if not more
abusive than what Paul ever did. See definition 2 below:
abusive
\A*bu"sive\, a. [Cf. F. abusif, fr. L. abusivus.] 1. Wrongly used;
perverted; misapplied.
I am . . . necessitated to use the word Parliament improperly,
according to the abusive acceptation thereof. --Fuller.
2. Given to misusing; also, full of abuses. [Archaic] ``The abusive
prerogatives of his see.'' --Hallam.
3. Practicing abuse; prone to ill treat by coarse, insulting words or
by other ill usage; as, an abusive author; an abusive fellow.
4. Containing abuse, or serving as the instrument of abuse;
vituperative; reproachful; scurrilous. ``An abusive lampoon.''
--Johnson.
5. Tending to deceive; fraudulent; cheating. [Obs.] ``An abusive
treaty.'' --Bacon.
Syn: Reproachful; scurrilous; opprobrious; insolent; insulting;
injurious; offensive; reviling.
----
Why is it worse than anything Paul ever did? Because I believe that
Paul was excited about having success with his techniques, and was
simply trying to get others to enjoy the same success.
>
>
> You and Ford can wind yourselves up all
> > frickin day long about how bad it is that Paul made up Rebazar and put
> > words in his mouth, but that does not make it abuse.
>
> Geoff, read Ford's book and come back and tell me if you think it is
> abuse.
Why don't you give me a synopsis of the 256 pages you read? Outline
one of what you consider the best arguments he has on the evil of the
path that makes it worthy of such disdain that one would burn the Eck
books literally, and Eckists figuratively.
>
>
> >
> > Now before you go off and reply to that, please answer an earnest
> > question from me. Can you think of one *good* reason why Paul might
> > have wanted to put other authors words in various Varaigi Masters and
> > Lords of the World without attribution?
>
> Sure. Paul was a loser and had spent his whole life fighting his demons.
> One of the ways he fought his demons was to be a part of cultic groups.
> After years of doing that, he didn't have much to show for his efforts.
> You can only go through so many groups before the self hatred emerges.
> So a new method of keeping the self hatred at arms length had
> to be employed. He found a way to surppress his self hatred by becoming
> a guru, becoming an authority to students. This is interesting in and of
> itself.
>
> Paul's self hatred was documented and pronounced. What you find with
> folks who hate themselves is they tend to disconnect from who they are
> or put their true natures into shadow. Who they are is not acceptable
> (in Paul's case, his mother passed on her self hatred to him) and they
> hide who they are and take personas in order to be love. Their sense of
> self is painful so they opt to have no sense of self.
>
> They're sense of self is so intensely and consistently rejecting and
> steeped with negative judgments that, in order to alleviate the pain and
> adapt, they simply lose their sense of self all together...they
> disassociate. This can be seen in people who live vicariously through
> others. There are a whole range of characters that fit this bill.
>
> One of the more severe cases would be a person who gets caught up in an
> authoritarian cultic group and who surrenders his/her sense of negative
> self. I recall an interview with one of the Heaven's Gate survivors by a
> television reporter. After a series of questions, the interviewer asked
> the Heaven's Gate guy what HE like to do for fun. This stopped the guy
> in his tracks. He did not know how to respond. The thought of a personal
> preference befuddled him. Very poignant moment. His sense of self was so
> caught up with the group consciousness, the idea of him having a desire
> to have fun did not compute. Was this because of a no self state he
> achieved where he no longer identified with ego? My view is no, this is
> a type of no self that is fueled by a reaction to, and compensation for,
> a severely negative sense of self that is implied and assumed in the
> stance. To have a sense of self means pain, so identifying with
> something externally solves this problem?temporarily, at least.
