About Darwin Gross
Michael Turner
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
---------------------------------222941611320259
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi,
In the interest of furthering dialogue about the various approaches to the
Light and Sound Teachings - and their respective teachers - I thought it
would be interesting to post some biographical information on Sri Darwin
Gross, one of the USA's great Masters of this century. I do want to make
it clear that there is no official relationship between Sri Darwin and
myself. We went our separate ways four years ago and have no formal,
legal ties whatsoever. I'm just doing this in the interest of expanding
people's horizons.
Peace,
Michael Turner
Spiritual Freedom Satsang
---------------------------------222941611320259
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
(Note: the following is excerpted from "Power of Awareness",
© 1985 by Darwin Gross
ABOUT DARWIN GROSS
Darwin Gross is the enigma of the age. A man of
mystery whose healings are called miracles by millions
throughout the world. His methods remain a mystery but
there is no doubt from those who have received the power
of his love that they are lifted above their problems, ailments
and pain, including the healing of rifts among international
leaders, and relieving lack of financial inflow.
Born in Denhoff, North Dakota, Darwin shared the
ability to move beyond himself with his father and older
sister. By the age of three, Darwin was journeying into
the inner worlds accompanied by his spiritual guide, Peddar
Zaskq ~ Paul Twitchell). Through Zaskq he was introduced
to, and spent time with, many of the Masters, being taught
by them at the Wisdom Temples in preparation for the day
he was to become the spiritual leader and Master to thousands
around the world.
He met Paul Twitchell in the physical shortly after he
saw a picture of him on the back of one of Paul's books,
recognizing him as the spiritual guide who was like a father
to him.
Darwin attended many of Paul's lectures, sitting in on
consultations at Paul's request. When offered the responsibility
of the Mastership, Darwin accepted, becoming Paul's successor
in October 1971, following Paul's death.
Darwin continues the teachings of the Ancient
Masters as brought forth by Paul Twitchell. There is no
formal organization, just books and discourses written by
Darwin, consultations, appearances by him as he travels
throughout the world, giving lectures and playing his special
brand of uplifting, healing music on the Vibraphone.
A team of doctors in southern California play an album
produced by Darwin called the "Genes of Jazz" while they
perform open-heart surgery. The patients benefit from the
healing sounds and the doctors feel more relaxed as they
perform the delicate surgeries.
One woman received a healing on her back as she
sat in the audience during one of Darwin's concerts. She
felt the healing vibrations coursing through her body, while
another man experienced the dissolving of a lump in his
circulation as the music permeated the room. Darwin's
protection was felt in West Germany as a woman walked
across a lonely bridge late at night in a deserted area. She
called upon him as fear welled up inside her and suddenly
a male acquaintance appeared behind her and walked her
safely to her car.
A woman in California thanked Darwin for the
compassion and assistance she felt during a stroke and
heart attack, when he was physically on the other side
of the world. Many express gratitude that through Darwin's
love they were safely carried through surgery for broken bones
and bruised bodies. When one man underwent a double heart
bypass, he witnessed a beautiful bright white light, surrounded
by yellow, and knew Darwin was with him. He experienced
a peace he had never known before.
A humble, gentle, yet dynamic man, Darwin's clear
blue eyes seem to look right through one. Such eyes are the
mark of the Eagle-Eye Adepts. His uncanny ability to read
an individual's past and future, as well as their thoughts, any
time he chooses to, has been a part of his life from his very
young childhood.
He heals by allowing himself to be a vehicle for Divine
Spirit, and many who have merely dropped a letter to him into
the mailbox have experienced an immediate healing before the
letter could possibly have reached him.
So great is his love for the common man, Darwin may
well be the most powerful person in the world today. Well
known for his predictions of future events, his power lives
in his innate ability to cause or prevent events from happening.
His love for mankind is demonstrated by doing
something for any and all who ask him. Due to his all-
consuming spiritual and physical workload, he is unable to
see anyone except on his tours throughout the world. Yet,
as strange as it may seem, he is inseparably linked with those
followers who are initiated by him, in the invisible worlds at
all times. However, they are free to come and go as they
please; he will not hold them as all other teachers and paths
do. Testimonials bear this out for his followers may not
understand how he does it, but they believe in whatever
secret he has that he heals and gives succor to all who
request it, no matter where they reside in the world.
In Spirit, he is always with those who look to him.
Wherever Darwin goes, people are drawn to him, sensing
intuitively the divine love that issues from him. He is often
recognized and followed by a crowd of people wherever he
goes. He moves quietly among the poor, ill and aged, his
presence bringing them the succor that lifts and heals.
Neatly dressed, even in casual clothes, Darwin is
clean shaven and impressive in stature. He works around
the clock, both on the physical and invisible side, rarely
sleeping. The healings, calls for protection and assistance,
in addition to the demands made upon him, take a toll on
his physical body, culminating in five operations to correct
mechanical difficulties.
He does not look back to see who is following,
stating, "When Soul partakes of that nectar, that wine of
God, It cannot rest until It finds once again that succor, that
flow from Divine Spirit. This is why it is said you cannot turn
back once you have tasted that divine nectar. There is an
unbroken line of Ancient Masters who have been a part of
mankind since the beginning of time. At present there are
about twelve of these Masters still living on Earth, although
they are seldom seen by the masses. I myself have no power;
it is a spiritual power only that works through me as Its
vehicle. I have been given a mission and I must use these
abilities to see and know all, to help people. I can do nothing
less but serve God and mankind"
Darwin has recorded five albums and hundreds of
cassettes of lectures, music and song. The great jazz pianists
Hank Jones and John Lewis (of Modern Jazz Quartet fame)
have recorded with Darwin, along with MJQ's Ray Brown
on his incomparable bass. Victor Gaskin, Mickey Roker,
Al McKibbon, Major Holley and others have lent their talents
to Darwin's albums and music tapes. Through the universality
of music, hearts are touched and healings occur at a surprising
rate, not to mention the upliftment and happiness ballads and
light blues bring to a troubled world.
Darwin has appeared on many well-known radio and
television shows: Phil Donahue, Tom Snyder's Tomorrow
Show, Joe Franklin, Russ Coughlin, Barry Farber and Buelah
Hodges, among others. Whenever he goes to Europe, interviews
on radio, television and in the news media await him. He is
popular and beloved by thousands who know the extent of
his sacrifice for them.
His views on controversial subjects are aimed primarily
at the control factor that holds mankind in subjugation. It is
freedom from this rigidity that grabs Soul and spirit of Man,
lifting one above the lower worlds. Darwin feels that the
religions of the world have lost their hold and that much of
the rebellion seen in all parts of the globe is a subconscious
desire to be free of these holds, these controlling forces.
On October 22, 1981, Darwin Gross stepped aside
in an attempt to reach a greater audience with music. In
August 1983, within the structure of the organization that
he was associated with for over ten years, there was a takeover
by its Board of Trustees, whereby he was ousted, ridiculed in
the eyes and ears of the followers, and discredited.
On January 12, 1984, Fubbi Quantz and Rebazar Tarzs
stepped in and placed the Rod of Power back in Darwin's
responsibility. It is the presentation of the teachings of the
Ancient Masters that is closest to Darwin's heart, to make
them available to all who desire that "something more."
Darwin Gross is the man who has liberated thousands
from loneliness, anger, guilt and self-denial. He bears the tides
Sri, Master, Vi-Guru, Light-Giver, a Master of Divine Spirit.
He makes available an experience not to be missed, if you are
ready for the next step in your life's
adventure.
Darwin Gross has written a number of books, and
developed a personal home-study program which includes
a monthly discourse and a bimonthly newsletter.
The benefits of this study will not interfere with
one's present study or path; however, there is a place on
the spiritual ladder where one wishes to take a greater
step. One must leave the past and go for it, with the
choice of stepping to the side to rest or stop, always
the individual's option.
BOOKS BY DARWIN GROSS
Awakened Imagination
Be Good to Yourself
Consciousness Is Life
Giver of the Gift
Inner Trek
Power of Awareness
The Atom
Treasures
We Kids
You Can't Turn Back
Your Right To Choose
Information on books, music & Study program, available from:
Darwin Gross
P.O. Box 68290
Oak Grove, Oregon 97268
Or write to: Be Good To Your Self
Attention: Ron Kurz
101 South Rainbow
Suite 28-3
Las Vegas, Nevada 89128-5386
---------------------------------222941611320259--
cinder
Michael Turner <m.tu...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
-> Hi,
->
-> In the interest of furthering dialogue about the various approaches to the
-> Light and Sound Teachings - and their respective teachers - I thought it
-> would be interesting to post some biographical information on Sri Darwin
-> Gross, one of the USA's great Masters of this century.
Sri Chatty Cathy is back again... This time with something that
*really* shows the depth of his wisdom and wannabe status:
>>>>>> A puff piece on Darwin Gross. <<<<<<
-> I do want to make
-> it clear that there is no official relationship between Sri Darwin and
-> myself. We went our separate ways four years ago and have no formal,
-> legal ties whatsoever. I'm just doing this in the interest of expanding
-> people's horizons.
Expanding....? This is pure, badly written, PR junk. I'd almost
forgotten what a poor writer Darwin was/is.
As a primary mentor for Sri Wannabe Turner, Darwin's approach and
writing is very instructive in gaining greater insight into the activities
and behavior of Michael Turner.
-> (Note: the following is excerpted from "Power of Awareness",
-> © 1985 by Darwin Gross
->
->
-> ABOUT DARWIN GROSS
->
-> Darwin Gross is the enigma of the age. A man of
-> mystery whose healings are called miracles by millions
-> throughout the world. His methods remain a mystery but
-> there is no doubt from those who have received the power
-> of his love that they are lifted above their problems, ailments
-> and pain, including the healing of rifts among international
-> leaders, and relieving lack of financial inflow.
Anyone here remember the way "In My Soul I Am Free" starts out?
But does he do windows?
<snip>
-> A humble, gentle, yet dynamic man, Darwin's clear
-> blue eyes seem to look right through one. Such eyes are the
-> mark of the Eagle-Eye Adepts. His uncanny ability to read
-> an individual's past and future, as well as their thoughts, any
-> time he chooses to, has been a part of his life from his very
-> young childhood.
It certainly helped him in selecting Harold to succeed him and in
knowing the thoughts of the people who were hip to his hanky panky with
Eckankar funds, records, and women... Uncanny sounds about right.
-> He heals by allowing himself to be a vehicle for Divine
-> Spirit, and many who have merely dropped a letter to him into
-> the mailbox have experienced an immediate healing before the
-> letter could possibly have reached him.
Some people have actually been 'healed' without even knowing Darwin
exists... <gg>.
-> So great is his love for the common man, Darwin may
-> well be the most powerful person in the world today. Well
-> known for his predictions of future events, his power lives
-> in his innate ability to cause or prevent events from happening.
It certainly helped him in selecting Harold to succeed him and in
knowing the thoughts of the people who were hip to his hanky panky with
Eckankar funds, records, and women... How many times can we use the word
"power" to describe ourselves. This is from Darwin's *own** writings
about himself, right?
-> His love for mankind is demonstrated by doing
-> something for any and all who ask him. Due to his all-
-> consuming spiritual and physical workload, he is unable to
-> see anyone except on his tours throughout the world. Yet,
-> as strange as it may seem, he is inseparably linked with those
-> followers who are initiated by him, in the invisible worlds at
-> all times. However, they are free to come and go as they
-> please; he will not hold them as all other teachers and paths
-> do. Testimonials bear this out for his followers may not
-> understand how he does it, but they believe in whatever
-> secret he has that he heals and gives succor to all who
-> request it, no matter where they reside in the world.
Probably can leap tall buildings with a single bound also.
-> In Spirit, he is always with those who look to him.
-> Wherever Darwin goes, people are drawn to him, sensing
-> intuitively the divine love that issues from him. He is often
-> recognized and followed by a crowd of people wherever he
-> goes. He moves quietly among the poor, ill and aged, his
-> presence bringing them the succor that lifts and heals.
What a guy. I can't tell you how *informative* and down right
*helpful* this information that Turner posted is...
-> Neatly dressed, even in casual clothes, Darwin is
-> clean shaven and impressive in stature.
Whoaaaa.... 'impressive?'
-> He works around
-> the clock, both on the physical and invisible side, rarely
-> sleeping. The healings, calls for protection and assistance,
-> in addition to the demands made upon him, take a toll on
-> his physical body, culminating in five operations to correct
-> mechanical difficulties.
'Mechanical difficulties?' I guess a common cold would be a biological
difficulty.
-> He does not look back to see who is following,
-> stating, "When Soul partakes of that nectar, that wine of
-> God, It cannot rest until It finds once again that succor, that
-> flow from Divine Spirit. This is why it is said you cannot turn
-> back once you have tasted that divine nectar. There is an
-> unbroken line of Ancient Masters who have been a part of
-> mankind since the beginning of time. At present there are
-> about twelve of these Masters still living on Earth, although
-> they are seldom seen by the masses. I myself have no power;
-> it is a spiritual power only that works through me as Its
-> vehicle. I have been given a mission and I must use these
-> abilities to see and know all, to help people. I can do nothing
-> less but serve God and mankind"
<snip>
-> On October 22, 1981, Darwin Gross stepped aside
-> in an attempt to reach a greater audience with music. In
-> August 1983, within the structure of the organization that
-> he was associated with for over ten years, there was a takeover
-> by its Board of Trustees, whereby he was ousted, ridiculed in
-> the eyes and ears of the followers, and discredited.
This discrediting didn't happen to have *anything* to do with Darwin's
behavior did it...?
-> On January 12, 1984, Fubbi Quantz and Rebazar Tarzs
-> stepped in and placed the Rod of Power back in Darwin's
-> responsibility. It is the presentation of the teachings of the
-> Ancient Masters that is closest to Darwin's heart, to make
-> them available to all who desire that "something more."
So who has a birthday on January 12th? <gg>. So we have a classic
split where different people claim that semi-ascended masters have
different directives.
-> Darwin Gross is the man who has liberated thousands
-> from loneliness, anger, guilt and self-denial. He bears the tides
-> Sri, Master, Vi-Guru, Light-Giver, a Master of Divine Spirit.
-> He makes available an experience not to be missed, if you are
-> ready for the next step in your life's
-> adventure.
Bears the 'tides' is right, more like an undertoad! (apologies to John
Irving) Step right up and get your experience. Be liberated today!
Drink that Classic Nectar
-> Darwin Gross has written a number of books, and
-> developed a personal home-study program which includes
-> a monthly discourse and a bimonthly newsletter.
But no 'organization' of course... organization would be baaaaad as
anyone who reads much of Darwin's work would see. There is a clear lack
thereof.
-> The benefits of this study will not interfere with
-> one's present study or path; however, there is a place on
-> the spiritual ladder where one wishes to take a greater
-> step. One must leave the past and go for it, with the
-> choice of stepping to the side to rest or stop, always
-> the individual's option.
Clear as mud.
csk
--
Nathan Zafran
cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
> It certainly helped him in selecting Harold to succeed him and in
>knowing the thoughts of the people who were hip to his hanky panky with
>Eckankar funds, records, and women... How many times can we use the word
>"power" to describe ourselves. This is from Darwin's *own** writings
>about himself, right?
Maybe I don't understand English, but it seems to me that Kent is
saying that he thinks Darwin chose Harold, and that it was obviously a
poor choice.
First of all, for the record, Darwin Gross did not choose Harold. The
Living Eck Master of the time is not chosen by the previous Living Eck
Master. He is chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters and by the
supreme creator, God or Sugmad. The Living Eck Master is the one who
announces his successor, but he is not the one who makes the
selection.
Secondly, if I am reading Kent correctly, he is stating publicly that
Harold was a poor choice, since Ken't opinion of Darwin is pretty low.
I think for a long-time Eckist to make such a statement in public is
nothing short of sheer betrayal of the present Living Eck Master, and
I think he ought to have kept these feelings to himself. It's bad
enough that Kent has to publicly state over and over about his
negative views on Paul Twitchell.
Sri Harold Klemp is a shining example of the highest of spiritual
beings, and should be respected by all members of Eckankar.
In Eck,
Nathan
I
cinder
In article <664r6e$joj$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan
Zafran) wrote:
-> cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
Obviously without enough 'ironic' punctuation...after the puff piece
said Darwin was the most amazing seer since Dione Warwick started the
Psychic Hotline...
-> > It certainly helped him in selecting Harold to succeed him and in
-> >knowing the thoughts of the people who were hip to his hanky panky with
-> >Eckankar funds, records, and women... How many times can we use the word
-> >"power" to describe ourselves. This is from Darwin's *own** writings
-> >about himself, right?
