"Rama's Mission"

[KaraHolly]

"Paul Twitchell brought the teachings of ECK out again in 1965, but they come
from a source that predates modern history. In fact, the teachings of ECK
predate even the Aryan civilization, which began shortly after Atlantis went
into the ocean."

"The Living ECK Master at that time was a man named Rama, who came from the
dark forests of Germany and traveled to Tibet. On his way there, he left the
message of ECK--the teaching of the Sound and Light of God and how to reach the
Kingdom of Heaven in this lifetime--with the primitive people of northern
Europe."

"Even today, there is a faint remembrance of HU, the secret name of God that he
left with the people. This word can be chanted or sung quietly to yourself
when you are in trouble or when you need consolation in time of grief. It
gives strength, it gives health, it opens you as a channel for the greater
healing of Divine Spirit."

"When Rama spoke of HU, he was referring to the divine Light and Sound. The
Sound of God, the Audible Life Stream, is the purifying element which uplifts
Soul, so that one day It may return home to God, Its creator."

"The word HU was later used among the Druids, but they eventually lost the
information about its true meaning. All that remained of Rama's teachings was
a dim memory of the Light, and the brightest light they were aware of was the
sun. This is why historians today claim the Druids worshiped the Sun God HU."

"Rama brought the message of God, the Divine Being of which we can have
realization. When it comes, it's called God-Realization, where we know the
meaning and purpose of life and how to live it. We learn the laws of Spirit.
We learn how to avert illness instead of being at the mercy of destiny and
feeling that somehow life has dealt us a bad hand."

"Rama then went on to Tibet, there to be taken out of the body to the Temple of
Golden Wisdom in the spiritual city of Agam Des, where sections of the sacred
writings of ECK are stored. From there he carried the message of ECK to Khara
Khota, which was the capital city of the ancient empire of Uighur. But the
priestcraft were more interested in maintaining their control over the
spiritual welfare of man, so it wasn't long before he was driven out of that
country, which today lies buried beneath the sands of the Gobi desert."

"Rama went back to Tibet, where he founded the Katsupari Monastery. Then he
traveled down through Persia, which today is Iran, and there he established
what was later to become the Magi Order. Once again he left the seeds of ECK
among his followers, some of whom were the ancestors of Zoroaster. Eventually
there were even offshoots of the Magi. The Magi later traveled westward at the
beckoning of the star which announced the birth of Jesus, who came from another
line of masters. Christ lived at a time when Zadok, the Living ECK Master, was
active in Palestine. They met, but their missions were different."

"Rama continued his journey and went to India. Here he left the teachings,
again in seed form, from which evolved the Hindu religion and its many
offshoots."

From "How To Find God" pg 313, by Harold Klemp,
Copyright (c) 1988 ECKANKAR. All rights reserved.

For information about Eckankar:
http://www.eckankar.org
or Phone 1(800) LOVE GOD

[Ram3Ram]

Karaholly writes re: Twitchell's "Rama's Mission":

>"Paul Twitchell brought the teachings of ECK out again in 1965, but they come
>from a source that predates modern history. In fact, the teachings of ECK
>predate even the Aryan civilization, which began shortly after Atlantis went
>into the ocean."

I enjoy these stories so much. But I still blush to think back to when I was a
teenager, and read them as gospel fact.

>
>"The Living ECK Master at that time was a man named Rama, who came from the
>dark forests of Germany and traveled to Tibet. On his way there, he left the
>message of ECK--the teaching of the Sound and Light of God and how to reach
>the
>Kingdom of Heaven in this lifetime--with the primitive people of northern
>Europe."

"Rama" . . . from Germany??? That's a good German name, Rama.

>"Even today, there is a faint remembrance of HU, the secret name of God that
>he
>left with the people.

Really? Can someone cite me one historical reference to HU in european
culture, past or present?

>
>"The word HU was later used among the Druids, but they eventually lost the
>information about its true meaning. All that remained of Rama's teachings
>was
>a dim memory of the Light, and the brightest light they were aware of was the
>sun. This is why historians today claim the Druids worshiped the Sun God HU."

Someone find me one historian that ever made this claim.

>
>We learn how to avert illness instead of being at the mercy of destiny and
>feeling that somehow life has dealt us a bad hand."

If there are any Eckists out there who know the secret of "averting illness,"
no doubt they're all trillionaires by now. Immortal ones at that.

>
>"Rama then went on to Tibet, there to be taken out of the body to the Temple
>of
>Golden Wisdom in the spiritual city of Agam Des, where sections of the sacred
>writings of ECK are stored. From there he carried the message of ECK to
>Khara
>Khota, which was the capital city of the ancient empire of Uighur. But the
>priestcraft were more interested in maintaining their control over the
>spiritual welfare of man, so it wasn't long before he was driven out of that
>country, which today lies buried beneath the sands of the Gobi desert."

A shred of evidence, anyone?

>
>"Rama went back to Tibet, where he founded the Katsupari Monastery.

A Tibetan Buddhist monastery? Whatever . . . but is there any historical
reference to a Katsupari monastery anywhere?

Then he
>traveled down through Persia, which today is Iran,

Yes Paul, that at least is correct.

Christ lived at a time when Zadok, the Living ECK Master,
>was
>active in Palestine. They met, but their missions were different."

I wonder what Zadok's mission was? Keep a low profile? If so, his mission was
abundantly successful, for no one has ever heard of him.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Anyone out there find references to a Zadok anywhere in
history?

>
>"Rama continued his journey and went to India. Here he left the teachings,
>again in seed form, from which evolved the Hindu religion and its many
>offshoots."
>

This is the capper, the cherry-on-top, the piece de resistance. Maybe the
greatest historical non-sequiteur in the Twitchillean corpus.

"Rama" meets Jesus, and THEN goes to India and starts Hinduism??? Gee, I
thought Hinduism had been around for at least a few thousand years before
Jesus.

Even if Twitchell's tenuous claim that all this "comes from a source that
predates history" could be believed--despite offering zero evidence to back
anything up--can anyone accept that Christianity existed before Hinduism?

Joe O

[Alana Keres]

>"Rama went back to Tibet, where he founded the Katsupari Monastery. Then he
>traveled down through Persia, which today is Iran, and there he established
>what was later to become the Magi Order.

Yep, I know at least one (non-ECK) cultural historian who has
mapped this diffusion, but I haven't heard of it associated with a
particular individual. Could it be that 'Rama' was an honorific -- in
much the same way that Nagarjuna or Quetzalcoatl was the name of several
influential persons?

[snip]

>
>"Rama continued his journey and went to India. Here he left the teachings,
>again in seed form, from which evolved the Hindu religion and its many
>offshoots."

This part doesn't really work out temporally/historically, since
the Vedas and Upanishads predate the Ramayana (song of Rama) by centuries.
But if Rama was in Uighur in 2,000 B.C., maybe his story (if not his person)
went to India, and inspired some other Rama to those adventures.

Do you know this poem?

"I burnt my body black
to make me ink.
Made myself a pen
of a thin, white bone.
And wrote Rama's name
so many times
I could not think
Then brought my mindless message
To His throne."

Kabir (translator, Bob Hays)

See you soon,

M.

[Alana Keres]

Oh this is toooooo weird.

I wrote another three paragraphs to the preceding post, addressing some
aspects of the Rama-in-Uighur factor... and it just *disappeared* from
the post.

Hey! (you know who you are....) what's THAT about???

Mystifuddled

[Jan4litsnd]

Dear Joe,

Just a few little corrections needed to your post as follows:

Joe:

>Karaholly writes re: Twitchell's "Rama's Mission":

Jan:
Nope. Harold Klemp was the author. See the second to last paragraph giving
him credit: From "How To Find God" pg 313, by Harold Klemp

Joe, quotes the post:

>> Christ lived at a time when Zadok, the Living ECK Master,
>>was
>>active in Palestine. They met, but their missions were different."

...then Joe responds:

>I wonder what Zadok's mission was? Keep a low profile? If so, his mission
was
abundantly successful, for no one has ever heard of him.

>But perhaps I'm wrong. Anyone out there find references to a Zadok anywhere
in
history?

Joe quotes the post:

>>"Rama continued his journey and went to India. Here he left the teachings,
>>again in seed form, from which evolved the Hindu religion and its many
>>offshoots."

Joe:

>This is the capper, the cherry-on-top, the piece de resistance. Maybe the
greatest historical non-sequiteur in the Twitchillean corpus.

>"Rama" meets Jesus, and THEN goes to India and starts Hinduism??? Gee, I
thought Hinduism had been around for at least a few thousand years before
Jesus.

>Even if Twitchell's tenuous claim that all this "comes from a source that
predates history" could be believed--despite offering zero evidence to back
anything up--can anyone accept that Christianity existed before Hinduism?

JAN:

Reading 101--In one paragraph, Joe, in your own response, you talk about the
quote saying ZADOK met Jesus. But in another instant you imagine that somewhere
in this post RAMA was the one who was said to have met Jesus. Read it again.

I'll let all the other stuff sliddddeeee. You are entitled to your own
opinions, that's why you are not an Eckist, because you don't believe in it.
See?

Jan

[Kate McLaughlin]

> Joe, quotes the post:
> >> Christ lived at a time when Zadok, the Living ECK Master,
> >>was
> >>active in Palestine. They met, but their missions were different."
>
> ...then Joe responds:
> >I wonder what Zadok's mission was? Keep a low profile? If so, his mission
> was
> abundantly successful, for no one has ever heard of him.
>
> >But perhaps I'm wrong. Anyone out there find references to a Zadok anywhere
> in
> history?

The historical Zadok lived in the time of King Solomon (around 970BC),
and was the founder of a line of high priests. According to the Britan-
nica, a "cohen" or "kohen," which in Hebrew means "priest,"

is a descendant of Zadok, founder of the priesthood of Jerusalem
when the First Temple was built by Solomon in the 10th century BC)
and through Zadok related to Aaron, the first Jewish priest, ap-
pointed to that office by his younger brother, Moses. Though
laymen such as Gideon, David, and Solomon offered sacrifice as
God commanded, the priesthood was hereditary in biblical times,
as it is today, transmitted exclusively to male descendants of
Aaron of the tribe of Levi.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed.
Volume 3, p. 434, col. 3, "cohen"
Kate

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Ram3Ram]

Jan writes:

>Dear Joe,
>
>Just a few little corrections needed to your post as follows:
>
>Joe:
>>Karaholly writes re: Twitchell's "Rama's Mission":
>
>Jan:
>Nope. Harold Klemp was the author. See the second to last paragraph giving
>him credit: From "How To Find God" pg 313, by Harold Klemp

Yes, you're right there, though of course I was aware Twitchell was the author,
not Karaholly. I caught the clumsiness of my citation too late, after it was
posted.