>
> I think this no self can be confused with the no self (beyond ego) many
> spiritual groups talk about because there are elements of freedom in
> disassociating with a negative sense of self via identification with
> external agencies whatever they might be. People who join cultic groups
> often feel a sense of expansion and freedom in renouncing their former
> life which included all internal references and structures to their
> negative self. The freedom experienced is real in the sense of the
> feelings associated with it, but the foundation on which it rest is a
> psychological house of cards because it requires repressing negative
> sense of self and merging with, and identifying with, the group
> consciousness. Again, a distinction needs to be made here between
> feeling of oneness of merging with all and merging with a group
> consciousness in a codependent manner.
>
> This explains why cultic members can be vehement/fanatical about
> defending and staying with such group. There's a psychological double
> whammy in operation to keep members tied to the group: Not only will
> they lose the feelings of expansion which are externally dependent, but
> they will have to face their negative sense of self they were avoiding
> in the first place. Double ouch!
>
> Joining a cult group would be a severe example of loss of a sense of
> self. It could be something as simple and subtle as living through a
> spouse and confuse such living through the spouse as love when it is
> dependency. The same dynamic is in operation as with the cultic group
> member: A partner's negative sense of self can be suspended or repressed
> by living through the other in which this person derives positive
> feelings from such "hiding out." If you have ever been around severely
> codependent people who are obsessively concerned about fixing and
> reforming others, you might think you are in that movie "Invasion of the
> body snatchers." There's a powerful self denial energy that gets
> expressed as helping and living vicariously.
>
> This was very much Paul Twitchell's psychological make up. Yes he was
> excited to teach people. Yes he was well read and read some good stuff.
> But let's face it....Paul had a negative sense of himself he had not
> adequately dealt with in his life. And such condition is naturally
> expressed in the way he went about starting his group and teaching
> people. In fact, I would argue that often people starting spiritual
> groups and healing centers, etc do so as a symbolic gesture to heal
> themselves. Unconsciously, they attempt to create the conditions for
> their own healing through healing and guiding others.
>
> I think it is necessary to view Paul as person who went from loser to
> suddenly finding success to going on a big ego trip. People steeped in
> self hatred will find ways to sabotage their success. One of the ways
> Paul did this was to lie to people. Why? He felt so small and inadequate
> internally, he naturally assumed the rest of the world viewed him this
> way. So what does he do? He crafts a grandiose view of himself, makes up
> shit, and to the world to make himself an authority to others.
>
> One way he became an authority was to publish books that contained
> plagiarized material. He
> could use other people's spiritual experiences and pass them off as his
> own and/or take people's words and pretend like and eck master said
> them. It made him look bigger than he was. The more he was viewed as a
> spiritual authority, the more students. More followers meant more money
> for him. So there was some economic incentive, and some emotional
> incentive of being an authority that were "good" reasons for Paul to
> plagiarized. Paul satisfied his needs the best way he knew how.
> Unfortunately, his moral and psychological development was lacking and
> his way of satisfying his needs hurt others. Same with Harold....he has
> made decisions over the years in how to handle the lies in eckankar in
> the best way he knew how given his moral and psychological development
> and lack of a sense of self.
>
> Geoff, that you do not acknowledge the lies and abuse in eckankar and
> feel hurt concerns me.
Lurk. First off, rest assured that I do not feel hurt by anything
done or not done by Eckankar. I am not in denial that I feel hurt
either. But I really do appreciate your concern.
To turn the tables just a bit. You did not acknowlege an earnest
question I asked you above. Your whole section above missed the point
of trying to put yourself in Paul's shoes at his moment in history and
come up with a good reason (i.e. a reason that was actually good, or
for the good of the whole) that Paul might have decided to put other
author's words in the mouths of Variagi Master's and Lord's of the
Worlds, without attribution, like he did in the Tiger's Fang.
Please try again.
Although that said, after this weekend, I will be starting on a book
project at work that will take up almost all of my spare writing
attention for the next six months at least. Plus I am finishing up
the work that I have been doing on being a Momentary Eckist. I
appreciate all the great conversations we had testing some of the new
theories that came up. I see from this exchange, that there are still
some rough edges to knock off, but for the most part it does seem like
we agree more than disagree.