Nate responds:
-> Maybe I don't understand English, but it seems to me that Kent is
-> saying that he thinks Darwin chose Harold, and that it was obviously a
-> poor choice.
Cinder/kent says:
Nathan... you are right you don't understand English. And, to be fair
(surprise) my sarcasm probably made the statement ambiguous to the
literal-minded (as well as those ready to see me as a heretic).
What I'm saying is that the super-conscious, all seeing, ancient master
power that imbues Mr. Gross didn't help him avoid his own fall down the
slippery slope of financial misconduct and other questionable acts. His
all knowingness didn't tell him that if he went along with the selection
of Harold then Harold wouldn't put up with Darwin's program. Do you get
the point now? My point is that I deeply question and *doubt* Darwin's
ability to know what other's are thinking otherwise he wouldn't have
gotten himself into such a mess.
Nate wrote:
-> First of all, for the record, Darwin Gross did not choose Harold. The
-> Living Eck Master of the time is not chosen by the previous Living Eck
-> Master. He is chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters and by the
-> supreme creator, God or Sugmad. The Living Eck Master is the one who
-> announces his successor, but he is not the one who makes the
-> selection.
Cinder/kent says:
Why is it that after I read a paragraph of Nathan's I hear a voice say:
"The great OZ has spoken..."
I'm glad that you added that God is the supreme creator, but why don't
you upper case _s_upreme _c_reator when you upper case Silent Masters?
Maybe Richard and Van... oops, I mean Kate's Ms. Picky can clarify this
for me.
You're right I didn't say the successive details properly... Next time
I will use the word 'accept' or 'announce' and will hopefully be within
the range of accceptable language. <slight smile>
Nate wrote:
-> Secondly, if I am reading Kent correctly, he is stating publicly that
-> Harold was a poor choice, since Ken't opinion of Darwin is pretty low.
Cinder boy writes:
Wrong... although I know you'd like to hang this one on me, ole boy.
This is like one of those things you and Steve used to misinterpret and
then spread around through the grapevine. Doesn't work, Nate. But I don
appreciate the public (this time) opportunity to correct your inncorrect
reading.
Nate wrote:
-> I think for a long-time Eckist to make such a statement in public is
-> nothing short of sheer betrayal of the present Living Eck Master, and
-> I think he ought to have kept these feelings to himself. It's bad
-> enough that Kent has to publicly state over and over about his
-> negative views on Paul Twitchell.
Nathan, you are so weird... You are down right scary. Would you
please put those matches back in your pocket and take the kindling back to
your car. Then untie me and walk away slowly...
Spark growls:
Once again my statement was not that Harold was a poor choice to be the
spiritual leader of Eckankar (and all his other official titles). My
statement was that if Darwin had really been omniscient, as Turner's post
claimed, he wouldn't have 'gone along with' Harold as his successor since
he would have already known that Harold wouldn't put up with his 'stuff.'
This is in no way a 'betrayal' of Harold Klemp.
I may not always like or understand the choices that Harold Klemp makes
as the spiritual leader of Eckankar, but I accept him as my spiritual
teacher and feel that he has done a lot to improve Eckankar's place in
this world.
Also, Nate, you are incredibly ignorant of my views on Paul Twitchell.
I met the man and became a member of Eckankar while he was the Master. He
was an enormous spiritual catalyst in my life. I loved the guy and wish he
had lived longer. For me to say that there is overwhelming evidence that
he used writings that were previously published without giving credit is
to state the obvious. To be able to see behavior and recognize it as
questionable or out of alignment with my value system doesn't take away
from the amazing creativity, love, and strength that Paul had as he
'birthed' a 'new' sound current incarnation. I don't feel negatively
about Paul. (BTW - Psychology Today (I hear boo's and hisses) had an
interesting article on lying recently...)
Nathan purrs:
-> Sri Harold Klemp is a shining example of the highest of spiritual
-> beings, and should be respected by all members of Eckankar.
kent hisses:
The respect Sri Harold has from his students (and others) he *earns*
each and every day through his thoughts, feelings, words, and behavior. It
isn't a matter of any of us being told we 'should' respect him. All of us,
chela, master, initiate, unintiated, etc. deserve the respect that we earn
through our thoughts, feelings, words, and behavior/actions. Or in other
words the membership of Eckankar (and all life) deserves respect.
How many pellets do you think this post will get you, Nate? Hope you
find your way out of your maze.
Got any more questions, Nate?
csk
--
Kate McLaughlin
<snip>
> ... if I am reading Kent correctly, he is stating publicly that
> Harold was a poor choice, since Ken't opinion of Darwin is pretty low.
> I think for a long-time Eckist to make such a statement in public is
> nothing short of sheer betrayal of the present Living Eck Master,
Jeez, Kent, 'f I wuz you, I'd be careful goin' through doors and such,
maybe throw your hat in first and see if a big ol' sword slashes through
it...
Kate
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Lion Kimbro
Nathan Zafran wrote in message <664r6e$joj$1...@brie.direct.ca>...
>cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
>
>Maybe I don't understand English, but it seems to me that Kent is
>saying that he thinks Darwin chose Harold, and that it was obviously a
>poor choice.
Mmmm... I think you understand English quite well and have
phrased the above quite eloquently. {:)}=
>First of all, for the record, Darwin Gross did not choose Harold. The
>Living Eck Master of the time is not chosen by the previous Living Eck
>Master. He is chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters and by the
>supreme creator, God or Sugmad. The Living Eck Master is the one who
>announces his successor, but he is not the one who makes the
>selection.
I don't think God wants to be called "Sugmad", except inside the
context of Eckankar (a very cool religion, I might add).
>Secondly, if I am reading Kent correctly, he is stating publicly that
>Harold was a poor choice, since Ken't opinion of Darwin is pretty low.
>I think for a long-time Eckist to make such a statement in public is
>nothing short of sheer betrayal of the present Living Eck Master, and
>I think he ought to have kept these feelings to himself. It's bad
>enough that Kent has to publicly state over and over about his
>negative views on Paul Twitchell.
Such tremendous command over the English Language! {:D}=
{:D}= {: }= {:)}=
(Kent, you know I Love you though.)
>Sri Harold Klemp is a shining example of the highest of spiritual
>beings, and should be respected by all members of Eckankar.
>
>In Eck,
>
>Nathan
Yes, I think Sri Harold Klemp IS a shining example of the
_spiritual_ beings, though I haven't quite decided yet just how
high that is. But he should DEFINITLY be respected by all
members of- Eckankar, AND furthurmore, non-members of
the religion named Eckankar. Yes. I think this is a very good
idea. {:)}=
With Love,
{: }=
{:)}=
Lion Kimbro
Alana Keres wrote in message <665bka$9a2$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>
>>First of all, for the record, Darwin Gross did not choose Harold. The
>>Living Eck Master of the time is not chosen by the previous Living Eck
>>Master. He is chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters and by the
>>supreme creator, God or Sugmad. The Living Eck Master is the one who
>>announces his successor, but he is not the one who makes the
>>selection.
>
>takes the cake, the icecream and the damn candles. This is one of those
>moments. Nathan, for pity's sake...
Well, I think it's quite clear that that moment in which you wrote that
message is over now.
Shams makes the selection.
> File under: Grip, gitta.
>
>
>Mysti
"I talked to GOD, and he told ME, to tell YOU, to HANG TIGHT,
and RELAX!"
-(The Grateful Dead)
(the "Barb Wire Whippin' Party")
Good to be talking with you, Mysti. {:)}=
I remember talking with you way back. {;)}=
Good to see you again.
With Love,
Lion {:)}=
Nathan Zafran
Michael Turner <m.tu...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On October 22, 1981, Darwin Gross stepped aside
>in an attempt to reach a greater audience with music. In
>August 1983, within the structure of the organization that
>he was associated with for over ten years, there was a takeover
>by its Board of Trustees, whereby he was ousted, ridiculed in
>the eyes and ears of the followers, and discredited.
> On January 12, 1984, Fubbi Quantz and Rebazar Tarzs
>stepped in and placed the Rod of Power back in Darwin's
>responsibility. It is the presentation of the teachings of the
>Ancient Masters that is closest to Darwin's heart, to make
>them available to all who desire that "something more."
If people knew the documented evidence of Darwin's gross unethical,
immoral, and very illegal behaviour in his activities just before the
time he was ousted, they would understand why he was ejected from the
order of the Vaigagi. He almost bankrupted Eckankar, and nearly got
away with stealing most of its cash reserves. The only reason he
wasn't prosecuted and put in jail was because the publicity would not
have been in the best interests of Eckankar.
As far as reinstating Darwin to the rod of power, that's about as true
as the earth being flat. Sri Harld Klemp took over the Rod of Power
from Darwin Gross in 1981, and holds this mantle today. Anyone in
touch with the Mahanta inwardly can feel this power flow. Making silly
statements like this is nothing more than worship of a man who will do
anything to gain people's trust and power over them. In spite of that,
I won't say that Darwin is an evil monster. He attained a very high
initiation and is certainly capable of being an inner and outer master
to those who attach themselves to him, and things like healings and
breakthroughs can happen even with a fallen master, as long as his
energy is higher than his chelas and they resonate together. Also,
Darwin is perfectly capable of opening up his aura to command a strong
presence. This itself is not indicative of a high spiritual being.
Indeed, people like Harold deliberately lower their energy fields so
as not to overwhelm others, often being invisible in a crowd.
Those who wish to follow Darwin will benefit according to their
consciousness. The same can be said for Michael Turner. However, this
newsgroup is not for either of them. It is for studying Eckankar.
Please keep outside teachings to other newsgroups that reflect those
teachings. That is called respect, and is indicative of a certain
level of consciousness.
In the Light and Sound of Eck,
Nathan
Alana Keres
Nathan, Nathan, Nathan...
(Nathan Zafran) writes:
>cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
>
>
>
>> It certainly helped him in selecting Harold to succeed him and in
>>knowing the thoughts of the people who were hip to his hanky panky with
>>Eckankar funds, records, and women... How many times can we use the word
>>"power" to describe ourselves. This is from Darwin's *own** writings
>>about himself, right?
>
>Maybe I don't understand English,
I'll vote for one... it's the most charitable thing you could say
about yourself.
> but it seems to me that Kent is
>saying that he thinks Darwin chose Harold, and that it was obviously a
>poor choice.
WHERE did you get that cinderspark's previous sentence somehow implies
that Sri Harold is a bad choice? "Obviously"? HUH? Nathan, this is the
most egregious editorializing I've seen you come up with.
>
>First of all, for the record, Darwin Gross did not choose Harold. The
>Living Eck Master of the time is not chosen by the previous Living Eck
>Master. He is chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters and by the
>supreme creator, God or Sugmad. The Living Eck Master is the one who
>announces his successor, but he is not the one who makes the
>selection.
Oh Christamighty. Every now and then the mythos of Eckankar
takes the cake, the icecream and the damn candles. This is one of those
moments. Nathan, for pity's sake...
>
>Secondly, if I am reading Kent correctly, he is stating publicly that
>Harold was a poor choice, since Ken't opinion of Darwin is pretty low.
>I think for a long-time Eckist to make such a statement in public is
>nothing short of sheer betrayal of the present Living Eck Master, and
>I think he ought to have kept these feelings to himself. It's bad
>enough that Kent has to publicly state over and over about his
>negative views on Paul Twitchell.
then I got to the above statement... and I guffahed out loud.
Nathan you are priceless. Clueless, but priceless. If you had even the
first idea how far off base you are, you'd faint with embarrassment. Oh
but wait, this is the Swordsman. Fainting means you might wound yourself
on that glass battleax that you use as your magnifying lens. Do you
shave with that thing?
'Might want to have a look at some back issues of Acephale, United
Nathans. It's what doesn't show in the mirror.
>
>Sri Harold Klemp is a shining example of the highest of spiritual
>beings, and should be respected by all members of Eckankar.
>
Since Harold wasn't the point of either Turner or Livingston's
disquisitions, your remark is what? an exhortation? a threat? a joke?
Galuuk
David Lane wrote....
<<<< Which is another way of saying if you are within the "confines" of
the Eckankar organization what the guru says is more or less believed
and followed, but if one is not in the organization (as Darji) then
what he says is questioned and criticized.... >>>>>
This, David Lane, is total BULLSHIT.
Another one of your baseless, ill conceived "theories" that you will, or
already have, pass on as "fact".
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the conception of another of David Lanes blatant
LIES.
The above statement is David Lane's *opinion* --- it has no basis whatsoever
in fact.
The TRUTH is simply this.
Eckankar is an esoteric teaching(one that is learned by inner teachings and
contact with inner masters and wisdom temples.)
When one master passes the Rod of Power to another it is something that can be
witnessed firsthand on the inner.
It becomes incredibly obvious to those have have developed their inner "skills"
who is the Master.
For folks who rely on written works and personalities there can be confusion.
But even at that, time will bear out who the master is.
David Lane, you miss the entire core of the Eck teachings....you continuallly
attempt to approach it as if it were some gathering of philosphical writings.
It is not about words.....or belief.....or following what someone else has said
or claimed.
When are you going to get that through your thick skull.
It's beyond you.....way beyond you. And it always will be as long as you
*pretend* that the inner part of Eckankar doesn't really exist.
Joey
rfpi...@naxs.com
> First of all, for the record, Darwin Gross did not choose Harold. The
> Living Eck Master of the time is not chosen by the previous Living Eck
> Master. He is chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters and by the
> supreme creator, God or Sugmad. The Living Eck Master is the one who
> announces his successor, but he is not the one who makes the
> selection.
> In Eck,
>
> Nathan
Dear Nathan,
For the record:
"The SUGMAD appoints the Mahanta, and his predecessor announces him to the
world."
---Sri Harold Klemp, Ask The Master," p. 192.
"Who are the Council of Nine? How can we work with them?
The Council of Nine are the ECK Masters responsible for the
distribution of the ECK message in the lower worlds.
If spreading the teachings of ECK is your goal, then put attention
upon these timeless ones during contemplation. Lay whatever problem you
have on the line, and invite their help. Ask them to accompany you to
work or ECK meetings." [or a.r.e.]
---Sri Harold Klemp, Ask The Master," p. 191-192.
Please, Nathan, if you follow the teaching of the current Living ECK
Master, "the Mahanta is NOT chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters."
Unless you are privy to the selection process of the Mahanta, go on record
with authoritative documentation.
rfp_____________________________________________________________________________
Nathan Zafran
rfpi...@naxs.com wrote:
>I have been unable to locate a reference to the "Council of 9 Silent
>Masters" serving as a nomination committee. Could you point me to a
>reference in the published works?
I read in some of the early works about either Darwin or Harold being
visited by these 9 Masters and being assessed by them. I believe that
this council acts as representatives for Sugmad in appointing each
Living Eck Master. I don't think it's formally taught in Eckankar, but
appears here and there in the autobiographical texts.
It is certainly understood that the previous LEM doesn't make the
choice, not any particular Vairagi Master. It has to come from the
highest source, Sugmad. And Sugmad always or usually acts through an
agent.
In Eck,
Nathan
John T. Engel
JTE replies:
This was another post I couldn't help myself about. For those of us who
were there when Paul died and it there was a major hubbub about who
would be the next Living ECK Master (Dr. Bluth, Darwin, and four or
five others); the two people who had the same dream on the same night
who both picked Darwin were not told by the '9 Silent Ones'; they were
told by Paul and thats how Darwin was picked.
Sorry if you weren't there to experience that one first hand!
John.
In <664r6e$joj$1...@brie.direct.ca> eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran)
writes:
>
>cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
>
>
>
>> It certainly helped him in selecting Harold to succeed him and
in
>>knowing the thoughts of the people who were hip to his hanky panky
with
>>Eckankar funds, records, and women... How many times can we use the
word
>>"power" to describe ourselves. This is from Darwin's *own** writings
>>about himself, right?
>
>Maybe I don't understand English, but it seems to me that Kent is
>saying that he thinks Darwin chose Harold, and that it was obviously a
>poor choice.
>
>First of all, for the record, Darwin Gross did not choose Harold. The
>Living Eck Master of the time is not chosen by the previous Living Eck
>Master. He is chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters and by the
>supreme creator, God or Sugmad. The Living Eck Master is the one who
>announces his successor, but he is not the one who makes the
>selection.