>
>Joe, quotes the post:
>>> Christ lived at a time when Zadok, the Living ECK Master,
>>>was
>>>active in Palestine. They met, but their missions were different."
>
>...then Joe responds:
>>I wonder what Zadok's mission was? Keep a low profile? If so, his mission
>was
>abundantly successful, for no one has ever heard of him.
>
>>But perhaps I'm wrong. Anyone out there find references to a Zadok anywhere
>in
>history?

Yes! See the next message from Kate. 970 b.c. Jan. Zadok makes R. Tarzs look
like a kid.

Of course eck masters can live as long as they like in the physical. I used to
believe that along with all the rest.

>
>Joe quotes the post:
>>>"Rama continued his journey and went to India. Here he left the teachings,
>>>again in seed form, from which evolved the Hindu religion and its many
>>>offshoots."
>
>Joe:
>>This is the capper, the cherry-on-top, the piece de resistance. Maybe the
>greatest historical non-sequiteur in the Twitchillean corpus.
>
>>"Rama" meets Jesus, and THEN goes to India and starts Hinduism??? Gee, I
>thought Hinduism had been around for at least a few thousand years before
>Jesus.
>
>>Even if Twitchell's tenuous claim that all this "comes from a source that
>predates history" could be believed--despite offering zero evidence to back
>anything up--can anyone accept that Christianity existed before Hinduism?
>
>JAN:
>
>Reading 101--In one paragraph, Joe, in your own response, you talk about the
>quote saying ZADOK met Jesus. But in another instant you imagine that
>somewhere
>in this post RAMA was the one who was said to have met Jesus. Read it again.
>

Yes, I read it again, and again, and I see that you are quite right. I
confused eck master Zadok with eck master Rama. Very sloppy. No wonder I
changed my major from history to english.

Anyway, if the Encyclopaedia Britannica is correct, we have located Zadok.
Instead of a couple of thousand years there is only a mere 970 + year
discrepancy between the time of Jesus and the "eck master" Zadok.
.

>I'll let all the other stuff sliddddeeee.

What other stuff? The references I asked for? Yes, you'd best let it
slidddeeee and continue focusing on something other than the essential point:
Paul concocted this amazing little "history" without a shred of historical
evidence to back it up.

You are entitled to your own
>opinions, that's why you are not an Eckist, because you don't believe in it.
>
>See?
>

(Gee, I'm no longer an eckist? What happened to my 2nd initiation? Has it
reached its expiration date?)

But I'm trying . . . let's see. If I'm entitled to my own opinions, then . .
.THAT'S why I'm not an eckist? Because having your own opinions is
incompatible with being an eckist?

Because I don't believe in "it"?

Because I don't believe in what, specifically? "Rama's mission"? Frankly, no,
unless someone can provide a few references to back up this half-baked fable.

Because I don't believe in eckankar, the organization? Yes, I do!
I believe such an organization DOES EXIST!

Because I don't believe in the Eck, or Spirit? Again--credo! By any one of its
thousand names! (But I no longer believe, as I did so long ago, that Twitchell
or any of his spawn have some kind of ultimate grasp or exclusive monopoly on
Spirit.)

Joe O

[Jan4litsnd]

JOE:
>Jan writes:

>>Jan:
>>Nope. Harold Klemp was the author. See the second to last paragraph giving
>>him credit: From "How To Find God" pg 313, by Harold Klemp

>Yes, you're right there, though of course I was aware Twitchell was the
author,
not Karaholly. I caught the clumsiness of my citation too late, after it was
posted.

JAN:

The quote still was not written by PAUL TWITCHELL. It was written by HAROLD
KLEMP, the current Living ECK Master.

Jan

[Ram3Ram]

>JAN:
>
>The quote still was not written by PAUL TWITCHELL. It was written by HAROLD
>KLEMP, the current Living ECK Master.
>
>
>
>Jan
>

Joe replies:

Nevertheless, this "history" is a construct of Twitchell's. Eck histories,
including Zadok, the katsupari monastery, Rama, and other characters. were all
featured by Twitchell in the Shariyat, Illuminated Way Letters, and also I
think Letters to Gail.

The story, as it appeared, was so familiar to me from the 70's that I simply
took it as Twitchell's, not Klemp's. I understand that not so many Twitchell
books are now published by IWP, and that Klemp is retelling the story as
Twitchell wrote it elsewhere. Ironic?

I no longer have an "eck library," so I'll have to depend on you other posters
to either prove or disprove my contention.
>

Joe

[Jan4litsnd]

JOE:

>Nevertheless, this "history" is a construct of Twitchell's. Eck histories,
including Zadok, the katsupari monastery, Rama, and other characters. were all
featured by Twitchell in the Shariyat, Illuminated Way Letters, and also I
think Letters to Gail.

JAN:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as we all are.

I just happen to believe more in the words about history spoken by the Living
ECK Master than what I might read in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. And that's my
opinion.

Jan

[Nathan Zafran]

jan4l...@aol.com (Jan4litsnd) wrote:

>I just happen to believe more in the words about history spoken by the Living
>ECK Master than what I might read in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. And that's my
>opinion.

>Jan

And mine too.,

Nathan

[SAMOREZ]

In article <19980128160...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, jan4l...@aol.com
(Jan4litsnd) writes:

>I just happen to believe more in the words about history spoken by the
>Living ECK Master than what I might read in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. And
>that's my opinion.

No, Jan, that's your religious addiction. Remember the very first symptom?

THE SYMPTOMS OF RELIGIOUS ADDICTION

1. Inability to think, doubt, or question information or authority.

sam

Time makes more converts than reason ---- Thomas Paine

[Rick Chadwick]

Glen, my friend,

I've missed you. :-)

--
Sing Hu to open your heart
With love from Rick

GLEN STEVENS wrote in message ...
>In article <19980129053...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,

>sam...@aol.com (SAMOREZ) wrote:
>> No, Jan, that's your religious addiction. Remember the very first
symptom?
>>
>> THE SYMPTOMS OF RELIGIOUS ADDICTION
>>
>> 1. Inability to think, doubt, or question information or authority.
>>
>

>Sheesh!
>
>Are you still trotting this thing out:)
>
>Hi Sam
>Glen
>

[GLEN STEVENS]

In article <19980129053...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
sam...@aol.com (SAMOREZ) wrote:

> In article <19980128160...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, jan4l...@aol.com
> (Jan4litsnd) writes:
>
> >I just happen to believe more in the words about history spoken by the
> >Living ECK Master than what I might read in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. And
> >that's my opinion.
>

[SAMOREZ]

In article <gft-290198...@i3-85.islandnet.com>, g...@pacificcoast.net
(GLEN STEVENS) writes:

>> THE SYMPTOMS OF RELIGIOUS ADDICTION
>
> 1. Inability to think, doubt, or
>question information or authority.
>

Sheesh! Ka-bob!

>Are you still trotting this thing out:)

Hell yeah! It's not as cute or passive/aggressive as your smiley face, but what
the heck...

Sam

[sp...@gatezone.com]

In article <gft-290198...@i3-85.islandnet.com>,
g...@pacificcoast.net (GLEN STEVENS) wrote:

Sam chanted:

> > THE SYMPTOMS OF RELIGIOUS ADDICTION
> >
> > 1. Inability to think, doubt, or question information or authority.
> >

Glen's responsive reading went:

> Sheesh!

>
> Are you still trotting this thing out:)

That list is probably Sam's best reminder. So much better than all the
usual "Paul did this, Paul did that." stuff.

Nice to C U drop 'down' once in awhile, Glen.

csk

[Alana Keres]

First of all, cordial greetings to "karaholly", and many thanks for the
interesting quote.

I'm going to snip along here... In a related post "Joe" opined that:

>Nevertheless, this "history" is a construct of Twitchell's. Eck
>histories, including Zadok, the katsupari monastery, Rama, and other
>characters. were all featured by Twitchell in the Shariyat, Illuminated
>Way Letters, and also I think Letters to Gail.

I can understand his confusion. When I first started getting wind
of the *extensive* cultural diffusion of certain spiritual
practices/treasures, it was really hard to fathom. After all, they (well,
"we") had no "media", no microwaves, no Hubbles glaring down from beyond
the ionosphere. Just those squishy little pineals shining through the
dense fog of the senses.

Now to set the stage: Last week, just before "Rama's mission" was
posted, I placed on order a specific tantra, with an eye to working
through it with a friend who is due to translate rather sooner than later.
Came home from the library and flipped on the TV to a special about the
"Tokharian" civilization, and an ancient tokharian city that had just
been unearthed in middle of the Gobi desert.

Now let's look at what "karaholly" quotes:

>
>"The Living ECK Master at that time was a man named Rama, who came from the
>dark forests of Germany and traveled to Tibet. On his way there, he left the
>message of ECK--the teaching of the Sound and Light of God and how to reach the
>Kingdom of Heaven in this lifetime--with the primitive people of northern
>Europe."

(snip some advertisements for the HU)

>"Rama then went on to Tibet, there to be taken out of the body to the Temple of
>Golden Wisdom in the spiritual city of Agam Des, where sections of the sacred
>writings of ECK are stored. From there he carried the message of ECK to Khara
>Khota, which was the capital city of the ancient empire of Uighur. But the
>priestcraft were more interested in maintaining their control over the
>spiritual welfare of man, so it wasn't long before he was driven out of that
>country, which today lies buried beneath the sands of the Gobi desert."

Now according to the good folk at Nova (the program I was
watching), the Tokharians were Indo-Europeans, specifically linked to
the Persians who would a couple of centuries later whup up on Northern
India -- after having wiped their uhhh noses on Greece. Greco/persians
who were plopped down in the middle of the Gobi. In the first centuries
C.E. Hmmm.

At the time that Paulji was writing, there was NO western
scholarship on this connection. None, folks. I've gone back through
Burkert, Snellgrove, Waddell, Turley, looking and looking. Nada before
1980. And precious little of that till 1989.