Anyway, I will likely disappear again for a while, but not because
anyone has run me off. Especially not you.
Ok then, Geoff
>
> Lurk
>
>
> >
> > Ok then, Geoff
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok then, Geoff
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's like saying it is okay that a man physically abuses his wife
> > > > > because he makes beautiful love to her at times. This abusive context I
> > > > > don't think will produce a healthy balanced relationship. Sure, the
> > > > > women might have fantastic orgasms (spiritual experiences) which will
> > > > > give her temporary reprieve from the overriding fear and something to
> > > > > latch onto. This is no way to go about forming a healthy relationship
> > > > > between man and women no more than lying (abusing) to student on a path
> > > > > of truth leads to healthy spiritual practices. Fear is a self defeating
> > > > > context to form a healthy relationship just as lying is a self defeating
> > > > > context for a path of truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > The best you can say about eckankar is that it is such a terrible
> > > > > abusive religion that it might prompt those who follow it to become
> > > > > disillusioned and wake up. Just like the abuse bestowed upon a women in
> > > > > an abusive relationship could be the wake up call for her. The gift of
> > > > > an abusive relationship can be for the women to recognize her emotional
> > > > > dependence which causes her to pursue her own independence. She could
> > > > > come to understand why she allowed herself to take it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Same is true for the man. He could see and come to terms with his
> > > > > emotional dependence on being abusive to get what he wants. (This part
> > > > > of the analogy doesn't translate too well, since Holding Tank Harold has
> > > > > not come to terms with how abusive he has been. He acts like the man who
> > > > > blames his wife for the beating she got.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Another quick point while I have this analogy running....The orgasm the
> > > > > women experiences seems really really wonderful and deep when in the
> > > > > abusive relationship. I would guess this is because it occurs in an
> > > > > abusive context and seems real special. However the women who leaves
> > > > > this abusive context and deals with her shadows soon comes to realize
> > > > > the orgasms she experienced and reveled in the context of pain and fear
> > > > > were nothing compared to the fullness of life this is experienced when a
> > > > > healthier context is espoused.
> > > > >
> > > > > So when I hear this sentiment from eckists about how much spiritual
> > > > > growth they have gotten and how that outweighs the deception and lies, I
> > > > > am quick to point out and question the quality of this stated spiritual
> > > > > growth that thinks the lies and deception is okay just so long as they
> > > > > get theirs! What kind of spiritual path, what kind of spiritual growth
> > > > > allows the continued abuse of self and others?
> > > > >
> > > > > From a nondualistic perspective, if there is such a thing, observing
> > > > > wives and students being abused by husbands and unbalanced teachers, is
> > > > > seeing it is all played out perfectly according to the realities of both
> > > > > parties. Given the parties respective beliefs, it makes perfect sense
> > > > > why they come together and abuse is the result. This is a level of
> > > > > acceptance that says it should be happening because it is happening. A
> > > > > teacher's self deception is unconsciously exuded and infused in the
> > > > > doctrines and org structure that he creates or perpetuates. A student's
> > > > > self deception is drawn to the teachers self deception and such self
> > > > > abuse by both is consummated and manifested. Thus, the self defeating
> > > > > paradigm.
> > > > >
> > > > > So for those folks who do not reside in such a paradigm, what are they
> > > > > to do when observing such abuse? What would you do if your sister whom
> > > > > you love was in an abusive marriage? Would you use a nondualistic
> > > > > perspective and proclaim it all to be perfect to justify passivity and
> > > > > do nothing?
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you intervene and allow both to learn what they need to learn? I
> > > > > mean, if my sister leaves her husband on my word because I persuaded her
> > > > > instead of her own conclusion, is this not a stop gap measure and she is
> > > > > surely doomed to repeat her mistake since she was doing it for me
> > > > > instead of coming to terms with her own dependency?