>
>Secondly, if I am reading Kent correctly, he is stating publicly that
>Harold was a poor choice, since Ken't opinion of Darwin is pretty low.
>I think for a long-time Eckist to make such a statement in public is
>nothing short of sheer betrayal of the present Living Eck Master, and
>I think he ought to have kept these feelings to himself. It's bad
>enough that Kent has to publicly state over and over about his
>negative views on Paul Twitchell.
>
>Sri Harold Klemp is a shining example of the highest of spiritual
>beings, and should be respected by all members of Eckankar.
>
>In Eck,
>
>Nathan
>
>I
>
cinder
John T. Engel wrote:
-> As I have stated before, I was there during the entire legal dealings
-> between Darwin and Harold. There is more to it than what most people
-> know and they both were extremely identified with 'winning' and
-> obitherating the other.
"As I have stated before..." John, why don't you try saying
something? You keep establishing that you were there. Ok, so say
something and stop hinting around. Or don't.
-> Maybe you should ask Harold the circumstances behind his divorce from
-> Margie. I think if you knew the truth you would have second thoughts
-> about his humanity!
More innuendo without anything concrete. If you were there you would
have primary source experience. Instead you make a statement loaded with
undertones. What is the problem, John? Are you actually trying to
maintain confidentiality while throwing your little firecrackers over the
wall?
What's your point?
-> Little ole Eckist shocker;
-> John
Is that what you want to be, John? An "Eckist shocker?" If you do you
better come up with something better than this drivel. Come on, surprise
us with somthing, if you've got anything.
csk
--
John T. Engel
JTE replies:
As I have stated before, I was there during the entire legal dealings
between Darwin and Harold. There is more to it than what most people
know and they both were extremely identified with 'winning' and
obitherating the other.
Maybe you should ask Harold the circumstances behind his divorce from
Margie. I think if you knew the truth you would have second thoughts
about his humanity!
Little ole Eckist shocker;
John
In <664rte$k79$1...@brie.direct.ca> eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran)
writes:
>
>Michael Turner <m.tu...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> On October 22, 1981, Darwin Gross stepped aside
>>in an attempt to reach a greater audience with music. In
>>August 1983, within the structure of the organization that
>>he was associated with for over ten years, there was a takeover
>>by its Board of Trustees, whereby he was ousted, ridiculed in
>>the eyes and ears of the followers, and discredited.
>> On January 12, 1984, Fubbi Quantz and Rebazar Tarzs
>>stepped in and placed the Rod of Power back in Darwin's
>>responsibility. It is the presentation of the teachings of the
>>Ancient Masters that is closest to Darwin's heart, to make
>>them available to all who desire that "something more."
>
Rich
Galuuk wrote:
> David Lane wrote....
>
> <<<< Which is another way of saying if you are within the "confines" of
> the Eckankar organization what the guru says is more or less believed
> and followed, but if one is not in the organization (as Darji) then
> what he says is questioned and criticized.... >>>>>
>
> This, David Lane, is total BULLSHIT.
C a l m d o w n Joey. :-)
It is true that what Harold says, as the accepted leader of Eckankar, is
generally believed and followed. Why would an Eckists follow another
leader if they have chosen Harold and Eckankar as their path? Why
wouldn't they question _anyone_ who says something differently.(David
are you suggesting that we should _not_ *doubt*?!:-)
<snip>
> Eckankar is an esoteric teaching(one that is learned by inner teachings and
> contact with inner masters and wisdom temples.)
>
> When one master passes the Rod of Power to another it is something that can be
> witnessed firsthand on the inner.
>
> It becomes incredibly obvious to those have have developed their inner "skills"
> who is the Master.
IMO it's not quite that straightforward Joey. Some who have developed
their inner skills and were initiated by Darwin continue to see him as
their inner master. Many see Harold. I see no reason to criticize
either choice. How can one go about judging anothers inner experience?
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nathan Zafran
cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
> Nathan... you are right you don't understand English. And, to be fair
>(surprise) my sarcasm probably made the statement ambiguous to the
>literal-minded (as well as those ready to see me as a heretic).
My wife, who is an English teacher, also read the statement, and came
to the same conclusion that I did. So I assume that plenty of other
people also did. Kent often has a way of saying things in such a way
that only the intellectually elite can understand.
I make no apologies about what I said in my previous post. I am glad,
however, that Kent has explained his position better so that the
newcomers and lurkers on this newsgroup who are still searching for
answers and might be investigating Eckankar will understand more
clearly what Kent meant. That is the only reason I am here- to make
sure that these people get a message that they can benefit from.
I still do not agree with the way Kent talks about Eckankar and Paul
Twitchell. But that is his perogative. I simply don't like his
approach, because most newcomers are searching for the light and sound
of God, not ancient history lessons and critiques of Eckankar that are
basically useless to those hungry for the nectar of God which Eckankar
offers.
Nathan Zafran
j...@ix.netcom.com(John T. Engel) wrote:
>JTE replies:
>This was another post I couldn't help myself about. For those of us who
>were there when Paul died and it there was a major hubbub about who
>would be the next Living ECK Master (Dr. Bluth, Darwin, and four or
>five others); the two people who had the same dream on the same night
>who both picked Darwin were not told by the '9 Silent Ones'; they were
>told by Paul and thats how Darwin was picked.
>Sorry if you weren't there to experience that one first hand!
Sure, anyone can look only at the surface. If you understand he
vastness of the Sugmad, the Vairagi order, and the council of 9, and
all the behind the scenes stuff that takes place in the inner worlds,
you wouldn't be poo-pooing my statements so easily. Ask above so
below. These kinds of decisions, including the future of Eckankar,
the planet, the universes, aren't decided by individuals living in the
physical body.
Sounds to me like JTE has been taking lessons from David Lane in how
to look only at the surface of things and base reality on that,
without any regard for the any other deeper dimensional viewpoints.
Nathan Zafran
rfpi...@naxs.com wrote:
>Please, Nathan, if you follow the teaching of the current Living ECK
>Master, "the Mahanta is NOT chosen by the Council of 9 Silent Masters."
>Unless you are privy to the selection process of the Mahanta, go on record
>with authoritative documentation.
Did you not read my last post. I will repeat it here....
Nathan Zafran
Following is a quote from Soul Travellers of the Far Country page 131,
by Harold Klemp....
My training for Mastership was from the Sugmad, working through ITS
chief agents of the time: firstt Paul Twitchell, then Darwin Gross.
But during their terms as spiritual leaders of ECK, the SUGMAD also
gave instructions through other ECK Masters, like Rebazar Tarzs.
Around Christmans in 1979, he cames in the Soul body and dictated this
message: "Do not make the error of trying to rule the universes, the
worlds of God, by yourself---by your own dictates. It is the will of
the SUGMAD, which manifests through all the spiritual hierarchy, that
will assist you."
(end of quote)
My information about the council of nine probably came from reading
Darwin book, From Heaven to the Prairie, in which he reported meeting
this group somewhere on a hill, prior to his becoming the next Living
Eck Master. Since I no longer have the book, I can't recall the exact
details.
Admittedly, there isn't much reference to the council of 9 silent Eck
Masters in terms of assisting the Sugmad in training the next one,
other than the aforementioned statement. Therefore, I'll play it safe
by adjusting what I said in an earlier post, that all Eck Masters,
which may or may not include the council of 9, assist Sugmad in the
training of the Living Eck masters and, in general, acting as agents
for Sugmad's will in that whole area.
In Eck,
Nathan
rfpi...@naxs.com
In article <667abh$4tj$1...@brie.direct.ca>,
Dear Nathan,
Thanks for the reference. Rebazar's words, "Do not make the error of
trying to rule the universes, the worlds of God, by yourself---by your
own dictates. It is the will of the SUGMAD, which manifests through all
the spiritual hierarchy, that will assist you," struck me. These are
words to contemplate.
thanks,
rfp
rfpi...@naxs.com
In article <6673uv$17g$1...@brie.direct.ca>,
>
> Nathan
Dear Nathan,
Sorry for posting two responses on the same subject simultaneously. I
suppose that I should have chained them or made an internal reference in
the first to the preceding post.
"I believe that this council acts as representatives for Sugmad in
appointing each Living Eck Master."
I'm simply curious as to how you gained this belief. It sounds more like
the Secret Chiefs in Theosophy than Council of Nine in Eckankar. I'm
fairly well read in the Eckankar materials and I've not been able to come
up with anything to support this view point. Of course, you may have had
some personal experience with the Silent Ones?
"There was a gap into infinity, and a quick, cold wind shot through the
passageway. All I experienced was the tail end of it, but it was
raw---raw freedom and the power of freedom. It was strong, it was cold.
But it burned me at the same time, like I was breathing dry ice. Then the
gap closed just as quickly, and I was aware that i was facedown in my
pillow again. I quickly sat up in bed, and my first thoughts were, What
in the world was _that_? The whole experience took all of two seconds.
Needless to say, I didn't feel sleepy anymore, so I got up and went into
my study to think about this. I was stumped. usually, when I has some
kind of earth-shattering experience, I was in the middle of it. But this
time I was just an observer, and it burned me---ice-cold.
"Silent One," Wah-Z said quietly.
A little startled, I turned to the couch, where he usually made his
appearances in my study, and looked at him.
"Huh?" I said dumbly.
He repeated himself for my benefit. "It was a Silent One passing."
.. . . so I got up out of my chair and ran my finger across my collection
of ECK books, resting my index finger on a copy of ECKANKAR---The Key to
Secret Worlds by Paul Twitchell. Looking in the index, I found where
there might be some information on these beings. I flipped through the
pages until I came to what I was looking for and read the following
passages:
'These strange beings are responsible for the running of the planes of
God on a mechanical basis. they never fail in their work because of their
ability to absorb the cosmic power at such a fantastic rate. It is this
that keeps them at their varied duties. They come and go like the wind to
carry out the will and the wishes of the Lord of the universes. Although
they rarely manifest themselves, they still have the ability to do so
anywhere in the universes to carry out an order.' Further on I read:
'They have immense poers and great wisdom to carry out the assignments of
the SUGMAD and, of course, unlimited freedom.
'Outside the SUGMAD, these Silent Ones are the most powerful beings in
all the worlds, and next to them are the spiritual travelers.''
Phil Morimitsu, "In The Company Of ECK Masters," p. 113-114.
Also, check The Master Discourses (1970) #9 p. 6.
cinder
In article <19971204121...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, gal...@aol.com
(Galuuk) wrote:
<snip>
-> David Lane, you miss the entire core of the Eck teachings....you continuallly
-> attempt to approach it as if it were some gathering of philosphical
writings.
-> It is not about words.....or belief.....or following what someone else
has said
-> or claimed.
->
-> When are you going to get that through your thick skull.
->
-> It's beyond you.....way beyond you. And it always will be as long as you
-> *pretend* that the inner part of Eckankar doesn't really exist.
So... is there a connection between the 'inner' part of Eckankar and
the 'outer' part of Eckankar? Is there any requirement for accountability
on the part of the 'outer' part? Does it matter what we do with the
'outer' part of our lives as long as we have the 'inner' part all figured
out?
Is the inner part inside or outside of the thick skull?
csk
--
cinder
In article <8812035...@dejanews.com>, zep...@connectexpress.com (Kate
McLaughlin) wrote:
-
-> Jeez, Kent, 'f I wuz you, I'd be careful goin' through doors and such,
-> maybe throw your hat in first and see if a big ol' sword slashes through
-> it...
Take another look it's a rubber sword... <g>
csk
"Got to be good looking 'cause he's so hard to see...." L&M
--
Nathan Zafran
rfpi...@naxs.com wrote:
Nathan said)...
>"I believe that this council acts as representatives for Sugmad in
>appointing each Living Eck Master."
>I'm simply curious as to how you gained this belief. It sounds more like
>the Secret Chiefs in Theosophy than Council of Nine in Eckankar. I'm
>fairly well read in the Eckankar materials and I've not been able to come
>up with anything to support this view point. Of course, you may have had
>some personal experience with the Silent Ones?
I've already retracted that statement in my last post. To be honest,
it felt right to say it. Incidentally, it isn't explained clearly in
the writings, but the Silent Ones to me are not the same as the
Council of 9. I'm not sure if there is a particular number to the
Silent Ones, I don't think so. The Council of 9 are not necessarily
silent, as they do converse with the Eck Masters and the Mahanta. But,
as I said, little is mentioned of them. I do feel very strongly that
they play a part in the training of the Living Eck Masters, but I
believe that they are basically intermediaries between Sugmad and the
Vairagi, so that, as Harold said, only the presence of the Vairagi are
known in the training arena. I believe that they are involved in the
mainstream Light and Sound teachings in all the worlds of creation,
but mainly as consultants, like the Spiritual Council of 8th initiates
here on earth.
Whereas the Silent Ones are not involved in the activities of the
Vairagi, except when they are called on to assist, like Phil
experienced. Whether that experience was for Phil or he merely
detected one passing through his inner/outer space, I'm not sure.
In Eck,
Nathan
Nathan Zafran
rfpi...@naxs.com wrote:
>Thanks for the reference. Rebazar's words, "Do not make the error of
>trying to rule the universes, the worlds of God, by yourself---by your
>own dictates. It is the will of the SUGMAD, which manifests through all
>the spiritual hierarchy, that will assist you," struck me. These are
>words to contemplate.
And, as I've said many times in the past on a.r.e., Paul Twitchell,
because of his position as LEM, made a lot of decisions that were not
necessarily his own, including the rapid compilation of other works to
create a matrix for the Eck energy to manifest. IMO, it was the will
of the Sugmad that dictated the vast majority of Paul's actions, and
to judge them merely by our own world standards is a gross mistake.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Darwin, except as the Inner
Master, the Mahanta, he was flawless. But in the physical body, at
times, he made decisions that were more for his own glorification than
the will of the Sugmad. Still, the vast majority of his decisions were
still for the good of the whole, and Eckankar grew immensely during
his tenure.
In Eck,
Nathan
John T. Engel
JTE responds:
Something tell me you have a serious case of the "good student act"
syndrome. Just ask any students who joined before 1968.
JTE
In <cinder-0412...@kent.gatezone.com> cin...@gatezone.com
John T. Engel
JTE replys:
My sincere hope is that you will. And get it first hand instead of
relying on many of the personal lies told from those who have not
experienced the actual incidents first hand!
JTE
In <8813013...@dejanews.com> rfpi...@naxs.com writes:
>
>In article <665l2i$9...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
> j...@ix.netcom.com(John T. Engel) wrote:
>>
>> JTE replies:
>>
>> As I have stated before, I was there during the entire legal
dealings
>> between Darwin and Harold. There is more to it than what most
people
>> know and they both were extremely identified with 'winning' and
>> obitherating the other.
>>
>> Maybe you should ask Harold the circumstances behind his divorce
from
>> Margie. I think if you knew the truth you would have second
thoughts
>> about his humanity!
>>
>> Little ole Eckist shocker;
>> John
>
>Dear John,
>
>Why did Harold divorce Margi MA...@MIRZA.COLORADO.EDU and marry Joan
>Cross? Maybe we should ask Margi?
cinder
In article <668duv$9...@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com>, j...@ix.netcom.com(John T.
Engel) wrote:
-> JTE responds:
->
-> Something tell me you have a serious case of the "good student act"
-> syndrome. Just ask any students who joined before 1968.
I can only assume that JTE is referring to Joey... but if he's telling
me I've got a serious case of 'good student act' then I take it as a
compliment.
TIC,
csk
--
arel...@mindspring.com
dl...@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
>
> I had a nice conversation with Darwin's attorney and I asked him why
> did Darwin appoint Harji in the first place.....
>
> His attorney answered that Darwin wanted to resign due to increasing
> health problems (including a bad back) and felt that Harold Klemp was
> somebody he could control......
>
Ahhhhh...old Darwin underestimated the power and resolve of
passive/aggressive types. <gg>
Lurk
cinder
In article <8813805...@dejanews.com>, rfpi...@naxs.com wrote:
-> I don't know Marge well enough to broach the subject with her. However, i
-> do have a close friend that she confided in on the subject. Naturally, he
-> will not repeat any of the details. All he would say is that Harold
-> caused her a great deal of pain during the divorce, and there was pain on
-> both sides. Many divorces are painful. That's why they call it "divorce."