And it gets better: As I opened this tantra (based on
Vajrabhairava, the Destroyer of Death) lo, I read that this *Tibetan*
tantra is based on a challenge to "Yama" which is taaaadaaa, a PERSIAN
deity. And why was this tantra 'invented' (okay, "found" for us True
Believers)? To get rid of --by magical means-- those rascally ol'
Tokharians (i.e. Gobi-loving Persians).

>"Rama went back to Tibet, where he founded the Katsupari Monastery.

Now the link between the Tibetans and the (northbound) Persians
throws a very interesting light on Rama's presence in Tibet. Let's
hypothesize that he just left the Tokharians, who have basically said:
'Sound Current? We don't need to see no steeenking Sound Current.' The
Tokharians have blown him off, rooted as they are in the invincible might
of the Persian Lion. Having spent some time in the
area and seen those scrappy little Khirgizi thundering all over the
steppe, he realizes that they are --like the mexica in another part of the
world-- a people on the bloody way UP. He knows that after they've
transmogrifed into the Golden Horde, and finish their little Tokharian
snack, they will be looking for more substantial fare. How about some
nice Amdo burgers?

So. The master shows up in Tibet and sets up a monastery, knowing
(as Masters are wont to) that civilizations without the Sound Current
don't tend to weather very well. And indeed after a little training,
Tibet did okay against the 'Hun' (read: Han) for the first thousand years
or so.... (and that invasion caused a very rapid growth of Buddhism in
Tibet as it became clear that Ghengis Khan couldn't be beaten, but he
could be inititated.)

(...my sense is that Rama would have set up the "whatever"
monastery in order to inseminate the particular flavor of the Current as
it was 'dissonated' in the karmic clash going on a few hundred miles to
the north east. Little hair of the dog, you know... )

As for its name, I am just starting to get to know a few
tibetans well enough to ask around, but do you have any idea how *weird*
that language is? Katsupari could be dKa.tshal or tKat.shKeh.syid... I
cringe to think of my current texanization of placenames that I can *hear*
in my mind's ear, but really CANnot pronounce.

> Then he
>traveled down through Persia, which today is Iran, and there he established

>what was later to become the Magi Order. Once again he left the seeds of ECK
>among his followers, some of whom were the ancestors of Zoroaster. Eventually
>there were even offshoots of the Magi. The Magi later traveled westward at the
>beckoning of the star which announced the birth of Jesus, who came from another

>line of masters. Christ lived at a time when Zadok, the Living ECK Master, was

>active in Palestine. They met, but their missions were different."
>

>"Rama continued his journey and went to India. Here he left the teachings,
>again in seed form, from which evolved the Hindu religion and its many
>offshoots."

As I read this, I was just shaking my head.... the dates are all, are
all... uhmmm, when did I forget that old beatlemania trick: read the
bloke *backwards*: Vedas to Ahura-Mazda to Tibet to the Gobi -- I don't
know about the passage to Germany... though there is the obvious later
connection between zarathustra and nietzsche. Anyway, read backwards, the
journey of Rama does fit very nicely into what an adept might
have accomplished in the religious histories I am looking at
these days.

And then there is just the sheer serendipity of it...

Sliart Yppah,

Mystime

[floyd_pickett]

In article <19980201012...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ram...@aol.com
says...

>
>Alana Keres writes:
>
>>
>>First of all, cordial greetings to "karaholly", and many thanks for the
>>interesting quote.
>>
>>I'm going to snip along here... In a related post "Joe" opined that:
>>
>>>Nevertheless, this "history" is a construct of Twitchell's. Eck
>>>histories, including Zadok, the katsupari monastery, Rama, and other
>>>characters. were all featured by Twitchell in the Shariyat, Illuminated
>>>Way Letters, and also I think Letters to Gail.
>>
>> I can understand his confusion. When I first started getting wind
>>of the *extensive* cultural diffusion of certain spiritual
>>practices/treasures, it was really hard to fathom. After all, they (well,
>>"we") had no "media", no microwaves, no Hubbles glaring down from beyond
>>the ionosphere. Just those squishy little pineals shining through the
>>dense fog of the senses.
>

>JOE WRITES:
>
>Actually, I never admitted to any confusion. My point was that Paul's (or
>Harold's if you like) "eck history" makes incredible claims that radically
>contradict all historical scholarship.
>
>I asked the readers of this newsgroup if they could back up any of the claims
>made in "Rama's Mission." So far no one has, although I did receive a
>reference to Zadok, whom Twitchell maintained was a contemporary of Jesus.
>Unfortunately, this reference (Encyclopaedia Britannica) puts Zadok's existence
>on this planet at 970 B.C.

Dear Joe,

"The legitimacy of the priesthood...was supposed to descend lineally from Aaron
through the Tribe of Levi. Thus, throughout the Old Testament, the priesthood is
the unique preserve of the Levites. The Levite high priests who attend David and
Solomon are referred to as 'Zadok'- though it is not clear whether this is a
personal name or an hereditary title."
- Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy

If you seek Zadok, you will find him among the Essenes:

3. Ancient Traditions of the Messiah
The Ancient of Days (detail) William Blake, 1794. Ancient Traditions of the
Messiah. The Annointed One. "Remarkably and characteristically, the term..
http://marlowe.wimsey.com/~rshand/reflections/messiah/messiah.html - size 35K

1. The Sons of Zadok and The Christian Gnosis
The Sons of Zadok and The Christian Gnosis. By Rev. John Cole E.G.A. .The
Galilean Master, as he is presented to us in the New Testament, appears in
many..http://www.dynasty.net/users/merlin/zadok.htm - size 18K - 21-Jul-97 -
English

2. Jesus - The Early Days
The Holy Family Giuseppe Maria Crespi, c.1735. Click here for an explanation of
the color-coding used in the sayings of Jesus. Jesus - The Early Days.
A...http://marlowe.wimsey.com/~rshand/reflections/messiah/early.html - size 89K
-19-Aug-97 - English - Translate

6. The Teacher of Righteousness & Dead Sea Scrolls
The Teacher of Righteousness and the Dead Sea Scrolls by Bette Stockbauer. "Some
day the gold and the silver threads of the Gospel story will be...
http://inetport.com/~one/bsteachr.html - size 73K - 14-Sep-97 - English

7. The Apocalyptic Tradition
Please click here FIRST to INSTANTLY Renew the Living World. Return to Genesis
of Eden? The Apocalyptic Tradition. Fig 6.1: From the Dead Sea...
http://matu1.math.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/book/yeshua/apoc.html - size
164K- 9-Oct-97 - English - Translate

In the New Testament we have only one messiah expected: the descendant of David.
In the Scrolls at Qumran, however, we find the expectation of two Messiah's; one
Davidic and the other Aaronic. In other words, one a king and the other a
priest.

In the Manual of Discipline we find the expression "the messiahs of Aaron and
Israel" used, i.e., a Messianic Pair. Greater status, in fact, at Qumran was
given to the priestly Messiah -- who was termed the 'Anointed One'.

Such a preference is not surprising. The Jewish focus has always been on the
priesthood. Christians, on the other hand, from the beginning, have concentrated
on the royal kingship. The holiest lineage in Jewish theology in this regard is
descendancy in the priesthood of 'Zadok', a term used liberally by the
sectarians of Qumran. For them, Zadok defined the Hebrew priesthood, and with
it, the core of messianic expectation.

4. Christianity and Qumran; The Dead Sea Scrolls & Jesus Christ CHRISTIANITY AND
QUMRAN. The Relationship Between The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity. Some see
Christianity borrowing from concepts accepted by
http://users.deltanet.com/~goodnews/christandqumran.htm - size 44K - 4-Apr-97 -

Now it can be said that the name Zadoch bears little relationship to the name
Jeschu ben Pandira. However, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls,
Pandira was not only the exoteric but also the only esoteric name handed down in
writing for the name of this Bodhisattva. Even Dr. Steiner used this name.
However, since the discovery of the scrolls, we now know that the T of R was
called, MOREH TZEDEK. The term Zadoch as used by Sister Emmerich refers of
course to the generic names given over the generations to High Priests of the
Temple descended from King David's original High Priest, Zadok. The term Tzedek,
as in Melchizedek, refers to the Hebrew name of the planetary spirit of Jupiter.

That Moreh Tzedek was a High Priest incarnated in the Zakokite line of Temple
priests, seem reasonable. That Sister Emmerich connects "Zadoch" to the founding
of an Essene sect and that he lived about 100 years before Christ, is too
coincidental to dismiss as a misnomer.
There are more than one Bodhisattva's that incarnate into the stream of the
spiritual guidance of mankind. However, Moreh Tzedek is a very special one in
the generational line of the future Maitreya Buddha, which Dr. Steiner said will
incarnate again about the beginning of the 20th. Century.

THE IDENTITY OF THE TEACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. Qumran. The discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls at Qumran is the archaeological event of the millennium and...
http://www.vermontel.com/~vtsophia/TOFR.htm - size 44K - 6-May-97 - English -

rfp

[Ram3Ram]

Alana Keres writes:

>
>First of all, cordial greetings to "karaholly", and many thanks for the
>interesting quote.
>
>I'm going to snip along here... In a related post "Joe" opined that:
>
>>Nevertheless, this "history" is a construct of Twitchell's. Eck
>>histories, including Zadok, the katsupari monastery, Rama, and other
>>characters. were all featured by Twitchell in the Shariyat, Illuminated
>>Way Letters, and also I think Letters to Gail.
>
> I can understand his confusion. When I first started getting wind
>of the *extensive* cultural diffusion of certain spiritual
>practices/treasures, it was really hard to fathom. After all, they (well,
>"we") had no "media", no microwaves, no Hubbles glaring down from beyond
>the ionosphere. Just those squishy little pineals shining through the
>dense fog of the senses.

JOE WRITES:

Actually, I never admitted to any confusion. My point was that Paul's (or
Harold's if you like) "eck history" makes incredible claims that radically
contradict all historical scholarship.

I asked the readers of this newsgroup if they could back up any of the claims
made in "Rama's Mission." So far no one has, although I did receive a
reference to Zadok, whom Twitchell maintained was a contemporary of Jesus.
Unfortunately, this reference (Encyclopaedia Britannica) puts Zadok's existence
on this planet at 970 B.C.

JOE WRITES:

Paul wrote of Khara Kota, in Uighur, as the place in question. Didn't you post
earlier that Uighur existed in 2000 B.C.?