> > > > >
> > > > > My personal answer is to take an educative approach: I would pull my
> > > > > sister aside and tell her what I see and how sad it makes me to see her
> > > > > be in a space where she feels like she has to endure the abuse and do so
> > > > > in a way that allows her to come to her own conclusions. To make her
> > > > > aware of other options. If she chooses to stay, after hearing how it is
> > > > > possible to leave and heal and eventually have a relationship that will
> > > > > not involved abuse, then that is her decision and I have to honor it.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I would point out to her husband about how there are other ways to
> > > > > deal with his anger and powerlessness, etc. The tendency is to look at
> > > > > the situation and to condemn the husband. Is it fair to condemn those
> > > > > folks who reside in a different paradigm? I don't think so. I don't have
> > > > > to like how he deals with his anger by taking it out on my sister, but I
> > > > > never want to lose sight that he is human and has problems like the rest
> > > > > of us and somewhere he is trying to serve some need of his in his
> > > > > violence. To condemn him and make him an enemy is to use the same
> > > > > violent psychological mechanics (in lesser degree) on him as he uses to
> > > > > strike my sister. So I would be, in effect, perpetuating violence.
> > > > >
> > > > > So Geoff, overall, I see you talking about your eckankar orgasms and
> > > > > holding those up as somehow making the abuse in eckankar as palatable.
> > > > > It saddens me to see such a bright congenial person like yourself stay
> > > > > in an abusive relationship. I think you deserve better. I understand
> > > > > from past exchanges with you that you want to hang in there with
> > > > > eckankar and hope to make a positive impact in some kind of methodical
> > > > > quality process controls. I think that is admirable, but highly naive
> > > > > given the circumstances of how receptive Harold has been. If you read
> > > > > Ford's book you can gain some insight on the level of paranoia you are
> > > > > dealing with in Harold by reading his letters to Ford and others. This
> > > > > reminds me of the abused wife hoping her actions will somehow change her
> > > > > abusing husband.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would encourage you to submit your concerns to Harold has you have
> > > > > said you were going to do as soon as possible so you can get some
> > > > > feedback and bearing on where such efforts will stand. Past history says
> > > > > you are wasting you time. However, if you go through the process and
> > > > > come to understand you are fighting a pathological city hall, then maybe
> > > > > this is the very thing you need to help you decide to leave. Maybe not.
> > > > > Maybe a miracle will happen and paranoid Harold will be receptive since
> > > > > many of his long time students are leaving him.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, if you decide to hang in there and continue to take a beating
> > > > > from Harold, that's okay, I feel confident that, in time, you will grow
> > > > > tire of the abuse and find the inspiration to explore new horizons.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lurk
> p
Sean
Geoff,
Welcome to the world of Lurk. It's like drowning in a sea of words! <G>
Along the way I thought you made some good points, though I couldn't read it
all.
This was a classic:
"I do get really tired of your psychoanalysis though. I hope you don't
do this to your friends."
Geoff, I believe YOU are his only friend. You are talking to him! ;-)
btw when you've worked thru the non-reality of Lurk, you get an a.r.e. Gold
Star
<VBG>
Good show,
Love Sean
Sean
<VBG> Now if we can just shift that thinking onto the matter of Eckankar's
"secret" history he found posted on the net, we'll be making some real
progress.
> However, I reall do commend Ford for taking a closer and deeper look
> at Faqir Chand's life and work, since I think Faqir's frankness and
> honesty help us better understand the spiritual enterprise....
> especially in relationship to how much gurus know and don't know.
>
I'm not up on those issues David. But do I think there are fake gurus? Of
course I do.
Do I think people completely miss what their guru is saying/meaning, and
then go out and tell the world something completely different? Absolutely.
Do ECKists do this? You bet they do. That's why we're called chelas, or
students.
Is this matter covered in the teaching? Yes it is. Does everyone get it? No,
me included. ;-)
> So, like all books, one has to pick and choose what one likes and
> dislikes.