Isn't this their business? This is already third-hand pass-along
information. Don't look know, Richard, but this was a classic set up.
csk
--
cinder
In article <8813800...@dejanews.com>, rfpi...@naxs.com wrote:
<snip>
-> .. . . We, the spiritual travelers, must recognize the hierarchy and know
-> that it exists. We are, however, not responsible to anyone or anything
-> other than the SUGMAD, not even to what we call the Silent Ones, those
-> beings working directly under the orders of the SUGMAD on the higher
-> planes. These spiritual workers almost never come below the Fifth, or
-> what we call the Soul Plane. they are higher than any other group,
-> including the spiritual travelers, and seldom come in contact with the
-> beings, Souls, and inhabitants on any planes, including the physical
-> universe. . . . As much as the spiritual travelers know about the SUGMAD,
-> little is known about these Silent Ones who move so swiftly. The ECK
-> Masters have their own agents, as well as the lords and governors of each
-> plane, and each in turn reports to his own superior and carries out his
-> orders; the travelers, of course, report only to God. But the Silent Ones
-> are not responsible to anyone but the Supreme, as in the case of
-> spiritual travelers. The Silent Ones must work for God---for this is a
-> compulsion on their parts---or be cast out of heaven into the bowels of
-> earth as was Lucifer in the beginning of time.
Inherent paradoxes in these words. Personally I believe that any
'mortal' can claim that ultimately they are responsible to God and only
God. However, it won't stop the state from arresting them or taking away
their Earthly liberties. This is as true of Eck Masters as it is of
anyone else. The Eck Masters I've met seem to exhibit a great deal of
respect and 'responsibility' towards their fellow creatures at every level
that I've witnessed.
As for the Silent Ones... I see them like other Beings in this universe
that don't fit into human language and so the language breaks down trying
to emcompass them. The same could be said of a lot of naturally occuring
phenomenon like lightening, the sun itself, the grand canyon, etc. Being
able to describe or tell jokes about the sun won't get you into heaven or
keep you out.
The 'Lucifer' myth is a really fascinating and revealing story when
liberated from the Christian chains.
-> .. . . The spiritual travelers know when the Silent Ones are around, and
-> they cooperate with them at the level upon which they are working at the
-> time. The spiritual travelers are subject to the Silent Ones. Though they
-> do not have to obey, they will, because it is always realized that the
-> Silent Ones are directly from the SUGMAD. Out of love and respect for IT,
-> they will give their best cooperatio, even though at times they would
-> rather not. There are three levels of independent workers in eternity
-> which cooperate in the running of the worlds. First, the SUGMAD, the
-> Supreme being; second, the Silent Ones, who are ITS messengers; and
-> third, the ECK Masters, who are agents of both the SUGMAD and the Silent
-> Ones. The three work together. The functions of the Silent Ones are to
-> serve the purpose of the SUGMAD in running the universes, carrying out
-> ITS laws and regulations. The Spiritual Travelers have the duty to see
-> that Soul is returned to the kingdon of the heavenly realm.
-> ---Paul Twitchell, "Key To Secret Worlds," 1987, 99. 104-108
Probabably as heretical as not accepting Jesus as the true and only
incarnation of God, but it is interesting to contemplate on these 'three
levels of independent workers' as parts of each Soul's consciousness.
Operating within all of us all the time. As above so below. Both at once,
or reflections. There is a lot of the spiritual mythos that is both
helpful and obscuring for the benefit of good 'cross-word puzzler
workers.' Think outside the box.
<more snips>
-> "How is the hierarchy of Vairaigi Adepts run?
->
-> The spiritual hierarchy is the foremost example of people who must work
-> together in goodwill and harmony. They make good use of the efforts of
-> many who come together to accomplish a common goal." ---Sri Harold Klemp,
-> "Ask The Master," p.191.
->
-> Surely, as Brothers of The Leaf, Kent, you, and I share a common goal.
-> Perhaps, it is ludricrous to mention harmony and goodwill on a.r.e., but
-> if we can't develop harmony and goodwill in cyberspace, then where?
I whole-heartedly agree with the spirit of what you are saying,
Richard. I also know that harmony is not 'groupthink.' Harmony in music
is the "simultaneous combination of tones, especially when blended into
chords pleasing to the ear." Not the same tones. 'Pleasing to the ear'
is a tough one at times. I'm still working on that one <g>. So many ears,
so little time...
In any honest relationship/friendship sometimes things need to be said
that are not terribly pleasant to hear. They may not even make sense to
the listener or the speaker. I'm not sure it is a linear process, but when
things are said and life flows on things happen. We're all capable of
breaking up inner log jams or crystallized structures by simply being
ourselves (*not* so much by setting out to do it)
There have been cycles in a.r.e. in the past where very strong willed
Eckists seemed to think that members of Eckankar should all agree in
public. Particularly long-time members. I learn a lot from differences
of opinions, questions, even 'fundamentalist' approaches to things. I
find areas of consciousness triggered and new experiences and information
comes flooding in. That is why I support the process of doubt in my own
life. It keeps my heart and mind open to renewal and the _awakening_
process.
Nathan has his process. I often don't agree with it and am compelled to
put forth my perspective or experience. I don't think Nathan should stop,
although I may rib him about getting out of the kitchen if he can't take
the heat. The same is true of just about everyone. I take issue when
people seem to be building a case for invalidating other perspectives and
need to be careful that in my own over-dramatic zealousness I don't do the
same thing. There are so many degrees of sensitivity, not just in
cyberspace.
So forward into continued harmony through diversity, challenge, doubt,
fun, passion, and spiritual love.
--
Nathan Zafran
cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
> Nathan has his process. I often don't agree with it and am compelled to
>put forth my perspective or experience. I don't think Nathan should stop,
>although I may rib him about getting out of the kitchen if he can't take
>the heat. The same is true of just about everyone. I take issue when
>people seem to be building a case for invalidating other perspectives and
>need to be careful that in my own over-dramatic zealousness I don't do the
>same thing. There are so many degrees of sensitivity, not just in
>cyberspace.
Taking issue is one thing. Continual harassment, outright insults,
invalidation, intimidation, and massive condescension is another.
Making a concerted effort to defame me publicly in the light of my
attempt to provide information to newcomers to this newsgroup in a
manner which is in harmony with the accepted Vahana program of today
as taught by the Eckankar Spiritual Centre is not, IMO, simply a
disagreement with perspective. It is an outright show of negative
force, and, although I do not take it personally, I will not allow
Kent to get away with pushing everything he has done to me and, in the
past, Steve Runfeldt, under the carpet, over the last few years, in
the name of truth and spirituality. He has a few lessons to learn in
the name of decency and respect for fellow Eckists and for keeping out
of people's space, not to mention having a little more respect for the
way Eckankar is presented by present and past Living Eck Masters. I
can't change him, and I know he refuses to see my point of view.
Still, I am making this statement not for him, but for the newcomers
who have been following Kent's negative threads towards me in the last
few weeks. These are the people I am addressing, not Kent. Make up
your own minds. Read my messages to newcomers that I post every
Saturday morning. Decide for yourself if my messages are valuable to
you or not.
cinder
In article <66b1fp$da3$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan
Zafran) wrote:
-> cin...@gatezone.com (cinder) wrote:
->
->
->
-> > Nathan has his process. I often don't agree with it and am compelled to
-> >put forth my perspective or experience. I don't think Nathan should stop,
-> >although I may rib him about getting out of the kitchen if he can't take
-> >the heat. The same is true of just about everyone. I take issue when
-> >people seem to be building a case for invalidating other perspectives and
-> >need to be careful that in my own over-dramatic zealousness I don't do the
-> >same thing. There are so many degrees of sensitivity, not just in
-> >cyberspace.
->
-> Taking issue is one thing. Continual harassment, outright insults,
-> invalidation, intimidation, and massive condescension is another.
Check out the mirror, fella.
-> Making a concerted effort to defame me publicly in the light of my
-> attempt to provide information to newcomers to this newsgroup in a
-> manner which is in harmony with the accepted Vahana program of today
-> as taught by the Eckankar Spiritual Centre is not, IMO, simply a
-> disagreement with perspective.
Defame...? In light of... Nathan's harsh, nasty, and authoritative
posts, and his name calling are 'pleasing to the ears?'
-> It is an outright show of negative
-> force, and, although I do not take it personally, I will not allow
-> Kent to get away with pushing everything he has done to me and, in the
-> past, Steve Runfeldt, under the carpet, over the last few years, in
-> the name of truth and spirituality.
Uh, oh... I'm about to get promoted to being a 'kal boy' here.
Victim Nathan. Poor boy. Defamed (right...) and attacked by an
outright show of negative force... If a person lined up all the names and
nasty things Nathan has said to people in a.r.e. it would make an
interesting collection of irony in light of this post.
-> He has a few lessons to learn in
-> the name of decency and respect for fellow Eckists and for keeping out
-> of people's space, not to mention having a little more respect for the
-> way Eckankar is presented by present and past Living Eck Masters.
"invalidation, intimidation, and massive condescension..." Not to
mention innaccuracies and misrepresentation
-> I can't change him, and I know he refuses to see my point of view.
-> Still, I am making this statement not for him, but for the newcomers
-> who have been following Kent's negative threads towards me in the last
-> few weeks. These are the people I am addressing, not Kent. Make up
-> your own minds. Read my messages to newcomers that I post every
-> Saturday morning. Decide for yourself if my messages are valuable to
-> you or not.
Nathan has nothing to worry about, I'm sure some people will love his
approach to spirituality and think it is the same as Eckankar's teachings
while other's will find his approach less than attractive.
csk
--
Galuuk
Rich questioned......
<<<< IMO it's not quite that straightforward Joey. Some who have
developed
their inner skills and were initiated by Darwin continue to see him as
their inner master. Many see Harold. I see no reason to criticize
either choice. How can one go about judging anothers inner experience?
>>>>>
Intriguing.......
The Mahanta is the "giver" of life....or light....or sound. The opereative
word here is "giver"
When the person who has the Rod of Power no longer "gives" and begins to
request or demand life or energy from others then he has served his time.
That's what happened to Darwin.
Regardless of personal pain and suffering the Mahanta will continue to give.
A strong focus on the Light and especially the sound will clear away any
confusion. It may take a few years to clear the fog away but in Soul's
timeline what difference does it really make.
The Light and Sound are spiritual in origin and act almost as a neutral source
of energy......free from personality shadings.
Any time one begins to rely on the words of another as opposed to the direct
inner teachings belief begins to play a major role.
A polarity of sort sets in and the individual must begin to make choices on
trust in words, rather than trust in Spirit.
Joey
Kate McLaughlin
In article <cinder-0612...@kent.gatezone.com>,
Yes, I've noticed that, even though David Lane has corrected Nathan's
mistakes in the past, Nathan continues to publish them every week. And
here are a few examples of his decency and respect for others:
"There are a number of former Eckists who regularly post on a.r.e.
about how much they have been hurt by Eckankar because of the things
they discovered from reading David Lane. They seem to feel spiritually
wounded. Those who are doing fine in their chosen spiritual path are
not disturbed in the least by any of these irrelevant and fabricated
accusations."
and
"[This section applies to followers of the Lane material such as Sam
Orez, David Cullen, Alan James (Zuma), Michael Mueckler, K. Paul
Johnson, and others. All have made deceptive, biased and incorrect
statements regarding Eckankar based directly upon inferences from
Lane's writing that do not derive from any factual reporting.]"
and
"Lane is so hypocritical."
It's really kind of fascinating (in a morbid sort of way) to watch
the way Nathan's mind works.
Kate
Nathan Zafran
zep...@connectexpress.com (Kate McLaughlin) wrote:
>It's really kind of fascinating (in a morbid sort of way) to watch
>the way Nathan's mind works.
Unfortunately, Kate has no conception of how my mind works. She only
has a conception of how her mind works. Who I am and what I am aware
of is totally unknown to the a.r.e. public, because I only reveal a
particular persona here. Anyone who thinks they've got me figured out
is looking strictly at the surface of who I am. And that's the way it
will stay.
Zuma
Galuuk wrote:
>
>
> The Mahanta is the "giver" of life....or light....or sound. The opereative
> word here is "giver"
>
> When the person who has the Rod of Power no longer "gives" and begins to
> request or demand life or energy from others then he has served his time.
>
> That's what happened to Darwin.
>
>
Oh yeah, Mr. Gross, the biggest embarassment to Eckankar....Jazz
afficianado, womanizer, confiscator of ECK funds Darwin.....the guy who
bought his own airplane to transport his "physical" body around
in...yeah, he's a giver!!!
Get real Joey....he was and is, like Paul and Harold, interested in
that green stuff in yer wallet boy.....now be a good chela...and go
chant...HU IS MY MASTER TODAY!!!
ZUMA
SAMOREZ
>Surely, as Brothers of The Leaf, Kent, you, and I share a common goal.
>Perhaps, it is ludricrous to mention harmony and goodwill on a.r.e., but
>if we can't develop harmony and goodwill in cyberspace, then where?
What about me? I was a Leafy long before all y'all. AND I never got my
excommunication notice. Am I the elder tree?
AND I am really into harmwill and goodmony.
(and don't call me shirley) <g>
>I guess, that's about all I have to say on the Silent Ones and the
>Council of The Nine. Thanks for bringing up the topic.
Shhhh.
sam
Time makes more converts than reason ---- Thomas Paine
SAMOREZ
> Nathan has nothing to worry about, I'm sure some people will love his
>approach to spirituality and think it is the same as Eckankar's teachings
>while other's will find his approach less than attractive.
>
>
LESS THAN ATTRACTIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The guy's a freaking mo-Ron. Even knowing Eck, Inc's inbred and
institutionalized Denial and Delusion, I am still amazed that the Powers That
Be don't shut him up.
He's a one-man Eckankar wrecking crew.
Can you imagine the reaction of an intelligent, sincere seeker upon reading
Gnat's Eckankar spam and diatribes?? BARF!!
Sam
SAMOREZ
In article <66chmg$9nd$1...@brie.direct.ca>, eza...@direct.ca (Nathan Zafran)
writes:
>
>Unfortunately, Kate has no conception of how my mind works. She only
>has a conception of how her mind works. Who I am and what I am aware
>of is totally unknown to the a.r.e. public, because I only reveal a
>particular persona here. Anyone who thinks they've got me figured out
>is looking strictly at the surface of who I am. And that's the way it
>will stay.
Gnat, it don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows......
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flys like a duck, it's probably a
duck, 'particular persona' be damned.
And you, sir, are QUACKERS.
Sam
sam
Ken S
SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
> In article <cinder-0512...@kent.gatezone.com>, cin...@gatezone.com
> (cinder) writes:
>
> >I don't know Marge well enough to broach the subject with her. However, i
> >-> do have a close friend that she confided in on the subject. Naturally,
he
> >-> will not repeat any of the details. All he would say is that Harold
> >-> caused her a great deal of pain during the divorce, and there was pain
on
> >-> both sides. Many divorces are painful. That's why they call it
"divorce."
> >
> > Isn't this their business? This is already third-hand pass-along
> >information. Don't look know, Richard, but this was a classic set up.
> >
> >
>
> Gotta disagree with you Kent. No matter what we personally think about
privacy,
> 'celebrities' are fair game for every sort of personal revelation.
Especially
> ones who make their living pointing to a 'higher way'. Geez, look what
happened
> to Princess Di and she wasn't selling anything.
>
<snip>
Of course. Anything that makes Eckankar look bad is, by your apparent
standards, good. And it seems there is nothing you are willing to overlook if
it furthers your goals. Sleaze and cheap shots, anyone?
Ken
Ken S
SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
> In article <cinder-0612...@kent.gatezone.com>, cin...@gatezone.com
Your viewpoint. Maybe true, maybe not. But what ever happened to freedom of
expression? Or do you only quote Thomas Paine when it suits your purpose?
Ken
Alana Keres
(SAMOREZ) writes that Kent wrote:
>>
>> Isn't this their business? This is already third-hand pass-along
>>information. Don't look know, Richard, but this was a classic set up.
>>
>>
>
>Gotta disagree with you Kent. No matter what we personally think about privacy,
>'celebrities' are fair game for every sort of personal revelation. Especially
>ones who make their living pointing to a 'higher way'. Geez, look what happened
>to Princess Di and she wasn't selling anything.
>
Saaaaayyyyuuuuummm, hear it again for the first time: Harold Is
Human. It's okay that he's human. A*N*D (get this...) he can be human &
spiritually elevated (animated/syncopated/revelated--the adverbs just
keep pouring in) At The Same Time. Wooo.
And what if it turns out that the 'higher way' looks *just* like
the lower way? And versa-vice? Lissen, over in T'buddhism, they've got
this nasty little katfight goin' on between the DL and about 2 million
Buddhists...(Vajrayanas, not hina or maha...) concerning the sadhana of a
deity that Tenzin has *ordered* "good" Buddhists to stop worshipping.