As for the point about a connection between Greece and the East, I understand
there is some validity to this. Evidence suggests a give and take between
these two cultures, including religion. For example, images of the Buddha are,
some say, actually of Greek and not Eastern origin. But no one maintains that
the Buddha was born in Greece and travelled to India. Likewise, no evidence
exists that any Eastern (or Middle Eastern) religion originated in Europe.

A. KERES WRITES:

(BIG SNIP)
>
> > Then he [Rama]

>>traveled down through Persia, which today is Iran, and there he established
>>what was later to become the Magi Order. Once again he left the seeds of
>ECK
>>among his followers, some of whom were the ancestors of Zoroaster.
>Eventually
>>there were even offshoots of the Magi. The Magi later traveled westward at
>the
>>beckoning of the star which announced the birth of Jesus, who came from
>another
>>line of masters. Christ lived at a time when Zadok, the Living ECK Master,
>was
>>active in Palestine. They met, but their missions were different."
>>
>>"Rama continued his journey and went to India. Here he left the teachings,
>>again in seed form, from which evolved the Hindu religion and its many
>>offshoots."
>
> As I read this, I was just shaking my head.... the dates are all, are
>all... uhmmm, when did I forget that old beatlemania trick: read the
>bloke *backwards*: Vedas to Ahura-Mazda to Tibet to the Gobi -- I don't
>know about the passage to Germany... though there is the obvious later
>connection between zarathustra and nietzsche. Anyway, read backwards, the
>journey of Rama does fit very nicely into what an adept might
>have accomplished in the religious histories I am looking at
>these days.

JOE WRITES:

I think there is a simpler explanation for "Rama's Mission."

Paul wanted eckankar to be something unique, apart, and most of all, above all
other spiritual teachings, while yet encompassing most of these teachings. To
do this, he tried to create the perception that eckankar didn't have its source
in the East, despite the fact that so much of eck teachings, concepts and
principles are Eastern, i.e., Sufism, Shabd yoga, and Hinduism in particular.

Paul had another reason for doing this. He wanted to distance himself from the
(Eastern) teachers and masters he studied with prior to founding eckankar. So
Swami Premananda and Kirpal Singh, whose names appeared in early eck
literature, were dropped in place of a number of "eck masters." These eck
masters all have one thing in common, aside from their complete absence from
history: they also have no cultural ties to any Eastern religion (judging from
their quotes in eck literature). Even Sudar Singh (Paul's creative code for
Shabd master Jaimal Singh and others) dropped by the wayside, as he was still a
little too Eastern.

Thus: "Rama" came from Germany. And thus, "Rama's Mission" is less a story of
cultural diffusion than a tale of cultural imperialism. What Paul is
maintaining is that all Eastern religion had its source in Europe. This is
like a someone in China maintaining that Moses came from Peking. What hubris!

Still, I could be wrong. But I'd expect that Paul, as the mahanta, the living
eck master, having total stacks access to the akashic records, would provide
information that at least isn't wildly out of historical synch.

Joe O
Joe O

[Alana Keres]

Dear Joe,

Before I attempt to frame a reply to your reply, I have one
question: Do you think/believe/perceive/wonderif beings *like* the Vairagi
exist?

Thanks,

Mysti (re-nee 7/6/97 as Alana)

[KMerrymoon]

Alana's posting was fascinating. The studied historian, I am not. But since Joe
mentioned Katsupari Monastaery, looking for some evidence, I thought others
might find interesting a book I ran across called, "Jadoo" by John Keel. At
least I think that's the author's name.

This author was a writer, similar to Brad Steiger, who researched stories of
the occult. In one particular passage he writes about his search for the Yeti
in Northern Tibet. He writes about climbing through the forests there,
following rumors of a Yeti spotting many miles to the North, if I remember
correctly.

Anyway, along the way, far from having met anyone else for a few days, he comes
upon a monastery called "Kat-su-pari." There, he said, that the monks greeted
him, saying that they had been waiting for him.

He never did spot the Yeti, by the way, even though he followed a trail of
rumors that reported the Yeti only days ahead of him, for many weeks.

Keel (sp?) wrote this book back in the 50's, if I remember correctly, but I
heard just a few months ago that he is still alive. Any research types out
there who would like to talk with him?

Doug.

[Ram3Ram]

Alana Keres writes:

Joe writes:

I believe in other worlds and other life beyond this one. I also believe there
is intelligence and a heart to this creation and to all others that may be.

I also believe there is such a thing as "saints," more evolved souls if you
will.

Ultimately, I believe God is found in the heart, and nowhere else.

These are pretty general statements, as you can see, and don't specifically
answer your question. There is plenty that I'm ignorant of, plenty that we're
all ignorant of, as far as knowledge of the workings of the cosmos(s).

This being the case, when someone comes along claiming to have the answers to
the workings of the worlds (like Paul Twitchell) it's prudent to carefully
examine his claims. While I have belief in worlds beyond this one it doesn't
follow that I should uncritically accept concepts like the vairaigi masters.

Neither should I reflexively reject such concepts either. The best I can do is
to, first of all, use my critical mind to see if such a claim makes sense.
This includes listening to the testimony of others, pro and con.

What I should NOT do is to take the concept of vairaigi masters as a given,
simply because I'm ignorant of all the workings of the worlds. The reason
being for this is that such a concept then becomes the foundation of blind
acceptance. In other words, if I believe that there's a group of masters
up/out there who are directing the show, because someone like Paul Twitchell
tells me so and that he is one of them, a problematic situation arises.
Whatever Paul says, does, or writes becomes unassailable logically, because I
believe in this elect group of masters, and I believe he is one of them.

This situation, in a word, is eckankar. At its basis is a schizoid mystical
imperative: there is no right or wrong, everything is a matter of personal
perception, and at the same time the living eck master is the ultimate
authority. There are no rules, for Soul is its own master--except those rules
and concepts that the eck master decrees.

You may think that's an unfair overstatement, but consider what we have to go
on for empirical evidence:

1) Paul declared himself "the mahanta, the living eck master," and maintained
that he came from a line of eck masters dating from the dawn of time. No
evidence exists to corroborate this claim or any of these eck masters, in fact
much evidence exists that strongly suggests Paul made up these masters, yet
Harold Klemp flatly maintains that such masters are "real beings." And eckists
are expected to flatly accept this claim.

2) In every one of his books, Paul lifted material from a variety of authors
without giving credit to any of them. The eck party line explanation for this
is that Paul copied the material from astral records, as did the authors of the
plagiarized books in question. The majority of eckists accept this
explanation, despite it being much more evident that Paul simply didn't think
he'd get caught. And you know what, he really didn't get caught, because in
his lifetime most eckists were content with Paul's mystical claims. The same
goes for the explanation that Paul was "in a hurry." Some eckists accept this,
though it contradicts Paul's claims about the ability of the living eck master
to know the future, i.e., that Darwin and Harold would succeed him.

3) Evidence exists that Paul studied with, or was a devotee of, a variety of
spiritual teachers. Paul did his best to wipe this evidence out, which was
part of his effort to construct eckankar as wholly unique and even supreme, not
beholden to any other spiritual teaching. Indeed, he went beyond even that to
claim that eckankar is the source of all other spiritual teachings. His only
evidence for this claim is his statements that this is so.

For all of this and for much else, (like the rise and fall of Darwin Gross,)
not to mention "Rama's Mission" and other eck histories, the eck mystical
imperative is the bottom line. That is, the living eck master is in touch with
the unseen and the unknowable, therefore, critical thinking in respect to
eckankar is useless, even dangerous, and should be avoided. What's unprovable,
irrational, contradictory, unethical, or otherwise just plain wrong is too
frequently explained away as the workings of a Higher eck Purpose that we can't
know, but that we can trust the living eck master has a grip on.

All I want is some evidence before I believe in particulars like vairagi
masters or "Rama's Mission."

I should add that I don't consider the eck spiritual exercises, or dream
experiences, or other unexplainable phenomena, as specific evidence of the
authority of vairaigi masters, Paul's claims, or of eckankar today. (Neither
do I think them worthless. I think spiritual practice is what it's all about,
whatever path we're on.) But they aren't evidence that "eckankar" is all that
it claims to be.

Joe O

Joe O

[Ram3Ram]

Doug writes:

I'm willing to bet Paul read this book. Wasn't "Jadoo" the name of his cat in
"In My Soul . . ." or some other early writing?

More evidence of plagiarism? Or will the monastery turn up?

Joe O

Joe O

[sp...@gatezone.com]

In article <19980201085...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
ram...@aol.com (Ram3Ram) wrote:

> Joe writes:
>
> I believe in other worlds and other life beyond this one. I also believe
> there is intelligence and a heart to this creation and to all others that
> may be.
>
> I also believe there is such a thing as "saints," more evolved souls if you
> will.
>
> Ultimately, I believe God is found in the heart, and nowhere else.

<giant, major, ___, snip>

1. Joe, I think your last post is one of the most clear and
balanced posts I've seen in a long time. I enjoyed it.

2. The notion that 'God' would reside "in the heart, and nowhere else"
is curious. Seems to limit It to humans, no? It is the 'nowhere else'
that seems strange to me. There are days when it would appear that God
exists *everywhere* _but_ the heart of humanity...

3. I leave the non-Hegelian history for those who enjoy such things and
have lots of scotch tape and Elmers.

csk

[floyd_pickett]

In article <19980201013...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, kmerr...@aol.com
says...

>
>Alana's posting was fascinating. The studied historian, I am not. But since Joe
>mentioned Katsupari Monastaery, looking for some evidence, I thought others
>might find interesting a book I ran across called, "Jadoo" by John Keel. At
>least I think that's the author's name.
>
>This author was a writer, similar to Brad Steiger, who researched stories of
>the occult. In one particular passage he writes about his search for the Yeti
>in Northern Tibet. He writes about climbing through the forests there,
>following rumors of a Yeti spotting many miles to the North, if I remember
>correctly.
>
>Anyway, along the way, far from having met anyone else for a few days, he comes
>upon a monastery called "Kat-su-pari." There, he said, that the monks greeted
>him, saying that they had been waiting for him.
>
>He never did spot the Yeti, by the way, even though he followed a trail of
>rumors that reported the Yeti only days ahead of him, for many weeks.
>
>Keel (sp?) wrote this book back in the 50's, if I remember correctly, but I
>heard just a few months ago that he is still alive. Any research types out
>there who would like to talk with him?
>
>Doug.