>
Yes, part of being true to ourselves is following our own interests in this
life. I said upfront that I didn't like Ford's book and wouldn't be reading
it. I find his style tedious and self-serving, and far from humble. That is
harder to cope with for me, than the fact I disagree with his conclusions
about Eckankar.
> For instance, I still happen to enjoy Paul Twitchell's TIGER'S FANG
> and TALONS of TIME..... even if there are cribbed sections.
>
> Recently I read Errol Flynn's MY WICKED, WICKED WAYS which is
> absolutely delightful book............ Of course, it appears that some
> of the stuff is simply not true..... Flynn probably just made it up.
>
Ah, but the women didn't! It was true, he was hung like a horse and knew how
to use it. A typical Aussie!!! <G>
Anyway, if I told you my wicked ways, you'd probably think it was simply not
true as well. To be honest, I can't believe it, and I lived it! hehehehehe
> But the book is still a great read.
>
> So, yes, I think one has to be a selective critic and no one is exempt
> from such a thing.
>
> Another example: I have learned a lot from Da Free John, even though I
> think he is about as creepy a guy as I have ever encountered.....
>
> I love Ken Wilber, but he has a completely naive take on gurus in my
> opinion.
>
>
> But it also comes down to time and energy and interest.
>
Ain't that the truth! I agree.
>
> Ford Johnson's work is very interesting to me in what he has uncovered
> about Twitchell (see his website documents).
>
David, I can remember when Ford's site was finally up, but I was there
before anyone had posted a message to his message boards.
Within a couple of weeks, I had read the ENTIRE website, including the
documents eg Darwins' case against Eckankar.
The "real" information he has found is indeed pretty interesting in itself.
He let's himself down when repeating unfounded rumours by known liars [at
best disconnected from reality] whilst accusing Paul of mythomania. His use
of Graham's experiences as some sort of proof that the LEM was out of touch
with the nine silent ones .......... is well totally ludicrous imv.
> For instance, I didn't know that Paul's first wife divorced Paul over
> desertion. It is in the divorce papers.
>
Documents don't explain the real relationship or reasons for the divorce.
Let's face it, people don't tell the governement the whole truth all the
time. But it's an interesting piece of paper that may create yet another
myth.
> That kind of stuff is interesting to me since I have never encountered
> it.
>
> Ford's stuff on Graham and his new group is just not interesting to me
> or sustaining..........
>
> It seems like another organization to me.
I'd call it a eckankar organisational replica with Ford at the top. Not a
criticism merely an observation of the facts of the matter. Draw your own
conclusions about what that may indicate.
But there is two key ingredients that are missing in the HCS from what I can
see, love and tolerance for others.
Cheers Sean
Sean
Yes. Doesn't make it true, nor the conclusions drawn from it especially.
Let's not forget that Eckankar's website isn't the Home of Paul Twitchell's
biographical life either. It's a spiritual teaching not Amazon.com
In fact there are thousand sof websites that have info about Eckankar and
Paul Twitchell. I found Paul's photo with Kirpal Singh on a detractors
website.
I have read personal accounts about Sri harold from reading Doug's book and
posts here that also aren't on Eckankar's website or in Harold's
autobiographies either.
Your point is then what? Ford has collated SOME info about Twitchell that
other websites don't have including Eckankar's official website.
Is this New info that has come to light interesting? Yes it is.
Where things really go off the rails David, is Ford isn't willing to let the
known facts talk for themselves and INSISTS unless you read HIS book and
embrace his POV you cannot know THE truth about Paul and Eckankar as a
teaching.
That quite frankly is simply bullshit.
> Just look at the documents themselves or the early writings that are
> included on the website......
>
> That alone adds a dimension.
>
> In my own tradition, Radhasoami, there are a number of detractors and
> I absolutely loved reading their books..... even if they were slanted
> or biased.
>
> Because at the end of the day, the data that lasts is the stuff that
> can be reproduced outside of the taints or biases of a particular
> author.
>
> That's why the plagiarism issue didn't die.