Why? Because DL says that according to his divinations it has become a
'demonic' influence. Meanwhile the High Lama of a parallel tradition
says: Go right ahead and use it. Is the DL wrong? Lying? Deluded? Is
the other Lama? Nope. Both are highly realized, dealing with a volatile
situation (the worship has bearing on the Chinese occupation), and each
is bringing his *best* guess to the table. Decisions are crapshoots.
Always, no matter how many times you've eaten the Void for breakfast. Or
sat in the Sugmad's lap. So if these guys, who are so legit that they
glow in light (as well as the dark) can be so wrong/right, what do you
have on Wah-Z?
>So, why does the holder of the 'highest consciousness' in the universes need to
>get divorced? And why would he cause so much pain to Margie? When I knew her
>she wouldn't hurt a fly.
Because we are evil, honey. I don't particularly like it, but
'individuation' in the western sense means slashing oneself to the bone in
order to exist in time. When you looking into the mirror of the Beloved
body, what else are you going to see? Blood everywhere. That fascinating
horror is an artifact of the 'speaking-being-in-time'--and Harold, last I
heard, was certainly one of those.
It's a nasty, hilarious, phantasmagorical place, this 'real world' of
ours... and every spiritual risk-taker will show their butts on
occasion. If we're lucky.
But hey, good luck on your search for the 'perfect master' Sam. Just
hope they've been doing their cross-training...
Mystingles
SAMOREZ
In article <01bd02c7$8b8f1740$LocalHost@default>, "Ken S" <kens...@erols.com>
writes:
>Of course. Anything that makes Eckankar look bad is, by your apparent
>standards, good. And it seems there is nothing you are willing to overlook
>if
>it furthers your goals. Sleaze and cheap shots, anyone?
You have a school marm's definition of 'sleaze and cheap shots'.
All 3 of Eckankar's known Godmen have had more than a little 'dissonance' <G>
in their intimate relationships. Note that I don't go into detail. We'll leave
that to "Hardcopy" should Eck, Inc. ever gain the stature it ascribes to
itself. <G>
You think these facts are sleaze? I call them signposts. More fodder for the
'ol Critical Faculty Combine.
My hunch is that the relationship 'shenanigans' of the Godmen of Eckankar
greatly troubles you at a deep level.
I hope you find the courage to add it up someday.
Sam
SAMOREZ
In article <01bd02c5$2300a6a0$LocalHost@default>, "Ken S" <kens...@erols.com>
writes:
>Your viewpoint.
Duh.
>Maybe true, maybe not.
What ever happened to freedom of expression? <g>
>But what ever happened to freedom of
>expression?
Nothing much, evidently.
>Or do you only quote Thomas Paine when it suits your purpose?
Of course. Does this Paine you?
SAMOREZ
In article <66dd6f$b...@drn.zippo.com>, Richard Pickett writes:
>If you want an excommunication notice, you'll have to give us your address.
>Won't cost you a dime. Just send me the address. I'll tabulate your posts to
>a.r.e. and forward them to Minneapolis. You should receive a mailing shortly
>thereafter.
HA! No shit! And mebbe a midnite visit from a Sugmad Swordsmen, eh? <GG>
SAMOREZ
In article <66ddd6$17e$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana
Keres) writes:
>Because we are evil, honey. I don't particularly like it, but
>'individuation' in the western sense means slashing oneself to the bone in
>order to exist in time. When you looking into the mirror of the Beloved
>body, what else are you going to see? Blood everywhere. That fascinating
>horror is an artifact of the 'speaking-being-in-time'--and Harold, last I
>heard, was certainly one of those.
>
>It's a nasty, hilarious, phantasmagorical place, this 'real world' of
>ours... and every spiritual risk-taker will show their butts on
>occasion. If we're lucky.
>
>But hey, good luck on your search for the 'perfect master' Sam. Just
>hope they've been doing their cross-training...
>
>
Red Lotus Feet,
I know and agree with most of what you've said.
I just wonder if Eckists like Nat and Joey know it. <G> Really. If Harold
announced something like the above, all the lovely Divine Lovers would flee
Eckankar in horror and outrage. You are the most unlikely Eckist I've ever met.
And other than ascribing his psycotic episode to his 'Awakening', how has
Harold shown us the pimples on his skinny white ass? Is his blood red or blue?
Sama
And oh, I often do not understand/do not agree with my 'perfect master'. And
that's perfectly OK with both of us. <g>
Btw, how does Harj handle disagreement?
Ken S
SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
> You have a school marm's definition of 'sleaze and cheap shots'.
>
Ha! I've never been called an old lady before <GGG>.
> All 3 of Eckankar's known Godmen have had more than a little 'dissonance'
> <G> in their intimate relationships. Note that I don't go into detail. We'll
> leave that to "Hardcopy" should Eck, Inc. ever gain the stature it ascribes
> to itself. <G>
Like Mysti posted here, Harold, Darwin and Paul are real people, with
all the attributes of that state, both positive and negative. It seems
obvious to me that a higher state of consciousness doesn't inoculate against
imperfection in the human state. If you disagree with this, give me one
example of a person who lives today that you might consider "perfect" (besides
yourself of course <g>).
> You think these facts are sleaze? I call them signposts. More fodder for the
> 'ol Critical Faculty Combine.
NOT the facts. It's your opinion of how people should be treated that I find
sleazy. In a previous post you said:
> Gotta disagree with you Kent. No matter what we personally
> think about privacy, 'celebrities' are fair game for every sort
> of personal revelation. Especially ones who make their living
> pointing to a 'higher way'. Geez, look what happened to
> Princess Di and she wasn't selling anything.
What I'm saying is that everyone should have a right to a degree of privacy.
Just because someone is well known or has a high visibility job doesn't mean
the public needs to know all about their private lives. I think it's the
voyeuristic attitude that anything is fair game when it comes to famous people
that's sleazy.
Do the personal relationships of the Eck Masters reflect on their abilities?
Yeah sure, but *who* is going to be the judge and jury? Sure as hell not you
or me. Probably neither of us can be objective enough, and neither of us were
close enough to be clear on the "facts".
Only the folks directly involved in a situation are qualified to comment with
any degree of integrity.
> My hunch is that the relationship 'shenanigans' of the Godmen of Eckankar
> greatly troubles you at a deep level.
>
> I hope you find the courage to add it up someday.
I am not personally invested in the perfection of the human side of the
Masters. In other words, it's okay with me if they seem to "make a mistake"
once in a while. As long as this teaching continues to create opportunities
for me to grow, I intend to remain with it, learning.
After all, like Jesus said, let the one without sin throw the first stone.
Ken
Ken S
SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
>
> "Ken S" <kens...@erols.com> writes:
> >After all, like Jesus said, let the one without sin throw the first
> >stone.
>
>
> Why didn't the three known Eck masters ever say anything like the
> above?
>
> If you don't think the Eckankar literature puts them outside and
> above the rest of humanity, maybe you need to study your own
> religion more closely.
Well, thanks for the invitation Sam <g>.
I guess my point is that the ECK Masters are just people like you and
me, although with a connection to a greater perspective than the
average person. So it seems reasonable that I should be able to find
indications in the Eckankar literature that all of us regular folks
have the innate ability to become *That*.
I'm not much inclined to go around quoting scripture, but since you
asked, I'll see what I can do . . .
EMBODIMENT OF GOD: Each Soul which is the living Truth.
-Eckankar Dictionary, Paul Twitchell
"Once you can recognize the spiritual community you are part of, then
you will recognize that you are worshipping whenever you treat other
people with respect, as divine beings, as Soul."
- Harold Klemp, "What Is Spiritual Freedom?", Page 80
"As Soul, you have the God-knowledge within you. My main job is to
awaken that knowledge and that love for the divine things that are already
in your heart.
You are Soul. You are a child of God. And your spiritual destiny is
to become a Co-worker with God. To spread divine love to all those
around you."
- Harold Klemp, "The Secret of Love", Page 44
"Actually we're tapping into the expanded awareness of Soul as It is
existing -- as we all are existing -- on the inner planes, simultaneously
with our existence on the earth. . . . Soul is multidimensional. It shares
all the aspects of God. Soul can be everywhere at all times, and all
places at the same time."
- Harold Klemp, "The Slow Burning Love of God", Page 174
"Truth isn't something 'out there' or words written down on paper. We
ourselves are the living, walking, expanding truth."
- Harold Klemp, "The Eternal Dreamer", Page 35
So to summarize, Eckankar teaches that we are *all* Soul, the Living
Truth, the Embodiment of God. As Divine Beings, we have the True God
Knowledge within us. We are multidimensional and exist on all levels
simultaneously [and always have]. As sparks of the Divine, we share
all the aspects of God and can be everywhere, in all places right now.
And the Masters are here to assist us in growing into a greater
awareness of this reality.
> I mean, if they're going to be Masters of the Universe on one hand
> and abuse relationships on the other, who needs 'em?
The "abuse" (in relation to what we've been discussing in this thread)
is your perspective of events that did not directly involve you. As I
posted earlier, only the individuals directly involved in a situation
are qualified to comment with any degree of integrity. Your
perspective of the Eck Masters as abusive "Masters of the Universe"
doesn't match my experience. Harold defines his position somewhat
differently:
"The Vairagi Adepts [are] people whose only mission is to help
others. The ECK Masters work not only on earth but in other worlds to
help people find out about the Light and Sound of God. Their only mission,
their only purpose is to help people make their own way home to God."
- Harold Klemp, "How The Inner Master Works", Page 170
"The Adepts in ECK have a single purpose in mind when a seeker
comes to them for relief: to give that Soul the opportunity for achieving
wisdom, power, and freedom, three attributes of God-Realization. This
means simply that an individual learns to be like the Adepts, enjoying a
360-degree viewpoint, the center of which is love for all living things."
- Harold Klemp, "Ask the Master, Book 1", Page 57
"God-Realization is not a state where one becomes self-serving. It's
a state where one serves others."
- Harold Klemp, "Be the HU", Page 210
> It's really up to them to own up to their human foibles and stop
> pretending to be something they're not. I think it would make
> them much more likable, don't you?
I believe the Eck Masters are working on a much more important
project . . . helping us redefine who **we** are. And I'd guess that
"being likable" is, by necessity, not very high on their agenda. More
important is teaching us how to know (and like) ourselves <g>.
Ken
Kate McLaughlin
In article <01bd03fa$6af6abe0$LocalHost@default>,
"Ken S" <kens...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> Like Mysti posted here, Harold, Darwin and Paul are real people, with
> all the attributes of that state, both positive and negative. It seems
> obvious to me that a higher state of consciousness doesn't inoculate against
> imperfection in the human state. If you disagree with this, give me one
> example of a person who lives today that you might consider "perfect" (besides
> yourself of course <g>).
Shariyat-ki-Sugmad, Book 1
by Paul Twitchell
Page 80
"The Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, lives in the world although he
is not of it. He has come to help all those who desire it, and
enters the stream of humanity to give this help. Yet he himself
stands aloof from the waves of human passions. He has attained all
virtues. He believes in the highest degrees of strength; spiritual
strength which cannot be separated from the moral qualities of man-
kind. This strength is the strength of love. He is stronger than
any man in intellect or spirit, for he has unlimited power, and yet
this strength is combined with the noble virtues of the humble and
gentle. All people find in him inspiration for the development of
noble character."
SAMOREZ
>After all, like Jesus said, let the one without sin throw the first stone.
Why didn't the three known Eck masters ever say anything like the above?
If you don't think the Eckankar literature puts them outside and above the rest
of humanity, maybe you need to study your own religion more closely.
I mean, if they're going to be Masters of the Universe on one hand and abuse
relationships on the other, who needs 'em?
It's really up to them to own up to their human foibles and stop pretending to
be something they're not. I think it would make them much more likable, don't
you?
Sam
arel...@mindspring.com
Ken S wrote while having the bad case of the quotes:
>
>
> "God-Realization is not a state where one becomes self-serving. It's
> a state where one serves others."
> - Harold Klemp, "Be the HU", Page 210
I just question whether it is service being rendered or a self-serving
endeavor on the part of Harold to use concepts like God-Realization in a
manner consistent with a $20 street hooker flaunting her goods.
Sam:
> > It's really up to them to own up to their human foibles and stop
> > pretending to be something they're not. I think it would make
> > them much more likable, don't you?
Ken:
> I believe the Eck Masters are working on a much more important
> project . . . helping us redefine who **we** are.
Lurk:
I think the self-definition process gets kind of clouded or lead astray
when there are lures baited with higher this or that to identify with
and can actually be a hinderance. Soul travel, God-Realization, highest
consciousness...these are the concepts that hook people.
Ken:
> And I'd guess that
> "being likable" is, by necessity, not very high on their agenda.
I would put it as being accountable is not very high on their agenda.
Beyond reproach is a dangerous place to be.
Ken:
>More
> important is teaching us how to know (and like) ourselves <g>.
I wish that were true, but so many things in eckankar point to denying
oneself.
Coming to terms with who we are, in my mind, doesn't mean identifying
with a bunch of "high sounding truths" deseminated in mail-order style
with a madison avenue flavor. Ken S wrote while having the bad case of
the quotes:
>
> "God-Realization is not a state where one becomes self-serving. It's
> a state where one serves others."
> - Harold Klemp, "Be the HU", Page 210
Lurk:
I just question whether it is service being rendered or a self-serving
endeavor on the part of Harold to use concepts like God-Realization in
eckankar in a manner consistent with a $20 street hooker flaunting her
goods.
Sam:
> > It's really up to them to own up to their human foibles and stop
> > pretending to be something they're not. I think it would make
> > them much more likable, don't you?
Ken:
> I believe the Eck Masters are working on a much more important
> project . . . helping us redefine who **we** are.
Lurk:
I think the self-definition process gets kind of clouded or lead astray
when there are lures baited with higher this or that to identify with
and can actually be a hinderance. Soul travel, God-Realization, highest
consciousness...these are the concepts that hook people.
Although no one can really control the relationship a student might have
with such concepts, I think any responsible agent of change will, at the
very least, not encourage such identification by overselling these
promises.
Ken:
> And I'd guess that
> "being likable" is, by necessity, not very high on their agenda.
I would say being accountable is not very high on their agenda.
And...beyond reproach is a dangerous place to be.
Ken:
>More
> important is teaching us how to know (and like) ourselves <g>.
Lurk:
I wish that were true, but so many things in eckankar point to denying
oneself automatically when you "buy in" to the system.
Coming to terms with who we are, in my mind, doesn't mean identifying
with a bunch of "high sounding truths" disseminated in mail-order style
with a madison avenue flavor.
I know Harold has the attitude of "chucks...that rascal Paul was a avid
self-promoter" to explain the salesmenship in eckanar, but I find this
selling counterproductive.
Lurk
Ken S
Kate McLaughlin <zep...@connectexpress.com> wrote ...
> "Ken S" <kens...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > Like Mysti posted here, Harold, Darwin and Paul are real people, with
> > all the attributes of that state, both positive and negative. It seems
> > obvious to me that a higher state of consciousness doesn't inoculate
against
> > imperfection in the human state. If you disagree with this, give me one
> > example of a person who lives today that you might consider "perfect"
(besides
> > yourself of course <g>).
>
> Shariyat-ki-Sugmad, Book 1
> by Paul Twitchell
> Page 80
>
> "The Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, lives in the world although he
> is not of it. He has come to help all those who desire it, and
> enters the stream of humanity to give this help. Yet he himself
> stands aloof from the waves of human passions. He has attained all
> virtues. He believes in the highest degrees of strength; spiritual
> strength which cannot be separated from the moral qualities of man-
> kind. This strength is the strength of love. He is stronger than
> any man in intellect or spirit, for he has unlimited power, and yet
> this strength is combined with the noble virtues of the humble and
> gentle. All people find in him inspiration for the development of
> noble character."
Paul didn't say that the LEM was perfect or immune to the negativity of the
human state. As the Mahanta, he may have been aloof from the waves of human
passions and have attained all virtues, but nowhere does he indicate that the
Master is above the human condition.
Ken
Ken S
arel...@mindspring.com wrote ...
> Ken S wrote while having the bad case of the quotes:
> >
> > "God-Realization is not a state where one becomes
self-serving.
> > It's a state where one serves others."
> > - Harold Klemp, "Be the HU", Page 210
>
> Lurk:
> I just question whether it is service being rendered or a
self-serving
> endeavor on the part of Harold to use concepts like God-Realization
in
> eckankar in a manner consistent with a $20 street hooker flaunting
her
> goods.