Say, wasn't Paul Twitchell's Kat named "Jadoo?"

rfp

[floyd_pickett]

John Keel, author of the book "Jadoo" (1958) now works cheek-by-jowl with
Loyd Auerbach on FATE magazine, that journalistic paragon of accuracy and
virtue, and is here credited with having solved the Indian Rope Trick. John
didn't know much back then, either. You see friends, the secret of this
classic trick is obvious to Mr. Keel. A fine, invisible steel wire is
fastened to the tops of two nearby hills. It hangs horizontally over the
market square at night, when the clever conjuror tosses a rope into the air.
The poor dupes who watch don't see the concealed hook at the end of the
rope. That catches on the steel wire and the rest is easy. The boy climbs
the rope, slides away along the wire concealed by heavy smoke generated by
the sneaky magician, and that's that. Give me a break!
How in the World?" James Randi --- Wizard ((no email)) Fri, 13 May 1994 03:21:00
-0400. Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next...
http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1994/0015.html

The Men in Black and their Magical Origins
==========================================

"...we are dealing with a full-size world-mystery and a real
fight between the Black and White Brotherhoods."

- Frater Achad, 1948

Throughout medieval times, a major current of thought distinct
from official religion existed, culminating in the works of the
alchemists and hermetics. Among such groups were to be found
some of the early modern scientists and men remarkable for the
strength of their independent thinking and their adventurous
life, such as Paracelsus. The nature of the beings who
mysteriously appeared, dressed in shiny garments or covered with
dark hair, and with whom communication was so hard to establish
intrigued these men intensely."

- Jacques Vallee, Passport to Magonia

In 1947 the CIA was organized and the first UFO cases burst upon
the American media landscape as "flying saucers." In that year,
also, the first modern visitation by the infamous Men in Black
took place in which a witness, one Harold Dahl, was silenced.
From that point on, a pattern began to emerge.

The Men In Black legend is perennial; that it shows up in
connection with the UFO lore should come as no surprise.
UFOlogy bizarro chronicler John Keel (_Disneyland of the Gods_,
_Jadoo_, etc.) observed in his _UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse: "
The records of demonology are filled with striking parallels ...
the general descriptions of the vampires themselves are
identical to the 'men in black.' The dark skin and angular,
Oriental-like faces were commonly reported ..."

_The Autobiography of Malcolm X_ described Malcolm's encounter
with an MIB in prison: "He had on a dark suit I remember. I
could see him as plainly as I see anyone I look at. He wasn't
black, and he wasn't white. He was light-brown skinned, an
Asiatic cast of countenance, and he had oily black hair..." It
is interesting that the celebrated film _Malcolm X_ chooses to
imply that this figure was Nation of Islam leader Elijah
Mohammed. While Elijah Mohammed and his mysterious teacher
Wallace Fard (who vanished without a trace) had come out of High
Degree Prince Hall Freemasonry, and certainly knew some of the
esoteric secrets, the being Malcolm X described is more in
accord with Aleister Crowley's description of the praterhuman
intelligence Aiwass than of Elijah Mohammed.

"In the shadows, the Men in Black had long lurked, biding their
time, waiting. Here and there, now and then, some people
thought they had seen them, but they weren't quite certain;
perhaps they more sense than actually regarded them...

"Fourteen years earlier, the shadowy visitors had shown
themselves openly. Then they had descended upon flying saucer
buffs, threatening and terrorizing them, hushing them up...

"Al K. Bender, a UFO researcher, had been the first known
victim ...he performed a certain experiment and the lurking
horror came. It began with glowing blue lights. Then came the
stranger with the luminous eyes in the darkened theatre, and
later on a dusky street. It culminated when the Men in Black,
three of them, paid him a visit ...."

- Gray Barker, _The Silver Bridge_

UFOlogist Gray Barker got his one and only best-selling book in
detailing the Albert K. Bender story and the world-wide wave of
silencings. _They Knew Too Much about the Flying Saucers_ was
an international success. It was widely assumed that the Men in
Black were either government agents or extraterrestrials, but as
researchers Wilgus and Keel have shown, the eye in the triangle
was sometimes their only insignia, while my own research showed
startling parallels to certain black magick rituals in medieval
times which provoked visitations by what was often called "the
Man in Black" -- widely understood to be the Devil himself.
Even Barker noted that Albert K. Bender's experiments were more
like a magical conjuration than an attempt at extraterrestrial
communication. Any initiated magician reading Bender's accounts
would recognize the elements of magical conjuration immediately.

Maybe, I mused, we were dealing more with magick than with
Martians.

::: The Black Lodge :::

"Mathers, of course, carried on; but he had fallen. The Secret
Chiefs cast him off; he fell into deplorable abjection, even his
scholarship deserted him. He published nothing new and lived in
sodden intoxication till death put an end to his long misery.
He was a great man in his way..."

- Aleister Crowley

"What I am out to complain of is what I seriously believe to be
an organized conspiracy of the Black Lodges to prevent people
from thinking..."

- Aleister Crowley, _Magick Without Tears_

Often when a person or institution allied with the historical
Great White Brotherhood approaches success (variously defined)
or comes into possession of certain aspects of transcendent
wisdom, Something Intervenes. That something has been defined
as the Man in Black, the Men In Black, the black lodges, or The
Black Lodge. The latter term most nearly accommodates my own
view. That they need to do this, and that they often fail in
their efforts, is itself an indication that (A) the Black Lodge
is opposed by Something Else, equally as strong, and (B) they
are afraid of something we might find out -- about them, about
their opposition, about ourselves or all three.

The story of our interaction with the UFOnauts begins with the
Qabalistic Tree of Life, and the Chakra system of the body.

According to the primal occult and frequently secret and
subversive view, the manifest universe emerges from an Ultimate
NOT-Thing, a Consciousness or Beingness beyond words or
expressions sometimes referred to as the Unmanifest or The
Limitless Light. This Unmanifest cannot be understood in the
external sense, but can be Known in the Gnostic sense by the
initiate or perfected sentient being, the Ubermensch. It can
be plugged into.

For reasons equally inexpressible, this uniqueness unfolds
itself in manifestation. Thus, the limitless light becomes
a series of emanations or expressions or Intelligences that
devolve increasingly toward our material form of existence and
thus towards accessibility in the conventional sense. But the
manifestations also increasingly become subject to subdivision
into arbitrary concepts such as "good" and "evil" as these are
commonly understood. And they also become closer and closer
in form and content to our own mundane reality, though in the
relativity of things, these Higher Intelligences may seem
unspeakably powerful, mythic and divine.

The Gnostic view has tended to be that what the external world
of the conventional person understands as god, devil demon,
angel or, more recently, extraterrestrial beings are, in fact,
such emanations of the unspeakable ultimate. Indeed, the
ancient Gnostics saw the 'god' and 'devil' of conventional
theology as an ego-maddened entity under the delusion that it,
indeed, IS the Ultimate Being! The late Phil Dick, in his last
Gnostic allegorical fiction, eventually settled on the name
"V.A.L.I.S." or "Vast Active Living intelligence System" for
this being or Demiurge. He wrestled through his literary career
and secret life as a Christian Gnostic philosopher with whether
VALIS was a benevolent, if machine-like deity of a sort, or an
insane extraterrestrial supercomputer.

Throughout recorded history, and, from the evidence of primitive
objects and works of art, for aeons before, certain humans have
had the capacity to tune into or channel various of these Higher
Intelligences with varying degrees of accuracy. These humans
have been our Seers, Oracles and Prophets. It appears, in fact,
that much of the source-material of all religions comes from
such channelings, including, arguably, _The Book of Revelation_,
_The Book of Mormon_, and _The Book of the Law_.

Concurrently, and not coincidentally, the two great initiatory
bodies, or orders have been generated and regenerated throughout
history. The so-called Great White Brotherhood, when undistorted,
appears (according to legend) guided by Intelligences associated
with the dual star system Sirius or Sothis in some manner [see
_The Sirius Mystery_ by Robert Temple for a discussion of the
Sirius connection -- also Kenneth Grant's _Outside the Circles
of Time_ discusses the matter from a magical perspective]. This
brotherhood also seems to have the purpose of uplifting human
character and initiating biological and social evolution designed
to move towards identification with Ultimate Being. What is
sometimes called "the Black Lodge," which we may associate with
the Gnostic Demiurge or Phil Dick's VALIS, is generated to keep
humanity in a state of materialist trance and evolutionary
stagnation.

Mystics generally consider that understanding the motivations of
either of these Sources may be beyond our knowledge or even our
capabilities. Existentially, however, it may be stated with
confidence that one is dedicated to keep us in subjugation,
misery and stagnation; the other to our betterment and
enrichment though both at times have made claims to being our
saviors.

There are keys for decoding which is which -- for example,
rituals that have been generated or handed down to the magical
lodges of modern times which refer to a star or the stars
directly or indirectly tend to be transformative and thus of the
Great White Brotherhood. Ciphers for decoding messages between
the black lodges and their alien sponsors have always existed.
But confusions of a deliberate nature exist; the ancient
Gnostics uncovered a cipher which clearly indicates that the
story of the Garden of Eden in its conventional form is turned
on its head. The Serpent is clearly the symbol of Knowledge,
Wisdom, the Kundalini Yogic force, the Will-current -- that is,
it is the symbol of Liberation and Self-Mastery. The jealous
"gods," as read in the original manuscripts, are clearly the
forces of blockage, self-denial and repression -- which is to
say, the Intelligences governing the Black Lodge. This
Knowledge of Good and Evil and Life and Death has been the
Terrible Secret of Initiates throughout history, recorded in
ciphers and myths, and passed on through ritual.

The Black Lodge may be defined as the organized institution
guided by VALIS for the purpose of holding back human evolution
and keeping a slave mentality in place. Its human leaders are
the "black brothers" who are not to be mistaken for mere black
magicians. Indeed, Aleister Crowley observed that "the 'Black
Magician' or Sorcerer is hardly even a distant cousin of the '
Black Brother.' The difference between a sneak-thief and a
Hitler is not too bad an analogy..." The Black Brothers are
highly advanced adepts of the Art who have simply, as the popular
phrase goes, "been seduced by the dark side of the Force." At
certain times and places in history -- for example, medieval
Tibet or, in more modern times, Nazi Germany -- the Black Lodge
has operated more or less openly with characteristic occult
symbols of human skulls, lightning bolts, etc. out in the open.
But like the Great White Brotherhood that it actively seeks to
subvert and overthrow (as it did in the time of the Knights
Templar), the Black Lodge has generally communicated by cipher
and myth, in silence and secrecy, often within religious,
fraternal and political institutions dedicated to the status quo.