>
> That's why Twitchell's historical past versus his "spiritual" one (to
> be generous here) is not going away......
>
> That's why Ford has caused people to leave.
>
> The doubts arise because such info is ascertainable outside of the
> tainting and biases.
I'll defer to Michael's comments here. People leave for their own reasons.
Nathan left BEFORE he knew about Ford, and whilst he accepted some of Ford's
ideas, he certainly didn't accept them all.
Let's go back to your coments about beliefs and how it colours people's
thinking. Ford suggests that Paul suffered from "mythomania". That's not a
bad diagnosis about someone living 40 years ago whom he never met based upon
the remnants of a handful of documents about the mans life and that's all
............ especially when anecdotal comments by people who did know him
tell a completely different story.
If you believe plagarism in spiritual books was bad in 1957, if you believe
the only motivation was to purposely deceieve others to make a living, if
you believe he lied about his age to win over Gail because he was hard up,
if you believe David Parker always tells the truth unadorned, if you don't
believe in re-incarnation, if you DO believe Jesus is the saviour, if you
don't believe Soul Travel in the inner worlds is real or possible, then sure
it's obvious, Paul suffered from mythomania, but one is also being a tad
narrowminded and foolish.
But people believe all number of foolish things.
As a 27 year veteran in Eckankar, Ford in his travels believed what a new
2nd initiate had to say about his journal and meetings with the nine silent
ones. It is clear from Ford's own words that he no longer believed or had
faith/trust in Sri Harold OR the Inner Master BEFORE Ford offered the
journal to him.
It is clear to me that Ford never had any valid experiences himself with the
nine silent ones. If he had, I believe Graham's experiences would have been
irrelevant to Ford.
Ford had "lost it" long before he found graham which preceipitated what has
unfolded since. It's doubtful if Ford ever got past the mind in his 27 years
as an ECKist. Which is an observation not a personal criticism or
condemnation.
I think the main mistake you and others make David, is in your
investigations and search for the truth, known facts are not "also" viewed
in the light of the possibility that the teachings may in fact be true. And
true in a sense that mentally you cannot comprehend it clearly or
completely............... because that is what the teachings suggest anyway,
so if it is true then that aspect of the teaching needs to be considered as
well.
IF, disbelief can be suspended, if we ALSO look at this matter from the
perspective that LEM/mahanta is possibly real and valid, and one has a good
understanding about what the teachings have to say about such matters as
Ford found himself in, then what occurred to Ford makes perfect sense, Sri
Harold's response makes perfect sense, and Paul's actions in the distant
past make a lot more sense as well.
So yes, our beliefs DO get in the way of seeing the truth clearly, but it's
a two way street every step of the way. We ALL have our own myths.
It is true the issue of plagarism didn't die, and in many respects your
activity has helped to de-construct many of the incorrect myths that had
built up about Paul in the teaching. One only needs to look at Colleen's
past and see the level of mythmaking that was around in the 60's and early
70's.
Let's not get confused between myths that grow out of a lack of knowledge
and the rumour mill, and myths that come from people's own unbalanced
reactions to the teachings/master.
I can see where Colleen and Ford are coming from .......... I've seen
similar things in my life. They totally fail to see where I am coming from,
and they don't even want to hear it, [see Geoff at HCS as another example]
which is fine, that's their choice.
Their opinions are their own and are irrelevant to the teaching of Eckankar.
Sri Harold doesn't lose and sleep over it, and neither do I.
Anyway, great to see a real copy of Paul's marriage certificate. The DOB is
obviously not accurate. Why that is so, is an interesting thing to ponder
for some. And that's all it is. Is it more evidence that Paul suffered from
mythomania and made it all up? LOL
Give me a break. I left kindergarten over 40 years ago
Cheers
PS David I realise some things I raise above aren't necessarily your own
beliefs/ideas etc. I am addressing a range of issues that detractors/ford
bring up on aregular basis as well. So I'm not arguing these things with
you personally, it's just part of the mix we find ourselves in now.