He's talking about a state that is available to all of us, not just
him. Service to Life is a nice place to start, I'd say. As to the
"manner" it is presented, I guess you'd prefer to have your guru nice
and earthy, sitting on a metaphorical mountain top somewhere. So what
does that have to do with me?
> Ken:
> > I believe the Eck Masters are working on a much more important
> > project . . . helping us redefine who **we** are.
>
> Lurk:
> I think the self-definition process gets kind of clouded or lead
astray
> when there are lures baited with higher this or that to identify with
> and can actually be a hinderance. Soul travel, God-Realization,
highest
> consciousness...these are the concepts that hook people.
"Lures" and "bait" are a prejudicial words, and I don't think they
fit. It's easy to tell someone else what they shouldn't do, and you
seem to be very good at it. But it's tougher to actually roll up your
sleeves and *do* something yourself. If you were a master, and your
goal was uplifting your fellow man, how would you get the word out?
You don't like the metaphor of "higher"? I think it is inspirational.
Soul travel, God realization, greater <g> consciousness, these are the
realities that seem to enhance my inner growth. Different strokes ...
you know what I mean?
> Although no one can really control the relationship a student might
have
> with such concepts, I think any responsible agent of change will, at
the
> very least, not encourage such identification by overselling these
> promises.
Interesting idea. I guess what your saying is that the method Eckankar
uses for the expansion of the students consciousness isn't effective?
It *seems* to be assisting me in my growth. Contact me in another 20
years, and I'll let you know if it continues.
> Ken:
> > And I'd guess that
> > "being likable" is, by necessity, not very high on their agenda.
>
> I would say being accountable is not very high on their agenda.
>
> And...beyond reproach is a dangerous place to be.
It seems to me that the Eck Masters simply put the teaching out there.
If it interests someone they are welcome to try it. If it doesn't help
them in their life, they are free to leave. If you disagree, please
tell my why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation.
> Ken:
> >More important is teaching us how to know (and like) ourselves <g>.
>
> Lurk:
> I wish that were true, but so many things in eckankar point to
denying
> oneself automatically when you "buy in" to the system.
I honestly have *no* clue what you are refering to. It seems to me
that sometimes you are just projecting things from your dark closet of
fears willy-nilly, with no basis in objective reality.
> Coming to terms with who we are, in my mind, doesn't mean identifying
> with a bunch of "high sounding truths" disseminated in mail-order
style
> with a madison avenue flavor.
I see those "high sounding truths" as being inspirational, showing me
the potential of my Self. Whether these truths are disseminated
"mail-order style" is completely irrelevant to me. And I see no
Madison Avenue flavor to speak of. I think I'd notice having spent the
last 4 years working in the advertising field <g>.
I have to admit that your consistently complaining attitude gets me
down. Would you please post something positive here once in a while?
--
Ken
More and more, reality seems to be in the way we percieve it.
SAMOREZ
In article <881716738....@dejanews.com>, zep...@connectexpress.com (Kate
McLaughlin) writes:
>In article <01bd03fa$6af6abe0$LocalHost@default>,
Katie, you have to remember that when Paul wrote this in the 1960's the
consciousness of the average seeker was much simpler and unsophisticated than
it is now. He didn't mean any of it literally. He didn't mean HE was 'mas macho
en toto el mundo'. He was talking symbolically. It was his way of myth-making
in order to facilitate the seeker understanding the matrixical nature of the
Mahantu.
If you're still confused, take it to the inner.
Eckankar is now 90% inner.
SAMOREZ
In article <01bd0526$804d7d20$LocalHost@default>, "Ken S" <kens...@erols.com>
writes:
>Paul didn't say that the LEM was perfect or immune to the negativity of
>the
human state. As the Mahanta, he may have been aloof from the waves of
>human
passions and have attained all virtues, but nowhere does he indicate
>that the
Master is above the human condition.
See what I mean Kate? <G>
Kate McLaughlin
In article <01bd0526$804d7d20$LocalHost@default>,
> > >
> > > Like Mysti posted here, Harold, Darwin and Paul are real people, with
> > > all the attributes of that state, both positive and negative. It seems
> > > obvious to me that a higher state of consciousness doesn't inoculate
> against
> > > imperfection in the human state. If you disagree with this, give me one
> > > example of a person who lives today that you might consider "perfect"
> (besides
> > > yourself of course <g>).
> >
> > Shariyat-ki-Sugmad, Book 1
> > by Paul Twitchell
> > Page 80
> >
> > "The Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, lives in the world although he
> > is not of it. He has come to help all those who desire it, and
> > enters the stream of humanity to give this help. Yet he himself
> > stands aloof from the waves of human passions. He has attained all
> > virtues. He believes in the highest degrees of strength; spiritual
> > strength which cannot be separated from the moral qualities of man-
> > kind. This strength is the strength of love. He is stronger than
> > any man in intellect or spirit, for he has unlimited power, and yet
> > this strength is combined with the noble virtues of the humble and
> > gentle. All people find in him inspiration for the development of
> > noble character."
>
> human state. As the Mahanta, he may have been aloof from the waves of human
> passions and have attained all virtues, but nowhere does he indicate that the
> Master is above the human condition.
Read it again, Ken! He's saying that he, Paul Twitchell, the Mahanta,
the Living ECK Master, "stands aloof from the waves of human passions"
AND has "attained all virtues" AND has "unlimited power."
If you stand aloof from the waves of human passion and have attained all
virtues and have unlimited power, that pretty much *would* render you
immune to the negativity of the human state. First you eliminate all
the human passions (anger, greed, attachment, etc. -- you know, the whole
list that he stole from -- er, compiled from Julian Johnson), then you add
ALL the virtues (same deal), and then you add unlimited power to make him
stronger than any man in intellect or spirit.
If you accept his words as true, he damn well *is* setting himself above
all humanity, for he has NONE of the passions, ALL of the virtues, and
UNLIMITED POWER. And he's definitely talking about the man here, not
just some discarnate spiritual entity that comes and goes. He lives
"in the world" and "enters the stream of humanity."
And his strength cannot be separated from the moral qualities of man-
kind; he's claiming noble virtues, and he's claiming the status of
being the inspiration for all people to develop a noble character.
Kate
Zuma
Ken S wrote:
>
> I guess my point is that the ECK Masters are just people like you and
> me, although with a connection to a greater perspective than the
> average person. So it seems reasonable that I should be able to find
> indications in the Eckankar literature that all of us regular folks
> have the innate ability to become *That*.
Your profundities are exceeded only by your stupidity. Look how
incoherent this paragraph reads. "Eck Masters are just people like you
and me" No they are not Ken..They are supposed to exist on higher planes
in charge of these apparent Golden Temples Of Wisdom who come to "Earth"
in the form of park bench bums who turn to you in an unsuspecting manner
and proclaim that the SUGMAD awaits your prayers. You ECK folks are so
reality deficient that your brain has turned to jelly. You run off at
the mouth constantly about "inner reality" and becoming "That" so you
have lost all sense of realness. You will only attract low esteemed god
seekers who haven't a brain cell to differentiate between reality and
fantasy. Eckankar has turned you into a robotic non-thinking new age
mushhead. Some day, life is gonna bitch slap you upside the head and you
will abandon this travesty.
>
> I'm not much inclined to go around quoting scripture, but since you
> asked, I'll see what I can do . . .
Which "scripture" Ken...the diluted nonsense that Twitchell calls the
Shariyat???? What a total piece of of mundane garbage replete with
Hallmark phraseologies.
>
> EMBODIMENT OF GOD: Each Soul which is the living Truth.
> -Eckankar Dictionary, Paul Twitchell
Oh that's deep!!!
>
> "Once you can recognize the spiritual community you are part of, then
> you will recognize that you are worshipping whenever you treat other
> people with respect, as divine beings, as Soul."
> - Harold Klemp, "What Is Spiritual Freedom?", Page 80
God awful advice!!
>
> "As Soul, you have the God-knowledge within you. My main job is to
> awaken that knowledge and that love for the divine things that are already
> in your heart.
> You are Soul. You are a child of God. And your spiritual destiny is
> to become a Co-worker with God. To spread divine love to all those
> around you."
> - Harold Klemp, "The Secret of Love", Page 44
Klemp is a fool's fool. His main job should be to own up to Eckankar's
origins; quit this idiocy, and become a Presbyterian minister.
>
>
>
> So to summarize, Eckankar teaches that we are *all* Soul, the Living
> Truth, the Embodiment of God. As Divine Beings, we have the True God
> Knowledge within us. We are multidimensional and exist on all levels
> simultaneously [and always have]. As sparks of the Divine, we share
> all the aspects of God and can be everywhere, in all places right now.
Bullshit...Paul even says that most chelas don't attain the God state
because of attachment, stubbornness, ego...whatever...he left himself
wide open just in case nobody "got it". And you cannot be everywhere in
all places right now....how insanely stupid!!! You are where you are
right now...wake up...and smell the coffee!!
>
> And the Masters are here to assist us in growing into a greater
> awareness of this reality.
Double bullshit..there are NO MASTERS...they aren't waiting for anyone
because they only exist in the dead conciousness of the rotting corpse
of Paul Twitchell. He is nowhere...he is non existent...he is without
God....he let GOD DOWN.
>
>
> > It's really up to them to own up to their human foibles and stop
> > pretending to be something they're not. I think it would make
> > them much more likable, don't you?
It's up to you to stop pretending there are ECK Masters. They just
aren't there, Ken. Get real....Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Rebazar
tarpits...all figments of your imagination...not indications of another
reality.
>
> I believe the Eck Masters are working on a much more important
> project . . . helping us redefine who **we** are. And I'd guess that
> "being likable" is, by necessity, not very high on their agenda. More
> important is teaching us how to know (and like) ourselves <g>.
Yep, you keep on believeing that crap, Ken......ECK Masters....demons of
Paul's mind handed down under the guise of a religion called
ECKANKAR...one of the biggest, phattest lies, the human mind has ever
conceived....!!!!
Z
cin...@gatezone.com
In article <881716738....@dejanews.com>,
zep...@connectexpress.com (Kate McLaughlin) wrote:
> Shariyat-ki-Sugmad, Book 1
> by Paul Twitchell
> Page 80
>
<snip>
....**All** people find in him inspiration for the development of
> noble character."
Here we have one of a.r.e.'s mysteries *finally* explained: Why the
detractors post so much about a religion they left? They belong to the
subset of 'all people' and so they too are inspired to develop their own
noble character.
Such a simple answer staring us in the face all this time... <gg>
(Extra *'s are my emphasis.)
CSK
Ken S
Kate McLaughlin <zep...@connectexpress.com> wrote
> "Ken S" <kens...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Paul didn't say that the LEM was perfect or immune to the negativity of
> > the human state. As the Mahanta, he may have been aloof from the
> > waves of human passions and have attained all virtues, but nowhere
> > does he indicate that the Master is above the human condition.
>
> Read it again, Ken! He's saying that he, Paul Twitchell, the Mahanta,
> the Living ECK Master, "stands aloof from the waves of human passions"
> AND has "attained all virtues" AND has "unlimited power."
>
It seems like we are looking at this passage from two different perspectives.
When I read it, I'm thinking about the human potential. It's what I (we) can
become, my birthright as Soul.
You are seeing it as the words of a manipulative con-man, out to set himself
up as greater than all the rest of us. For the purpose of personal gain.
There really isn't much I can say to change your mind. And I don't think it
would be appropriate of me to try anyway. If you prefer to see it that way,
and it helps you on your path, then it's okay with me.
Truth be known, I don't really have a clue what the Mahanta consciousness is
like (other than what the Master tells me) <g>.
--
Ken
More and more, reality seems to be in the way we perceive it.
John T. Engel
JTE replies:
I don't question Harold's 'humanity' at all. Just the opposite. There
are those who think he can do no wrong...he is just as human as anyone
else. Paul once told his early students that once the Living Eck
Master announces that he has students, he is 'kept down' by his own
students attitudes of him. I find this still true.
Thanks for the nice post!
John
In <8813805...@dejanews.com> rfpi...@naxs.com writes:
>
>In article <668drg$4...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
> j...@ix.netcom.com(John T. Engel) wrote:
>>
>> JTE replys:
>>
>> My sincere hope is that you will. And get it first hand instead of
>> relying on many of the personal lies told from those who have not
>> experienced the actual incidents first hand!
>>
>> JTE
>>
>
>John,
>
>I don't know Marge well enough to broach the subject with her.
However, i
>do have a close friend that she confided in on the subject. Naturally,
he
>will not repeat any of the details. All he would say is that Harold
>caused her a great deal of pain during the divorce, and there was pain
on
>both sides. Many divorces are painful. That's why they call it
"divorce."
>
>What I don't get is your questioning of Harold's "humanity." What are
you
>suggesting?
>
>rfp
John T. Engel
JTE replies:
Sam...one thing there is never a lack of here on the Eckankar channel
is self-rightousness of all kinds. Identification leads to
sleep..sleep leads to more identification..which leads to more sleep.
In <19971207012...@ladder01.news.aol.com> sam...@aol.com
(SAMOREZ) writes:
>
>In article <cinder-0512...@kent.gatezone.com>,
cin...@gatezone.com
>(cinder) writes:
>
>>I don't know Marge well enough to broach the subject with her.
However, i
>>-> do have a close friend that she confided in on the subject.
Naturally, he
>>-> will not repeat any of the details. All he would say is that
Harold
>>-> caused her a great deal of pain during the divorce, and there was
pain on
>>-> both sides. Many divorces are painful. That's why they call it
"divorce."
>>
>> Isn't this their business? This is already third-hand pass-along
>>information. Don't look know, Richard, but this was a classic set
up.
>>
>>
>
>Gotta disagree with you Kent. No matter what we personally think about
privacy,
>'celebrities' are fair game for every sort of personal revelation.
Especially
>ones who make their living pointing to a 'higher way'. Geez, look what
happened
>to Princess Di and she wasn't selling anything.
>
>So, why does the holder of the 'highest consciousness' in the
universes need to
>get divorced? And why would he cause so much pain to Margie? When I
knew her
>she wouldn't hurt a fly.
>
Alana Keres
Richard writes, in response to Zuma's deprecations:
[snip]
Nice essay, Rich. Thanks,
M.
Ken S
Zuma <zu...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> Your profundities are exceeded only by your stupidity.
<snip>
Two thousand years of persecution, killing and devastation. There will come a
time when people will look back on those times like they were a bad dream. If
Eckankar were to commit just one tenth of the destruction and damage the
Catholic church has wrought ... Then I'll be willing to listen to how your
path is superior.
I hope you enjoy your confession next time you go.
Ken
SAMOREZ
In article <66n4cp$t...@drn.zippo.com>, Richard Pickett writes:
>
In article <19971210052...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>sam...@aol.com
says...
>
>In article <66jm9s$b...@drn.zippo.com>, Richard
>Pickett writes:
>
>>You'd be more likeable if you didn't pretend to be
>Samorez, something you're
>>not.
>
>This is a spurious argument. What I say
>is what I believe, regardless of what I
>call myself. Can the LEM's say the
>same?
>
>Does Harold R E A L L Y believe his astral library excuse for Paul?
>
>
>Really?
>
>Sam
>
>Time makes more converts than reason ---- Thomas
>Paine
>
>
>Dear Whoever you are:
>Why don't you ask Harold, really?
Gawd Dick, I'd love to. But he seems soooooooo...................isolated? Why
don't you set it up? Better yet, why doesn't he log on to this newsgroup so we
all can ask him direct? I mean, AOL has all sorts of celebrities on all the
time taking all manner of questions. It would be nice to see him stand up for
himself and his religion for a change, instead of passively annointing his
lackeys to do his dirty work.
Rich
Zuma wrote:
While Zuma says a few things that are true about Christianity this is
the only statement that I agree with regarding Eckankar.
> Eckankar believes you create your own reality...
<Snip> the rest of the post where, by my count, Zuma makes a dozen
untrue assessments about Eckankar, Eckists and the Eck Master in about
as many sentences.
--
o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
Ken S wrote:
> What's amazing is that I read his post and just glossed over all that stuff
> without even really noticing it. Am I becoming immune? Or callous?
>
> Yikes.
Actually, I usually do the same thing. Guess I was bored enough to
respond.<G> The same old name calling, insults and stuff that is _so_
off base, barely attracts my attention anymore.
Callous? Maybe. I sure don't mind having some thick skin between his
abrasive BS and myself. Too bad he doesn't stick to his jokes. He
wouldn't get ignored so much if he did.