In the West since at least the early 18th century, the Black
Lodge has tended to operate along crypto-Masonic lines, and its
development has tended to coincide with and mirror that of the
Great White Brotherhood. This development may, in fact, be
attributed to a cosmic principle of "equal generation of forces."
Thus, the birth of the modern form, as the fraternity of the
knights militant of the New Aeon in the cultural and political
turbulence of Germany in the 1890s, may fairly (along with the
coincident peak in the development of the Hermetic Order of the
Golden Dawn and the Universal Gnostic Church) be characterized
as the resurgence of the Great White Brotherhood and its
rejuvenation out of the degeneration of classical speculative
freemasonry. This coincides closely with the "Great Airship
Scare" of 1897.

At almost the same moment, and in the same unhappy land, the
Black Lodge reasserted itself in the form of such fraternities
as the Vril Society and the Thule Group. The full story of the
Vril Society, the Thule Group, the Ahnenerbe, the Schwartze
Orden (The Black Order) and other manifestations of the Black
Lodge in the pre-Nazi and Nazi era has yet to be told, though
Pauwels and Bergier take an informal stab at it in _The Morning
of the Magicians_. Rudolph Hess, the last known member of the
Thule Group, told Jack Fishman (_The Seven Men of Spandau_) that
Thule leader and occult initiate General Karl Haushofer (1869-194
6) "was the magician, the secret Master..." of Nazi Germany.
Hess believed in the cause to the end of his life. The last
prisoner at Spandau, Hess died at the significant age of 93,
proclaiming his loyalty to the Thule ideal to the very end. The
period, in the middle 1930s, in which these groups attained
their greatest, ruinous power over the German state coincides
closely with the reports of "ghost rockets" over Northern Europe.

The British Raj in India, and the European Christian
colonization of the East in general, had all but destroyed the
classical Tantrism and Illuminism of the Great White Brotherhood
in the East, finding such institutions as Temple Prostitution,
chakra-puji, Shiva devotion, etc. to be sexual obscenity. On
the other hand, fearing the power of the Black Lodge as a
political entity and eroding its hold on esoteric Eastern
Religion as a practical necessity had provoked the British to
effectively dismantle the classical Eastern manifestation of the
Black Lodge, and Western occultists visiting the East in the 19
th and early 20th century already could only find watered-down
remnants and secret adepts carrying on the hidden wisdom in
either form. The Great White Brotherhood survived in Tibet
along with the Dark Lodges, and, since the Chinese occupation,
many of its chiefs have found their way to India and around the
world.

As far as is known, the last classical chakra-puj to be observed
by a Westerner was in the 1930s, while the last ancient intact
body of adepts of the Eastern Black Lodge, ironically dedicated
to foisting upon sleeping humanity a rank and demoralizing
materialism, was discovered and destroyed in accordance with the
insipid Marxism which guided the Chinese "People's" Liberation
Army into Tibet in the late 1950s. Among various Tantric Buddhist
and Bon religious institutions, the P.L.A. liquidated the cavern
retreats of Schamballah and Agarthi, the former being possibly the
oldest surviving branch of the Black Lodge on the planet. (See
Ossendovski's _Men, Beasts and Gods_, circa 1925, for an account
of Schamballah and Agarthi.) As survivors of the Marxist massacre
from the Tibetan Great White Brotherhood are known to have come to
the West in subsequent years, it may be assumed that survivors of
the Black Lodge have set up operations in our own society as well.
We can see the marks of their presence in so-called right-handed
Eastern circles that have gained a certain currency among
Westerners, and which peddle a useless baggage of New Age
platitudes.

The traditions do survive here and there in the East; a friend
of mine -- for 10 years a high official of the International
Society for Krishna Consciousness in India -- was seduced by a
Black Tantric Magician, and wound up leaving a life of celibacy
as a Hari Krishna for the lurid existence of a Madame in an
upscale American house of prostitution. I leave it to my
readers to decide whether she was seduced from the Great
Brotherhood to the Black Lodge, or vice versa.

Certainly, prior to the destruction of the Tibetan black lodges,
the German SS -- under Thule and Vril influence and directed by
the infamous Ahnenerbe Group -- imported a number of Black
Brothers and Adepts from Tibet during and prior to the Second
World War. The Tibetan colony in Berlin in fact predates the
Nazi rise to power, having been established in 1926. One
Tibetan Monk, termed "the man with the green gloves" and a
reputed psychic, was frequently visited by Hitler and was
rumored to hold the keys to the Kingdom of Agarthi. Such keys
are best understood in terms of ciphers.

Western mystics including Karl Kellner, P.B. Randolph and G.I.
Gurdjieff received instruction from surviving institutions
of the Great White Brotherhood and carried their influence back
with them to Europe, just as the Templars had done centuries
before, and incorporated their teachings into the Western
Esoteric System.

It is known that the Black Lodge -- which, as it opposes
evolution, inherently fights a rear-guard action -- has made
unceasing war on the Great White Brotherhood in the West from
the beginnings of the magical revival. Indeed, fallen and
failed adepts of the Great White Brotherhood have become the
tools and pawns of the Black Lodge, from Mathers to Hubbard and
beyond. It would seem that the immediate goal of the Black
Brothers is to delay the Manifestation of the New Aeon, the
birth of the magical child and the realization of the ubermensch
through diversion of the Will-current into less than useless
power plays, demoralizing materialist and superstitious
delusions, New Age jargon, etc. The classic example in the
Twentieth Century was the Nazi appropriation, under Black Lodge
influence, of the very concept of the ubermensch, and
sidetracking it into a pathetic racialist caricature of
Nietzsche's super being.

"We should found society upon a caste of 'men of earth,' sons of
the soil ..." said Crowley, "The worst thing they can do is what
is done in America, to disenchant the man of earth with his
destiny; to fill him with the facts and fancies that enthrall
etiolated and degenerated idealists and unfit him for his
evident purpose, that of supplying society with supermen." The
Black Lodge in the Nazi era totally discredited the concept of
the evolved human supermen by grafting it onto German
nationalist and racialist conceits, while suppressing the
Gnostic Church, the OTO, the Anthroposophical Society and even
lost-word freemasonry -- in short, anyone who might have an
actual understanding of the coming Being. The leading figure of
the OTO in Germany, the future Grand Master Karl Germer, was
placed in a concentration camp. His official crime was that he
knew and maintained relations with Aleister Crowley. The Chief
Bishop of the Universal Gnostic Church in France was executed by
the Nazis. Crowley, for his part, "on the outbreak of the War ..
.was invited to see the Director of British Naval Intelligence."
According to Gerald Suster, "Crowley claimed that he advocated
the use of two magical signs which were to boost British morale
and frequently used by Winston Churchill: the 'V' sign, which,
in magical terms, is the counter of the Swastika; and the '
Thumbs Up,' the Sign of the Phallus and Victory, which was
published in a pamphlet of Crowley poetry during the most
desperate days of 1940 and whose use spread throughout the
nation." War of the magicians, indeed!

I believe the New Age distortion of the New Aeon concept is a
direct attempt by the Black Lodge and its Inner Planes Rulers
(which we call, for convenience VALIS) to delay manifestation of
the Aeon by creating confusion among the receptive. Much of the
"White Light Channeling" clearly bears the stamp of the Black
Lodge and VALIS, an empty metaphysical blind of insipid psychic
trivia. Many self-improvement groups have their origins in the
ideas of failed magicians like L. Ron Hubbard. We have new age
centers that teach nothing useful, UFO message-oriented cults
waving flashlights on mountains, and, as I have shown
end-of-the-world doomsayers touting this or that grand cosmic
alignment, harmonic convergence or polar shift.

The UFO cults have clearly influenced even Kenneth Grant's
so-called "Typhonian OTO," which appears to use valid magical
currents to pursue the hideous old ones of H.P. Lovecraft's
fictional Cthulhu Mythos. Phil Dick's last efforts were marred
by insipid trivial UFO cult channelings -- the kind of stuff
that was old hat to hardened UFOlogists by the late 1950s.
Compare Phil Dick's musings in _The Last Testament_ with, for
example, the Mark Prophet or Dick Miller or Gloria Lee Bird
materials of UFO contactee lore.

The magick of the Black Lodge can be defined and thus identified
in only one way and by one set standard: the subversion of the
True Will. This is the essence of Black Magick, and is its only
true definition. Aleister Crowley explained it this way:

"The Magical Will is in its essence twofold, for it presupposes
a beginning and an end, to will to be a thing is to admit you
are not that thing.

"Hence to will anything but the supreme thing is to wander still
further from it -- any will but that to give up the self to the
beloved is black magick -- yet the surrender is so simple an act
that to our complex minds it is the most difficult of all acts;
and hence training is necessary ...

"The majority of the people in this world are ataxic; they
cannot coordinate their mental muscles to make a purposed
movement. They have no real will, only a set of wishes, many of
which contradict others ...and at the end of life the movements
cancel out each other..."

Crowley's references to his wars with the Black Lodge are
scattered throughout his writings and bear further study. From
these writings, one can come to understand that the form of the
attack upon the magician can range from political repression to
seduction.

The great magicians, Theosophists and other Western sources have
devoted even more testimony to the other side of the coin -- the
"Great White Brotherhood" or "The Secret Chiefs" or "The Masters."
In the early days of the magical revival, the existence of an
inner order was taken for granted. This was followed by a long
epoch of expose, disillusionment and world weariness. But now,
revisionist historians are finding evidence that these groups,
usually described in mythic terms, are as material as they are
archetypal. They are, in very Truth, the "Inner Order" -- in
communication with and overlapping with Ultraterrestrial Sources.

::: The Reality of the Secret Chiefs :::

The mythology of the secret masters or chiefs and the myth of
the black lodge form an archetypal substratum of modern magical
lore which is almost a necessity if magick is not to drift into
a kind of bland parapsychological secular humanism or offbeat
psychology on the one hand, or a religious fundamentalism
grounded in a new faith substituted for Christianity. But one
should at least allow that the legend of secret chiefs may have
some rather literal basis in fact; that there are high masters
of the art scattered around the world, that they are in
communication with one another, and that how they use their
illumination depends upon their character and predisposition.
This is all that one must grant to consider the great
brotherhood, or secret chiefs, as well as their opposition
plausible.