And it's all YOUR fault. If you didn't write the Making our Paulji myths
would be much more comfortable and entrenched ;-)))
Sean
How dare you say that you whining hypocritical toadie!!! <G>
Well, we're all human, with the exception of Lurk of course. I'm convinced
he's just a computer program that got loose from the developers before
completion and testing. ;-)
> Indeed, one of the reasons I come here is to see how well I can react
> with resorting to ad hominens, given that I have been called about
> everything from Hitler, Bozo, Kal, to the latest lazy ass tightwad
> (which is actually pretty funny).
>
Not to mention that it's also true! LOL
> Of course, it does seem that nobody really changes their position all
> that much (except Nathan!!!), but that is the nature of our minds.....
>
Well Ford chnaged his mind, Colleen changed her mind, Lurk changed his mind,
there's many many more.
> I, of course, think Doug has done me a favor.
>
> I think he is right about 1909, about Darwin being a fifth initiate,
> and even though I disagree with him on some core issues, it at least
> got me to think about it.
>
And WE all know what a challenge that is to achieve David!!!
Is that offer still open about the phone number on your wall btw? ;-)
But seriously, Doug has done a lot of people a favour by methodically taking
the time to go thru the charges point by point, by listening to what you had
to say, by seeking out information from others no one ever thought to ask or
didn't have a connection to access such people/info.
> In any case, I like the to and fro, and, yes, it would be a nicer
> place with less name calling.
>
I think the personal name-calling and mis-labelling may have started in a
book called the Making. But I could be wrong. <G>
> signed:
>
> Lazy tight wad, Hitler, and Kal's best buddy.
<G>
signed:
The Childish Aussie Pussy
Jan4litsnd
>From: neural...@yahoo.com (neuralsurfer)
>Date: 2/14/04 1:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <d975b1d5.04021...@posting.google.com>
JAN:
You said: "For instance, I didn't know that Paul's first wife divorced Paul
over
desertion. It is in the divorce papers."
There are lots of ways to spin about others *motivations*. However, from what
I've heard, especially years ago, there were only a couple two or three
accepted reasons a divorce could be granted, one being desertion, another
adultery. Check with your lawyer family members on that.
Paul was asked to leave the ashram after an altercation, his wife chose not to
go with him and to stay there at the ashram, as the story is told. It was
convenient if she wanted a divorce to use 'desertion' as the reason on the
paperwork. The law required as much. That 'desertion' was on the divorce papers
imo offers nothing to the original known story of Paul leaving the ashram and
his wife choosing to stay.
cher
Don't forget to find out what types of circumstances were allowable for
divorce when that document was dated. There was no such thing as no
fault divorce in those days! Desertion was considered a safe way of
claiming seperate status in seperate households. It doesn't mean that
Paul just walked away and left her. So for once in your life, try to do
some research before you jump to your usual conclusions.
cher
<g> The award is called the "circle lurk", for obvious reasons. <smile>
Jan4litsnd
>Subject: Rationalization of the week
>From: arelurker arel...@charter.net
>Date: 2/13/04 8:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <402CD4CA...@charter.net>
>
>
>
>Jan4litsnd wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Question for Lurk on HCS
>> >From: pat...@aol.com (Pathapp)
>> >Date: 2/12/04 8:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <20040212204423...@mb-m13.aol.com>
>> >
>> >> The _horror_(hear Marlon:) of
>> >>plagiarism proves Eckankar is fiction.
>>
>> PATHAPP:
>> >Rich, when the highest consciousness on Earth, a Godman, takes (steals?)
>> >words
>> >from another author, puts them coming out of the mouths of his teachers -
>> >highly spiritual masters (who if they were true, I can't believe that they
>> >would have allowed this - if PT was lucky enough to have a lecture by a
>-
>> >wouldn't he just use RT's own words?) Yes, to me, it does prove that
>> >Eckankar
>> >is fiction. Not the spiritual truths that PT wrote about, but the Vairagi
>> >Masters, and his religion, Eckankar, being the originator of all other
>> >religions.