William Martens
On 11 Dec 1997, John T. Engel wrote:
> JTE replies:
> (SAMOREZ) writes:
> >In article <cinder-0512...@kent.gatezone.com>,
> cin...@gatezone.com
> >(cinder) writes:
> >>I don't know Marge well enough to broach the subject with her.
> >>However, i do have a close friend that she confided in on the
> >>subject. Naturally, he will not repeat any of the details. All
> >>he would say is that Harold caused her a great deal of pain
> >>during the divorce, and there was pain on both sides. Many
> >>divorces are painful. That's why they call it "divorce."
Our local ECK Satsang has had Marge Klemp as the guest speaker at
the Utah Regional ECK Seminar several times over the last 6 or 7 years
(including this last September).
The fact that Marge still looks to Sri Harold as her personal 'Master'
says it all for me.
-William Martens
Ken S
Rich <rsm...@aloha.net> wrote ...
>
> While Zuma says a few things that are true about Christianity this is
> the only statement that I agree with regarding Eckankar.
>
> > Eckankar believes you create your own reality...
>
>
> <Snip> the rest of the post where, by my count, Zuma makes a dozen
> untrue assessments about Eckankar, Eckists and the Eck Master in about
> as many sentences.
>
What's amazing is that I read his post and just glossed over all that stuff
without even really noticing it. Am I becoming immune? Or callous?
Yikes.
Ken
Ken S
Zuma <zu...@bigfoot.com> wrote ...
>
> Aren't you being a little dramatic here Ken? Don't you realize that
> there have been more people killed in the twentieth century due to
> secular ideologies such as Fascism, Communism, Naziism than in ALL of
> the holy wars throughout recorded time! <snip>
Yeah well, all those "isms" didn't claim to be a path to God, did they? As
far as I am concerned, Christianity lost it's authenticity with the first Pope
who ordered the first execution. It ended then.
I wouldn't dream of criticizing you (or any of my friends) for being
Christian. As long as you feel you benefit from it, keep on going. But don't
give me that "better than Eck" crap, because it's not. I've tried both.
Ken
skwong
Sorry to burst your bubble Zuma, but I work in the slums and ghettos
and believe me when I say its hard. But still, as a vehicle for the
Mahanta, I do what I can do to spread the light and sound thru acts of
kindness such as helping a hungry mother with food, or just being there
and letting people rave against "the man."
And I am not alone. Other ECKists in Southern California work with
other areas such as the Latino community.They bring the lgith and sound
to that community to uplift it spiritually.
In Hawaii, I know for a fact that ECkists helped spread the light and
sound to elderly people with no relatives and who were alone in a nursing
home during the Christmas season. They asked to sing HU and the atmosphere
got better and the people were cheered up. Thats in Hawaii.
I also know that we dont "push" ECKANKAR on those people. If they ask
then I tell them and ask the Mahanta for guidance. And people in the slums
are aware of the Mahanta. In one instance, I said the word Mahanta and the
man replied, "hey, thats a very spiritual term."
As ECkists, we are vehicles for the light and sound thru the Mahanta.
In ECK...Steve
*********************************************************************
SAMOREZ
In article <66t4l3$q...@drn.zippo.com>, Richard Pickett writes:
>As you know Harold is sensitive to EMR. I don't think he'll expose himself
>to
the screen radiations. However, if we had your home address and phone
>number, we
might be able to set something up for you.
You're gettin' creepy again Dickey.
Santa don't like it.
ri...@inlink.com
: > (SAMOREZ) writes:
: > >In article <cinder-0512...@kent.gatezone.com>,
: > cin...@gatezone.com
: > >(cinder) writes:
: > >>I don't know Marge well enough to broach the subject with her.
: > >>However, i do have a close friend that she confided in on the
: > >>subject. Naturally, he will not repeat any of the details. All
: > >>he would say is that Harold caused her a great deal of pain
: > >>during the divorce, and there was pain on both sides. Many
: > >>divorces are painful. That's why they call it "divorce."
He ditched Marge for the young nubile maiden of the monkey love
persuasion.
cinder
Whoa... it's confusing and weird enough around here without misquotes. Or
innaccurate attributions. I did not write the bit that follows and think
it's only proper that the actual writer get credit for it...<g>.
csk
In article <672cee$9v2$1...@news1.inlink.com>, ri...@inlink.com wrote:
-> : > (SAMOREZ) writes:
-> : > >In article <cinder-0512...@kent.gatezone.com>,
-> : > cin...@gatezone.com
-> : > >(cinder most definitely did **not** write :
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-> : > >>I don't know Marge well enough to broach the subject with her.
-> : > >>However, i do have a close friend that she confided in on the
-> : > >>subject. Naturally, he will not repeat any of the details. All
-> : > >>he would say is that Harold caused her a great deal of pain
-> : > >>during the divorce, and there was pain on both sides. Many
-> : > >>divorces are painful. That's why they call it "divorce."
I don't have the original but I *believe* Richard wrote this, but
please correct me if I'm wrong Richard.
To which Dave Rife responded in his sweetest most gentle tones:
-> He ditched Marge for the young nubile maiden of the monkey love
-> persuasion.
--
arel...@mindspring.com
Ken S wrote:
I'm not sure if this post showed up the first time, so I'll try it again
...
>
> arel...@mindspring.com wrote ...
> > Ken S wrote while having the bad case of the quotes:
> > >
> > > "God-Realization is not a state where one becomes self-serving.
> > > It's a state where one serves others."
> > > - Harold Klemp, "Be the HU", Page 210
> >
> > Lurk:
> > I just question whether it is service being rendered or a self-serving
> > endeavor on the part of Harold to use concepts like God-Realization in
> > eckankar in a manner consistent with a $20 street hooker flaunting her
> > goods.
>
>
> He's talking about a state that is available to all of us, not just
> him.
I know...that's what I mean.
> Service to Life is a nice place to start, I'd say.
Sure, service to Life includes service to oneself in my view. And
setting up the prize states, no matter what you call them, sets the
stage for an accumulation mentality which causes internal conflict.
> As to the
> "manner" it is presented, I guess you'd prefer to have your guru nice
> and earthy, sitting on a metaphorical mountain top somewhere.
Earthy? As in doesn't bathe. Nah.<g>
I think the "manner" in which spiritual information is conveyed itself
carries a certain message.
> So what
> does that have to do with me?
I don't know...you tell me.
>
> > Ken:
> > > I believe the Eck Masters are working on a much more important
> > > project . . . helping us redefine who **we** are.
> >
> > Lurk:
> > I think the self-definition process gets kind of clouded or lead astray
> > when there are lures baited with higher this or that to identify with
> > and can actually be a hinderance. Soul travel, God-Realization, highest
> > consciousness...these are the concepts that hook people.
>
> "Lures" and "bait" are a prejudicial words, and I don't think they
> fit.
Why not? The higher this and ultimate that...they draw people to join
eckankar. What do you prefer, sales pitches, spiritual sales slogans.
> It's easy to tell someone else what they shouldn't do, and you
> seem to be very good at it.
Thanks, I guess I am pretty good at it. Eckankar should hire me as their
quality control inspector, maybe I can help them to win the Malcolm
Baldrige Excellence Quality award. <ggg>
To answer your question, yes, it is easy to critique an organization and
a spiritual leader that thinks it and he is above being criticized
because that's the very environment that creates a shitload of serious
mistakes, especially when the product is self-realization and
God-realization of a seeker.
> But it's tougher to actually roll up your
> sleeves and *do* something yourself.
I've created plenty of stuff in my life, I'm not just a talker. Most of
he time, I'm speaking from experience.
>If you were a master, and your
> goal was uplifting your fellow man, how would you get the word out?
In person, talks, books, tapes, internet...the usual sources. Why do you
ask?
>
> You don't like the metaphor of "higher"?
What's metaphorical about being right under the God on the organization
chart?
I think it is inspirational.
> Soul travel, God realization, greater <g> consciousness, these are the
> realities that seem to enhance my inner growth. Different strokes ...
> you know what I mean?
Well don't let me keep you from being inspired. I just find these when
these concepts are packaged and promoted it seems to cause people to
relate to them in a counter-productive ways.
>
>
> > Although no one can really control the relationship a student might have
> > with such concepts, I think any responsible agent of change will, at the
> > very least, not encourage such identification by overselling these
> > promises.
>
> Interesting idea. I guess what your saying is that the method Eckankar
> uses for the expansion of the students consciousness isn't effective?
> It *seems* to be assisting me in my growth. Contact me in another 20
> years, and I'll let you know if it continues.
By then, you'll probably would have attained this high God-realized
state and you won't want to talk to a lowly guy like me. <gg>
>
>
> > Ken:
> > > And I'd guess that
> > > "being likable" is, by necessity, not very high on their agenda.
> >
> > I would say being accountable is not very high on their agenda.
> >
> > And...beyond reproach is a dangerous place to be.
>
> It seems to me that the Eck Masters simply put the teaching out there.
> If it interests someone they are welcome to try it. If it doesn't help
> them in their life, they are free to leave. If you disagree, please
> tell my why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation.
Yes people are free to leave the path...what's that have to do with my
comment of being beyond reproach? Maybe the word danger prompted your
response? BTW, I believe being beyond reproach is dangerous position for
anyone to be in for themselves and for the people around them, not just
eck masters.
<snip>
>
>
> > Coming to terms with who we are, in my mind, doesn't mean identifying
> > with a bunch of "high sounding truths" disseminated in mail-order style
> > with a madison avenue flavor.
>
>
> I see those "high sounding truths" as being inspirational, showing me
> the potential of my Self. Whether these truths are disseminated
> "mail-order style" is completely irrelevant to me. And I see no
> Madison Avenue flavor to speak of. I think I'd notice having spent the
> last 4 years working in the advertising field <g>.
Good then you'll appreciate the two illustrations below:
You too can make money selling real estate with my dynamic homestudy
course.
You too can become God-realized if you practice the spiritual exercises
contained in the discourses.
What's the difference?
>
> I have to admit that your consistently complaining attitude gets me
> down. Would you please post something positive here once in a while?
That's like giving a junkie his fix when he asks for it. <gg>
Okay. How about...love and accept ALL of yourself... even the dark side
that takes a back seat to the idealized good side (soul) we construct.
This love and acceptance will naturally be reflected outwardly to others
in an unconscious way and requires no name like coworker.
Lurk
Ken S
arel...@mindspring.com wrote ...
>
> Sure, service to Life includes service to oneself in my view. And
> setting up the prize states, no matter what you call them, sets the
> stage for an accumulation mentality which causes internal conflict.
>
This is interesting Lurk. You're saying a lot here in just a few lines.
It sounds to me that you don't believe states of higher consciousness really
exist. If you *do* believe in alternate levels of consciousness, then how
would you propose to disseminate info about these realms without "setting up
.. prize states" and creating an "accumulation mentality"?
As far as internal conflict goes ... it is part and parcel of growth and stems
from our attachment to old concepts of realty. My take on it is that this
internal conflict you experienced is only one step on the path and that once
the dissonance is worked through it is not necessarily an obstacle to further
inner growth.
> I think the "manner" in which spiritual information is conveyed itself
> carries a certain message.
Yes, I agree.
True confession: Some of the ways that Eckankar has been and continues to be
presented creates obstacles for me that I have to work to overcome. But this
reaction within myself is only to certain outer methods and approaches. The
core of the teaching for me remains alive and feels true. This is why I am a
student.
Ken:
> > "Lures" and "bait" are a prejudicial words, and I don't think they
> > fit.
>
Lurk:
> Why not? The higher this and ultimate that...they draw people to join
> eckankar. What do you prefer, sales pitches, spiritual sales slogans.
How about "features" and "benefits". Lures and bait are things you use to
attract a fish before you catch it. The fish receives no benefit from this
arrangement as far as I can tell <g>.
It seems to me that the spiritual student, even if he decides later that a
particular path is not for him, has received an increased awareness of both
his own Self and the universe around him.
Ken:
> > It's easy to tell someone else what they shouldn't do, and you
> > seem to be very good at it.
>
Lurk:
> Thanks, I guess I am pretty good at it. Eckankar should hire me as their
> quality control inspector, maybe I can help them to win the Malcolm
> Baldrige Excellence Quality award. <ggg>
Do they have a spiritual services award? <g>
Lurk:
> To answer your question, yes, it is easy to critique an organization and
> a spiritual leader that thinks it and he is above being criticized
> because that's the very environment that creates a shitload of serious
> mistakes, especially when the product is self-realization and
> God-realization of a seeker.
But do those "mistakes" lead to a dead end, or are they just another step in
the process of individual unfoldment? My own experience has lead me to
uncountable "mistakes", and I have learned from *every* one of them. They
were all necessary for my continued inner growth.
Ken:
> > But it's tougher to actually roll up your
> > sleeves and *do* something yourself.
>
Lurk:
> I've created plenty of stuff in my life, I'm not just a talker. Most of
> he time, I'm speaking from experience.
>
> >If you were a master, and your
> > goal was uplifting your fellow man, how would you get the word out?
>
> In person, talks, books, tapes, internet...the usual sources. Why do you
> ask?
Because I believe it is more valuable to offer *alternatives* than to simply
criticize. The methods you'd use are exactly what Eckankar is doing now. I
guess my real question was, if you were a Master who's goal was uplifting your
fellow being, what would you do differently than Eckankar is doing now.
Ken:
> > You don't like the metaphor of "higher"?
>
Lurk:
> What's metaphorical about being right under the God on the organization
> chart?
>
> > I think it is inspirational.
> > Soul travel, God realization, greater <g> consciousness, these are the
> > realities that seem to enhance my inner growth. Different strokes ...
> > you know what I mean?
>
> Well don't let me keep you from being inspired. I just find these when
> these concepts are packaged and promoted it seems to cause people to
> relate to them in a counter-productive ways.
Hero worship can be destructive. But it seems we humans need an archetype to
model ourselves after. Look at every successful religion that has ever
existed.
We're back on the razors edge again, balancing between the negative and the
necessary.
Lurk:
> > > I would say being accountable is not very high on their agenda.
> > >
> > > And...beyond reproach is a dangerous place to be.
> >
Ken:
> > It seems to me that the Eck Masters simply put the teaching out there.
> > If it interests someone they are welcome to try it. If it doesn't help
> > them in their life, they are free to leave. If you disagree, please
> > tell my why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation.
>
Lurk:
> Yes people are free to leave the path...what's that have to do with my
> comment of being beyond reproach? Maybe the word danger prompted your
> response? BTW, I believe being beyond reproach is dangerous position for
> anyone to be in for themselves and for the people around them, not just
> eck masters.
What is "reproach" and what does it mean to be beyond it? I personally don't
think that telling my teacher that he is doing it *all wrong* is constructive.
It seems patently *silly* on its face. If I believe my teacher is incorrect
in his approach and he is not willing to change his methods to suit me <g>,
then it's my responsibility to locate a teacher that I find more agreeable.
If my teacher says that he is second on the spiritual hierarchy, above all
except for God, and my experience leads me to believe this is not true, then I
owe it to myself to find another teacher.
So who have *you* found, Lurk?
> Good then you'll appreciate the two illustrations below:
>
> You too can make money selling real estate with my dynamic homestudy
> course.
>
> You too can become God-realized if you practice the spiritual exercises
> contained in the discourses.
>
> What's the difference?
On at least one level, they are the same: Each statement seeks to satisfy a
need in the reader. Now if you're measuring the integrity of the offer the
*real* question is, "does it work? Will it satisfy that need?"
> >
> > I have to admit that your consistently complaining attitude gets me
> > down. Would you please post something positive here once in a while?
>
> That's like giving a junkie his fix when he asks for it. <gg>
A "junkie" for the Divine? <rofl> Yeah, maybe I'd see it that way ... except
I believe that the Divine is my natural state.
> Okay. How about...love and accept ALL of yourself... even the dark side
> that takes a back seat to the idealized good side (soul) we construct.
Hey, I don't know about you, but I'm usually busy *de*constructing all the
"stuff" I've put into place over the millennia <g>. Currently I'm into
searching for that Heart of gold ... my True Self ... The Source of my Being.
I Don't have the desire to continue construction on an artificial good side
which will only have to be torn down later. Cripes, my ego is big enough
<ggg>.
> This love and acceptance will naturally be reflected outwardly to others
> in an unconscious way and requires no name like coworker.
Yes, It requires no name. At least until we try to communicate about It <g>.
bl...@sprint.ca
arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>
> Okay. How about...love and accept ALL of yourself...even the dark side
> that takes a back seat to the idealized good side (soul) we construct.