In medieval Tibet, this was known as the "whispered succession."
It is an open part of the literature of Tantric Yoga, and the
often-invoked Tibetan connection of adepts and publicists comes
quickly to mind. It was the Hidden Church of Karl von
Eckartshausen that brought Aleister Crowley to the path, and
small wonder; von Eckartshausen wrote in the 18th century of

"...the society of the Elect, which has continued from the first
day of creation to the present time; its members, it is true,
are scattered all over the world, but they have always been
united in the spirit and in one truth ...

"It is from her that all truths penetrate into the world, she is
the School of the Prophets, and of all who search for wisdom,
and it is in this community alone that truth and the explanation
of all mystery is to be found. It is the most hidden of
communities yet possesses members from many circles; of such is
this School ...From all time, therefore, there has been a hidden
assembly, a society of the Elect, of those who sought for and
had capacity for light, and this interior society was called the
interior Sanctuary or Church."

In medieval European graal mythology, we find a strain of
accomplished Graal Templars going out in secret to govern and
protect far-flung populations, but (as in von Eschenbach's
Parzival), "...writing was seen on the Gral to the effect that
any Templar whom God should bestow on a distant people for their
lord must forbid them to ask his name or lineage, but must help
them gain their rights ...members of the Gral Company are now
forever averse to questioning, they do not wish to be asked
about themselves..."

As magical mythologist Aleister Crowley has a wonderful time
with both friend and foe in the fictional _Moonchild_, but his
nonfictional recounting of the same period comes uncomfortably
close to the metaphor of the war between the Great White
Brotherhood and the Black Lodge. Then we find the matter of
fact (if remarkable) essay on sexual magick, "Energized
Enthusiasm," interrupted, as it were, in midcourse by an
anecdotal accounting worthy of _Moonchild_.

"Thus far had I written when the distinguished poet, whose
conversation with me upon the Mysteries had incited me to jot
down these few rough notes, knocked at my door ...'If you come
with me now, we will finish your essay.' Glad enough of any
excuse to stop working, the more plausible the better, I
hastened to take down my coat and hat. 'By the way,' he
remarked in the automobile, 'I take it that you do not mind
giving me the Word of Rose Croix.' I exchanged the secrets of
I.N.R.I. with him..."

What followed was an account of a close encounter of a Most
Peculiar Kind, best read in the original.

Crowley, ever both rationalist and mystic, was aware of the
superficial difficulties in the idea of secret chiefs. Yet
he tended to be rather unambiguous on this matter.

"Yes; this involves a theory of the powers of the Secret Chiefs
so romantic and unreasonable that it seems hardly worth a smile
of contempt...I propose to quote it here in order to show that
the most ordinary events, apparently disconnected, are in fact
only intelligible by postulating some such people as the Secret
Chiefs..."

He remarks in this manner in his autobiography, but is still
quite convinced 20 or so years later when he notes, in _Magick
Without Tears_:

cont.

[floyd_pickett]

"They can induce a girl to embroider a tapestry, or initiate a
political movement to culminate in a world-war; all in pursuit
of some plan wholly beyond the purview or the comprehension of
the deepest and subtlest thinkers...But are They men, in the
usual sense of the word? They may be incarnate or discarnate:
it is a matter of Their convenience..."

We should take note of Paul Johnson's recent trailblazing study
of the theosophical masters. The essence may be boiled down to
this: secret chiefs or hidden masters may have good reason to
mythologize themselves, and encourage those in direct contact
with them to follow suit on the border where magical philosophy
meets with its political implications, the need for secrecy
assumes a more practical rationale. The Secret Chiefs may be
secret not because they are myths or immortals, but because they
are neither.

::: Do the Gods Leave Footprints? :::

The recent revisionist histories, especially Paul Johnson's _The
Masters_, Joscelyn Godwin's "hidden hand" articles, and our own
work with the "ciphers of the Secret Chiefs" (identical with
that of the UFOnauts) have begun to restore the political
component to historical understandings of the magical revival of
the late 19th century.

For Westerners, especially in America, the separation of Church
and State has been sufficient to make it difficult even to think
in terms of spirituality and political philosophy as a continuous
sphere. Even hardcore Bible-belters are unable to truly imagine
an established religion in the European sense, let alone in the
Asiatic. I believe most of us have virtually no idea of what makes
Islamic Republicanism tick, and we stand appalled not only at the
atrocities of Islamic Government, but at its sheer zeal. The idea
of Pat Robertson driving a truck filled with explosives into an
enemy military compound shouting "Jesus is Lord!" is ludicrous in
our imaginations. Put Billy Graham behind the wheel ... but you
get the point.

Yet, it has been shown that the founders of speculative
freemasonry in the 18th century, especially in its continental
version, were upholders of a radical spiritual, sometimes
republican political vision that captured the imagination of
many, including early socialists on the one hand and occultists
on the other. These tendencies meet and overlap, and explain
much about the nature of Masonic and occult secrecy, the cell
structure common to political radicals and occultists, and the
hostility of the established State and Church to both.

The Secret Chiefs of Theosophy, the Golden Dawn and the OTO may
be able to, as Crowley said, "initiate a political movement to
culminate in a world-war" (or prevent one), but if Paul Johnson's
thesis is correct, one should not conclude from this that they
are immune to arrest, torture and execution. Alessandro di
Cagliostro, almost certainly a (rather more public than would
seem judicious) Secret Chief, was arrested and condemned by the
Inquisition, dying in a Roman prison.

Johnson observes of some of his successors: "They were all
committed to an international effort to combat religious
dogmatism, extend the range of democratic government, and direct
public attention to the values of liberty, equality and
fraternity ...Sotheran's acquaintance with HPB began in Europe
among the disciples of Mazzini. Sotheran's account of
Cagliostro makes it clear that he regarded the work of Mazzini
and the Carbonari to be direct continuation of Cagliostro's
mission..."

Johnson's cast of characters in early Theosophical history
overlaps with occultist-magical history considerably. The great
Magi Papus, P.B. Randolph and John Yarker all come under
consideration by Johnson.

But before we inaugurate Karl Marx or Anarchist Emma Goldman as
"Secret Chiefs," we do need to avoid losing sight of the fact
that those who professedly encountered these hidden beings were
apt to describe them in terms of, at the least, superbeings in
human form.

Consider Henry Steel Olcott's account of an encounter at Lahore
with the legendary "K.H.":

"I was sleeping in my tent, the night of the 19th, when I rushed
back towards external consciousness on feeling a hand laid on me.
The camp being on the open plain, and beyond the protection of
the Lahore police, my first animal instinct was to protect
myself ...'Do you not know me? Do you not remember me?' It was
the voice of the Master K. H. A swift revulsion of feeling
came over me, I relaxed my hold on his arms, joined my palms in
reverential salutation, and wanted to jump out of bed to show
him respect. But his hand and voice stayed me, and after a few
sentences had been exchanged, he took my left hand in his,
gathered the fingers of his right into the palm, and stood quiet
beside my cot, from which I could see his divinely benignant
face by the light of the lamp ...Presently, I could feel some
soft substance forming in my hand, and the next minute the
Master laid his kind hand on my forehead, uttered a blessing,
and left ...I found myself holding in my left hand a folded
paper enwrapped in a silken cloth..."

The letter, as it turned out, predicted the death of two enemies
of the Theosophical Society, which swiftly came to pass. The
actual identity of "Master K.H." seems to be one Thakar Singh,
an enlightened radical Sikh leader, in contact with the worldwide
network of radicals of the 19th century.

Contrast Olcott's encounter with S.L. MacGregor Mathers' account
of his relations with the Secret Chiefs:

"It was found absolutely and imperatively necessary that there
should be some eminent Member especially chosen to act as the
link between the Secret Chiefs and the more external forms of
the Order. It was requisite that such a member should be me who,
while having the necessary and peculiar educational basis of
critical and profound Occult Archaeological Knowledge, should at
the same time not only be ready and willing to devote himself in
every sense to a blind and unreasoning obedience to those Secret
Chiefs..."

Israel Regardie described Mathers' fateful encounter in this way:

"While walking in the Bois de Bologne one day, meditating ...
Mathers claimed triumphantly that he was approached by three men.
He asserted that these were Adepts belonging to the hidden or
Secret Third Order, and therefore belonged to that category of
men described in The Cloud Upon the Sanctuary. Apparently, so
he claims, they had materialized themselves, and in that tense
emotional and spiritual atmosphere of Psychical phenomena,
confirmed him in the sole rulership of the Order."

Mathers observed that, for his part, "I believe they are human
beings living on this Earth, but possessed of terrible and super-
human powers."

As outre as these tales are, they coincide remarkably with close
encounter accounts from as early as St. Paul's fateful
experience on the road to Damascus, to Albert K. Bender's three
Men in Black.

The most intelligent discussion of what is delusion, dishonesty
and deception in all this, and what is not, is in Crowley's
_Magick Without Tears_. That it is scattered through the work
and written under an implicit assumption that the proofs of a
residue of concrete reality, however bizarre, are readily
obvious to the reader is unfortunate, in today's (properly) more
wary magical and UFOlogical circles. All that we attempt to
demonstrate here is that a plausible case can be made for
historical revision at this time. Johnson's tentative
identification of Theosophical Masters both demythologizes them
and adds to the credibility of their existence. If Johnson is
correct, the Secret Chiefs are not only real but they probably
have phone numbers -- doubtless unlisted.

Crowley observed dryly in a postscript: "A visitor's story has
just reminded me of the possibility that I am a Secret Chief
myself without knowing it: for I have sometimes been recognized
by other people as having acted as such, though I was not aware
of the fact at the time."

Brad Steiger observed in 1988, that, apparently, "...Space
Beings have placed themselves in the role of messengers of God,
or that we, in our desperation for cosmic messiahs who can
remove us from the foul situation we have made on this planet,
hope that there are such messengers who can extricate us from
the plight we have brought on ourselves." Only with the coming
of cipher knowledge can we decode the Pretended Saviors from
Authentic Benefactors or, better Allies. Taking into
consideration that UFO contactee George King and his Aetherius
Society are earnestly engaged in the war being waged by the
(Great White) Brotherhood against the Black Magicians, a group
they feel seeks to enslave the human race," as Steiger puts it,
the UFOlogy mythos and the magical mythos are shown clearly to
be cut from the same cloth. The nature of that cloth, in the
hands of Crowley or King, is now no longer obscure.