>>
>> JAN:
>> You said: "wouldn't he just use RT's own words?"
>>
>> "Words" as we know them aren't what are used when it comes to the
>> communications taking place on levels beyond this one, but more of a direct
>> communication much like telepathy.
LURK:
>What a bunch of bull this is.
>
>Again a path of truth that has a teacher that teaches his student to
>rationalize. See Harold's comments below for proof:
JAN:
>> Here's a quote from ASK THE MASTER, Book, by Harold Klemp:
>>
>> [Q] "I assume the personal dialogues in the ECK works were recorded
>practically
>> word for word. How do the Masters have such precise recall?"
>>
>> [HK] "Paul Twitchell wasn't an ECK Master yet when he had the experiences
>> recorded in several of the ECK works."
>>
>> "In general, however, the ECK Masters often speak to one with a highly
>compact
>> form of communication, much like telepathy. It is like a computer program
>that
>> compresses a document file for storage."
>>
>> "The chela must decompress the file. He tries to keep the intent of the
>> discourse as he converts it into everyday language. There is no
>word-for-word
>> utility program that will exactly translate an inner conversation into
>outer
>> words."
>>
>> "It is even harder than trying to keep the exact meaning of a message in
>> English that is translated into French, then from French into Spanish, and
>> finally from Spanish back into English. The several stages of translation
>can
>> easily jumble the original message by the time it finishes the loop."
LURK:
>This sounds like a politician making shit up to sound like he answered
>the question.
>
>Harold is so childish and he is obviouly still not out of the woods.
>
>Lurk
JAN:
Lurk, I'm a believer that there is more to know about life than just what we
can prove here, or read in the daily news.
Lots of folks experience a communication via a very direct manner, a direct
telepathy, with other folks, and with inner Masters, on other planes. It's
common to be aware of that at one time or another.
And one can learn to experience the presence of and communications of a higher
consciousness while one is present in the physical consciousness as well, call
it whatever name one wishes, Mahanta, Godsoul, Jesus, etc.
But back to the original question of Pathapp, about Paul bringing back the
communications from *inner plane* experiences with his inner Master, to
physical words here is very difficult, as it is not in words as we are used to
them here.
Jan4litsnd
Sean, I particularly enjoyed reading what you had to say in this post, very
good points that make a lot of sense.
>Subject: Re: Question for Lurk on HCS
>From: "Sean" whyb...@all.com
>Date: 2/13/04 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <sMmdnV40UOJ...@inspired.net.au>
Sean
Hey Jan,
This is true ime, the examples are too numerous.
During an oob/nde the comminuication I had with a being was direct &
immeditate. I heard what they "said" instantly, not word for word, the
thought transference was immediate. But my responding to them was more like
word by word, because that was how I was used to communicating.
a second simple example was a dream recall experience upon waking --- for
some time this experience occurred in a state of being half awake sort of.
It was the "re-run" oif the dream experience where things were filtering
thru to my "concious mind"
I KNOW it was from the mental plane exp, I could see these symbols, huge
platelike blocks in various shapes that kept moving across the screen. I
KNEW in this half-awake state exactly what these symbols meant to me, it was
amazing, I smiled, nodded to myself, it was about numerology/maths/and past
lives, it was obvious and CLEAR. After about 20 minutes or so of thius stuff
sort of floating by I became fully awake went to write it all down because I
was very interested in what happened and couldn't really write anything
...... in an instant I could no longer grasp the meaning, it was gone
.......... but I still "got it" at another level.
It was a very real experience. Of course Lurkie babe will say it is all crap
and means nothing. He could be right, but I could care less what Lurk
thinks. He's just a machine imho and this communicating by pixels is rather
quite mundane. I think the aliens must laugh at our backwardness. ;-)
Love Sean