Yes indeed, what about the whole of others as well? For me, to accept
all of life both the inner and outer, is easier said and done, unless
you're assuming the outer doesnot matter as much.
> This love and acceptance will naturally be reflected outwardly to others
> in an unconscious way
You mean like what you just wrote earlier in this same post?
>and requires no name like coworker.
A reminder doesn't hurt. Besides why 'Arelurker'?
>
> Lurk
arel...@mindspring.com
Ken S wrote:
>
> arel...@mindspring.com wrote ...
> >
> > Sure, service to Life includes service to oneself in my view. And
> > setting up the prize states, no matter what you call them, sets the
> > stage for an accumulation mentality which causes internal conflict.
> >
>
> This is interesting Lurk. You're saying a lot here in just a few lines.
>
> It sounds to me that you don't believe states of higher consciousness really
> exist. If you *do* believe in alternate levels of consciousness, then how
> would you propose to disseminate info about these realms without "setting up
> .. prize states" and creating an "accumulation mentality"?
I'm not sure, I never really thought about starting a religion. Good
question though.
Maybe what Ramana Maharshi said is appropriate here:
"Your duty is to be and not to be this or that."
>
> As far as internal conflict goes ... it is part and parcel of growth and stems
> from our attachment to old concepts of realty.
Old concepts of reality? Or, attachment to the new idealized concepts of
reality that are desired? Or both?
> My take on it is that this
> internal conflict you experienced is only one step on the path and that once
> the dissonance is worked through it is not necessarily an obstacle to further
> inner growth.
How is the dissonance worked through if the path continually points to
achieving higher, higher, higher?
>
> > I think the "manner" in which spiritual information is conveyed itself
> > carries a certain message.
>
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> True confession: Some of the ways that Eckankar has been and continues to be
> presented creates obstacles for me that I have to work to overcome.
Why do you feel you have to work to change you to adjust to eckankar,
why not ask eckankar to adjust to your sense of truth?
> But this
> reaction within myself is only to certain outer methods and approaches. The
> core of the teaching for me remains alive and feels true. This is why I am a
> student.
>
> Ken:
> > > "Lures" and "bait" are a prejudicial words, and I don't think they
> > > fit.
> >
> Lurk:
> > Why not? The higher this and ultimate that...they draw people to join
> > eckankar. What do you prefer, sales pitches, spiritual sales slogans.
>
> How about "features" and "benefits".
Fine, that's probably more appropriate with this commoditization of
consciousness. <g>
<snip>
>
> Lurk:
> > To answer your question, yes, it is easy to critique an organization and
> > a spiritual leader that thinks it and he is above being criticized
> > because that's the very environment that creates a shitload of serious
> > mistakes, especially when the product is self-realization and
> > God-realization of a seeker.
>
> But do those "mistakes" lead to a dead end, or are they just another step in
> the process of individual unfoldment? My own experience has lead me to
> uncountable "mistakes", and I have learned from *every* one of them. They
> were all necessary for my continued inner growth.
I'm with you on that! The mistakes in eckankar will lead to a dead end
if the mistakes aren't recognized, admitted, openly talked about, and
corrected. Why should Eckankar and Harold be exempt from the process you
stated benefits you and is very human. But I guess that's not possible
in the authoritarian system because there is a certain amount of
rightness that has to be invested at the top for all concerned.
>
> Ken:
> > > But it's tougher to actually roll up your
> > > sleeves and *do* something yourself.
> >
> Lurk:
> > I've created plenty of stuff in my life, I'm not just a talker. Most of
> > he time, I'm speaking from experience.
> >
> > >If you were a master, and your
> > > goal was uplifting your fellow man, how would you get the word out?
> >
> > In person, talks, books, tapes, internet...the usual sources. Why do you
> > ask?
>
>
> Because I believe it is more valuable to offer *alternatives* than to simply
> criticize. The methods you'd use are exactly what Eckankar is doing now.
The particular medium is not the problem as much as what's contained in
the messages. People write spiritual books all the time and don't feel
compelled to proclaim their consciouness to be the highest.
The only time I'm taking issue with the medium of delivery is when I
perceive some aspects of the in-person medium such as surrender and
trust not transferring productively to books and discourses.
> I
> guess my real question was, if you were a Master who's goal was uplifting your
> fellow being, what would you do differently than Eckankar is doing now.
I would be honest and straight forward with the students about
eckankar's past and stop trying to hide it.
I would abolish the authoritarian hierarchy which I believe reinforces
and perpetuates conflict within and among students. Not to mention this
context not exactly being the ideal context to instruct people to about
responsibility.
I would put people's interest over the organizations interest.
I could go on an on, as you know <g>, but in all fairness to eckankar, I
believe the task of creating a religion is probably impossible one to
for anyone to take on.
<snip>
> >
> > Well don't let me keep you from being inspired. I just find these when
> > these concepts are packaged and promoted it seems to cause people to
> > relate to them in a counter-productive ways.
>
> Hero worship can be destructive.
Yes..for both parties.
> But it seems we humans need an archetype to
> model ourselves after. Look at every successful religion that has ever
> existed.
>
> We're back on the razors edge again, balancing between the negative and the
> necessary.
>
> Lurk:
> > > > I would say being accountable is not very high on their agenda.
> > > >
> > > > And...beyond reproach is a dangerous place to be.
> > >
> Ken:
> > > It seems to me that the Eck Masters simply put the teaching out there.
> > > If it interests someone they are welcome to try it. If it doesn't help
> > > them in their life, they are free to leave. If you disagree, please
> > > tell my why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation.
> >
> Lurk:
> > Yes people are free to leave the path...what's that have to do with my
> > comment of being beyond reproach? Maybe the word danger prompted your
> > response? BTW, I believe being beyond reproach is dangerous position for
> > anyone to be in for themselves and for the people around them, not just
> > eck masters.
>
> What is "reproach" and what does it mean to be beyond it?
My intended meaning is being in a position beyond criticism and relying
solely on our own perceptions which of course can be filtered and
unreliable...even Harolds.
> I personally don't
> think that telling my teacher that he is doing it *all wrong* is constructive.
I hardly think he would be *all* wrong. Surely your teacher has some
redeeming qualities. <g>
> It seems patently *silly* on its face.
It's only silly if you have the belief that what he says is *all*
correct. I don't believe your teacher is *all* correct.
> If I believe my teacher is incorrect
> in his approach and he is not willing to change his methods to suit me <g>,
> then it's my responsibility to locate a teacher that I find more agreeable.
Keep in mind here we're talking about an author of books and discourses.
There's a big difference in taking issue with ideas he writes in the
books and rebelling against the instruction of a one-on-one teacher you
trust.
What you're in fact saying is one has to believe everything that is
written in the books or go read another book.
>
> If my teacher says that he is second on the spiritual hierarchy, above all
> except for God, and my experience leads me to believe this is not true, then I
> owe it to myself to find another teacher.
Hey, just curious....what experiences of yours leads you to believe that
Harold is second on the spiritual hierarchy.
>
> So who have *you* found, Lurk?
Richard Simmons. <ggg>
>
> > Good then you'll appreciate the two illustrations below:
> >
> > You too can make money selling real estate with my dynamic homestudy
> > course.
> >
> > You too can become God-realized if you practice the spiritual exercises
> > contained in the discourses.
> >
> > What's the difference?
>
>
> On at least one level, they are the same: Each statement seeks to satisfy a
> need in the reader. Now if you're measuring the integrity of the offer the
> *real* question is, "does it work?" Will it satisfy that need?"
How many people actually make money selling real estate after taking
their course?
And how many people actually become God-realized in eckankar according
to eckankar's definition after taking their discourses in their
lifetime?
>
> > >
> > > I have to admit that your consistently complaining attitude gets me
> > > down. Would you please post something positive here once in a while?
> >
> > That's like giving a junkie his fix when he asks for it. <gg>
>
>
> A "junkie" for the Divine? <rofl> Yeah, maybe I'd see it that way ... except
> I believe that the Divine is my natural state.
I would think your natural state is whatever you are at any given
time...which is divine. <g>
Even though I was half joking in the original comment, I think the
internal mechanisms that underlie a physical addiction are the same as
the ones that underlie an addiction to higher states or experience or
soul travel or whatever.
There's a certain euphoria from doing drugs or alcohol just as there is
from being addicted to positive felling or experiences.
I'm not directing this at you personally, Ken, it's just an interesting
point and pertains to the selling of consciousness we're talking about.
>
> > Okay. How about...love and accept ALL of yourself... even the dark side
> > that takes a back seat to the idealized good side (soul) we construct.
>
> Hey, I don't know about you, but I'm usually busy *de*constructing all the
> "stuff" I've put into place over the millennia <g>. Currently I'm into
> searching for that Heart of gold ... my True Self ... The Source of my Being.
Ken...this statement of yours seems to illustrate my point perfectly.
This is stuff I've been learning ....no need for me to deconstruct....I
don't have to do anything....I don't have to search for anything....just
quietly accept all that I am as it arises.
Sorry...got Ramana on the brain today.
>
> I Don't have the desire to continue construction on an artificial good side
> which will only have to be torn down later. Cripes, my ego is big enough
> <ggg>.
>
> > This love and acceptance will naturally be reflected outwardly to others
> > in an unconscious way and requires no name like coworker.
>
> Yes, It requires no name. At least until we try to communicate about It <g>.
Communicate it or sell it? <g>
The best way to communicate it is to be it.
Lurk
arel...@mindspring.com
bl...@sprint.ca wrote:
>
> arel...@mindspring.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > Okay. How about...love and accept ALL of yourself...even the dark side
> > that takes a back seat to the idealized good side (soul) we construct.
>
That occurs as a consequence of accepting stuff about ourselves and vice
versa, eh?
> For me, to accept
> all of life both the inner and outer, is easier said and done, unless
> you're assuming the outer does not matter as much.
Nah, I don't assume the outer does not matter.
>
> > This love and acceptance will naturally be reflected outwardly to others
> > in an unconscious way
>
> You mean like what you just wrote earlier in this same post?
Blam, what specifically are you referring to in the same post? I'm open
to feedback, but I got to know what the feedback is about.
>
> >and requires no name like coworker.
>
> A reminder doesn't hurt. Besides why 'Arelurker'?
Well...I use to lurk around on this newgroup, now I don't. I'm just a
regular guy though...and I wear sweatshirts and stuff.
Lurk
kens...@erols.com
arel...@mindspring.com wrote ...
> Ken S wrote:
> > It sounds to me that you don't believe states of higher consciousness
really
> > exist. If you *do* believe in alternate levels of consciousness, then how
> > would you propose to disseminate info about these realms without "setting
up
> > .. prize states" and creating an "accumulation mentality"?
>
> I'm not sure, I never really thought about starting a religion. Good
> question though.
>
> Maybe what Ramana Maharshi said is appropriate here:
> "Your duty is to be and not to be this or that."
Nice quote.
Just Be Me <g>.
Ken:
> > As far as internal conflict goes ... it is part and parcel of growth and
stems
> > from our attachment to old concepts of realty.
>
Lurk:
> Old concepts of reality? Or, attachment to the new idealized concepts of
> reality that are desired? Or both?
Good point, Lurk. Can we agree that pretty much all internal conflict comes
from concepts (both old and new) of reality that do not seem to agree with the
world we perceive?
I'd say that this conflict we experience from time to time is not necessarily
wasted energy. It's often a requirement for inner growth. When I choose to
face my viewpoints and examine my assumptions, then it seems that I am often
able to open myself up to a greater perspective somehow.
Ken:
> > My take on it is that this
> > internal conflict you experienced is only one step on the path and that
once
> > the dissonance is worked through it is not necessarily an obstacle to
further
> > inner growth.
>
Lurk:
> How is the dissonance worked through if the path continually points to
> achieving higher, higher, higher?
There's nothing inherently "wrong" with teaching achievement of higher /
greater states of consciousness. Maybe that dissonance you're speaking of is
just an indication that your assumptions and attitudes are not in harmony with
your perceptions?
Lets look at it this way: Not everything you perceive to be "untrue" causes
you to react with internal conflict, right? Well, what is it *within
yourself* that causes this reaction towards the Eckankar system of higher
initiations? Find the answer and you might have the key to a greater
understanding of the situation.
Lurk:
> > > I think the "manner" in which spiritual information is conveyed itself
> > > carries a certain message.
> >
Ken:
> > Yes, I agree.
> >
> > True confession: Some of the ways that Eckankar has been and continues to
be
> > presented creates obstacles for me that I have to work to overcome.
>
Lurk:
> Why do you feel you have to work to change you to adjust to eckankar,
> why not ask eckankar to adjust to your sense of truth?
I worded this poorly. I don't think the style of presentation of Eckankar has
"created" any obstacles for me.
I don't see the need to change myself to adjust to Eckankar, and I don't need
Eckankar to change to adjust to me. The change in myself that is required, is
to overcome the obstacles that I have found within myself. Do you understand
what I'm trying to say?
<snips>
Lurk:
> The particular medium is not the problem as much as what's contained in
> the messages. People write spiritual books all the time and don't feel
> compelled to proclaim their consciousness to be the highest.
>
> The only time I'm taking issue with the medium of delivery is when I
> perceive some aspects of the in-person medium such as surrender and
> trust not transferring productively to books and discourses.
Ever give any thought to the innate awareness of all existence? <g>.
This surrender and trust which is taught by Eckankar applies to more than just
the LEM. The less obvious message in the teachings is to trust Life Itself to
provide the experiences we need to unfold into a greater awareness.
Ken:
> > I
> > guess my real question was, if you were a Master who's goal was uplifting
your
> > fellow being, what would you do differently than Eckankar is doing now.
>
> I would be honest and straight forward with the students about
> eckankar's past and stop trying to hide it.
>
> I would abolish the authoritarian hierarchy which I believe reinforces
> and perpetuates conflict within and among students. Not to mention this
> context not exactly being the ideal context to instruct people to about
> responsibility.
But of course you are assuming that the LEM *isn't* representative of the
"highest" consciousness on earth. And you're assuming that individuals don't
receive some kind of specific benefit from this method of presentation.
>
> I would put people's interest over the organizations interest.
>
I agree that this is very important.
<lots o'snips>
> > If I believe my teacher is incorrect
> > in his approach and he is not willing to change his methods to suit me
<g>,
> > then it's my responsibility to locate a teacher that I find more
agreeable.
>
> Keep in mind here we're talking about an author of books and discourses.
> There's a big difference in taking issue with ideas he writes in the
> books and rebelling against the instruction of a one-on-one teacher you
> trust.
>
> What you're in fact saying is one has to believe everything that is
> written in the books or go read another book.
Suspension of disbelief? Maybe it *is* necessary to put the critical mind on
hold for a period in order to achieve the higher states of consciousness. It
may be that trust and surrender are required for the conscious awareness of
inner experiences.
> > If my teacher says that he is second on the spiritual hierarchy, above all
> > except for God, and my experience leads me to believe this is not true,
then I
> > owe it to myself to find another teacher.
>
> Hey, just curious....what experiences of yours leads you to believe that
> Harold is second on the spiritual hierarchy.
I don't have *any* experience regarding this, but I have an open mind. See
trust and surrender above <g>.
> > A "junkie" for the Divine? <rofl> Yeah, maybe I'd see it that way ...
except
> > I believe that the Divine is my natural state.
>
> I would think your natural state is whatever you are at any given
> time...which is divine. <g>
>
> Even though I was half joking in the original comment, I think the
> internal mechanisms that underlie a physical addiction are the same as
> the ones that underlie an addiction to higher states or experience or
> soul travel or whatever.
>
> There's a certain euphoria from doing drugs or alcohol just as there is
> from being addicted to positive felling or experiences.
>
> I'm not directing this at you personally, Ken, it's just an interesting
> point and pertains to the selling of consciousness we're talking about.
Harold has mentioned that the alcoholic and the addict are seeking God in
their search for relief from the pain of this world. Maybe something like
this is innate in us humans. Perhpas we need a connection to an altered
state, and if we can't get it from our religion or other socially acceptable
means, we will try to find it where we can.
Lurk:
> > > This love and acceptance will naturally be reflected outwardly to others
> > > in an unconscious way and requires no name like coworker.
> >
Ken:
> > Yes, It requires no name. At least until we try to communicate about It
<g>.
>
Lurk:
> Communicate it or sell it? <g>
>
> The best way to communicate it is to be it.
Hey, I'll buy that <g>.
Ken