Excerpt from:

Secret Cipher of the UFOnauts
1994 by Allen H. Greenfeld
ISBN 1-881532-04-6
Illuminet Press, P.O.B. 2808, Lilburn, GA 30226

http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/Text/Religion/meninblack.brh

rfp

[Kate McLaughlin]

In article <19980201013...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,

kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
>
> Alana's posting was fascinating. The studied historian, I am not. But since
Joe
> mentioned Katsupari Monastaery, looking for some evidence, I thought others
> might find interesting a book I ran across called, "Jadoo" by John Keel. At
> least I think that's the author's name.
>
> This author was a writer, similar to Brad Steiger, who researched stories of
> the occult. In one particular passage he writes about his search for the Yeti
> in Northern Tibet. He writes about climbing through the forests there,
> following rumors of a Yeti spotting many miles to the North, if I remember
> correctly.
>
> Anyway, along the way, far from having met anyone else for a few days, he
comes
> upon a monastery called "Kat-su-pari." There, he said, that the monks greeted
> him, saying that they had been waiting for him.
>
> He never did spot the Yeti, by the way, even though he followed a trail of
> rumors that reported the Yeti only days ahead of him, for many weeks.
>
> Keel (sp?) wrote this book back in the 50's, if I remember correctly, but I
> heard just a few months ago that he is still alive. Any research types out
> there who would like to talk with him?
>
> Doug.

Paul probably read Keel's works -- didn't he claim to have a black cat
named Jadoo? (Jadu?) Anyway, a short Web search on John Keel turned
up many pages that indicate that he's probably not the most reliable
source for much of anything, except maybe plot lines for The X-Files.
I couldn't find anything about the Jadoo book.

Ufomind / PsiSpy - "The Mothership"
UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 | Vegas | Explore | Bookstore
Fast | All | Top 100 | Search | What's New | New Books
Mothership -> People -> K -> Here
Latest Milestone - New Page: Psi-Tech
Have you visited What's New lately?

Suggested Reading:
Disneyland of the Gods

Unofficial Link Page For
John Keel

Description: Writer on Forteana, Men in Black
File Code: keel Class: ufo spirit
Residence: US

Media: Book Authors·($)
UFO Geographical Case: Mothman·(*)
Affiliation: FSR·(*)
Investigated/Interviewed: Men In Black·(1)

Book Review: Disneyland of the Gods
Disneyland of the Gods - This is a review of the world's fantastic
claims, from UFOs to sea monsters to prophesies to government
conspiracies. A catchy title and fine writing set this forteana
book apart. You don't read this book for its scientific accuracy,
however. Many ridiculous claims are stated as fact without any
attempt to support them. Keel reminds me of the Baron von Munchausen:
The tales he spins sound like total B.S., but he is so entertaining
that you can let it pass. --gc #dis $9.95 -
Related Topics: Strange & Curious | UFO: Cases & Investigations

[sp...@gatezone.com]

In article <6b21tb$f...@drn.zippo.com>,

Floyd Pickett wrote:
>
>
> "They can induce a girl to embroider a tapestry, or initiate a
> political movement to culminate in a world-war; all in pursuit
> of some plan wholly beyond the purview or the comprehension of
> the deepest and subtlest thinkers...But are They men, in the
> usual sense of the word? They may be incarnate or discarnate:
> it is a matter of Their convenience..."

Maybe They are Women...<g>

<snip>

> ::: Do the Gods Leave Footprints? :::

<and do they have use Cheese Whiz?>

Anyway... despite these and other questions it was an interesting post,
Richard. Fun to see Israel Regardie and Aliester Crowley show up here. I
guess with JTE around the 'secret chiefs' will be with us for a long time.

I'd prefer to meet them in a park in Paris than at Town Lake in Austin, but
what are you going to do.

Perhaps some time should be spent on Jungian analysis of 'masters' in the
same way he looked at UFO's.

I'm off to go running this afternoon and perhaps some secret chiefs (or
chefs) will meet me on the running trail and appoint me the head of the New
Order of the Rising Nike Order.

csk

[sp...@gatezone.com]

In article <19980201091...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
ram...@aol.com (Ram3Ram) wrote:
>
> Doug writes:
>... I thought others

> >might find interesting a book I ran across called, "Jadoo" by John Keel. At
> >least I think that's the author's name.
> >
> >This author was a writer, similar to Brad Steiger, who researched stories of the occult. In one particular passage he writes about his search for the Yeti in Northern Tibet. He writes about climbing through the forests there, following rumors of a Yeti spotting many miles to the North, if I remember
>correctly.
>
> Anyway, along the way, far from having met anyone else for a few days, he
> comes upon a monastery called "Kat-su-pari." There, he said, that the monks > greeted him, saying that they had been waiting for him.
> >
> >He never did spot the Yeti, by the way, even though he followed a trail of
> >rumors that reported the Yeti only days ahead of him, for many weeks.
> >
> >Keel (sp?) wrote this book back in the 50's, if I remember correctly, but I
> >heard just a few months ago that he is still alive. Any research types out
> >there who would like to talk with him?

RAMAlang wrote:
>
> I'm willing to bet Paul read this book. Wasn't "Jadoo" the name of his cat in
> "In My Soul . . ." or some other early writing?
>
> More evidence of plagiarism? Or will the monastery turn up?

Amazing the interest in such arcane things.

Chop water, carry fire, sky hooks, and Mesopotamian plastic filters.

I hope we're not putting a lot of stock in "John Keel."

As if Brad Steiger was some deep researcher and truth-teller. Who has the
tapes of the interveiws with Paul? Locked in archives somewhere? Hmmmm.

Why stop with Rama... Let's deconstruct (or reconstruct) Gakko and the
prehistorical Bored of Directors...

Meanwhile, has everyone taken out their garbage and recycling?

Last time I looked art transcened reason as we know it. Ambiguousness
intended.

Off-worlders unite!

Replicant representative,

csk

[KMerrymoon]

Richard, Kate and Joe all remembered about Paul's cat, Jadoo, same name as John
Keel's book. Joe put it this way:

>I'm willing to bet Paul read this book. Wasn't "Jadoo" the name of his cat in
>"In My Soul . . ." or some other early writing?

When I read Keel's book, I had the same impression, that Paul had read it,
probably got the name for his cat from there, and must have stored away the
name of the monastery. Jadoo, by the way, means black arts, if I remember
correctly, which is a great name for a black cat.

On the other hand, if people insist on being scientifically accurate, there is
a problem here with assuming that Paul got the name of Katsupari from this
book. The problem is this: If we find a similar record of what Paul wrote about
that existed before Paul wrote it, then it looks like a source that he copied.
On the other hand, if it was written after Paul wrote it, then we can simply
assume that the author read Paul's account and had such experiences inspired by
what he read from Paul. So, we have a wonderful way of discounting anything,
before or after, that could corroborate Paul's writing.

Fortunately, there are other ways of knowing things.

The other thing that all this misses is the meaning of what is really happening
with this information that is being passed on from one person to another. Why
do certain names, personages, places and experiences get passed along? Because
they spark something within the people that hear about them, and connect them
to something meaningful within themselves.

As any writer of fiction will tell you, you can simply make things up and have
some very bad writing, or you can hit on fictional characters and stories that
simply spring to life and write themselves. A good author does not feel they
are actually the creator of such stories, but more like the discoverer of them.
This is the source of our mythology.

The thing that Paul made clear for me was that there was a difference between
imaginary creations, and realities that only the imagination could discover.
The realities have universal meaning, and have a life of their own. They do not
belong to anyone, and they usually are copied and passed on through stories,
religious teachings, songs, etc. They bring more meaning to us than we put into
them, and they surprise us with unexpected insights.

Simple imaginary creations, on the other hand, may appeal to wish fulfillment
and ego gratification, but they give us back only what we put into them.

Learning to discern the difference between the real and imaginary, is a part of
the spiritual science that must be learned if one expects to make any real
progress on the spiritual path. This learning can not come from books, but must
be developed within the laboratory of our own inner selves, as the Radhasoami
masters have put it. Those who insist on relying only on the objectively
verifiable scientific facts, will never discover the real treasures of the
imagination.

Doug.

[Alana Keres]

In article <19980201085...@ladder03.news.aol.com> ram...@aol.com (Ram3Ram) writes:
>Alana Keres writes:
>
>>Dear Joe,
>>
>> Before I attempt to frame a reply to your reply, I have one
>>question: Do you think/believe/perceive/wonderif beings *like* the Vairagi
>>exist?
>>
>

>Joe writes:
>
>I believe in other worlds and other life beyond this one. I also believe there
>is intelligence and a heart to this creation and to all others that may be.
>I also believe there is such a thing as "saints," more evolved souls if you
>will.

[Snipping honest evasion of the question]

Hmmm. I think I asked: Do Beings *Like* (similar to/identical
with) the Vairagi exist?

Your "answer" was like.... well, let's say I asked a blind
man if he believed in the sun. And he, being a nice stubborn empiricist,
began talking about campfires. Adding, of course, that he didn't believe
or disbelieve in the sun--but that noone else's experience could verify
it for him. Gardens could be the result of rain, of thunder, of
lightbulbs; skinburn might just be the wind. Heat might just be the
entropic cycling of a gravitational earth.

He'd be right, of course.

But *I* asked about the sun. Not the campfire, and not about his
lack of experience, or other possible sources of the sun's effects.

Simply put, all of the below: 1-5 are irrelevant if Paulji was an
adept of an order of masters who are *utterly*, incomprehensibly
compassionate and with infinite skill in causing the awaking of countless
lifeforms.

But as far as I've been able to divine that old childhood taunt
holds even truer with the possibility of a Vairagi: It takes one to know
one. There is simply *no other way* to know. With Buddhas you got your 32
Marks, with saints you got your miracle healings, with Bodhisattvas you
got your perfumes and invisible orchestras, with Mahasiddhas you got those
pesky spontaneous orgasms... Get my drift? With a Vairagi, what do you
have? Continuous, tasteless, invisible, almost completely 'empty'
sponsoring of more and more subtle "states" (hah!) of realization.
Until... until... until... what?? (First person who tries to answer that
out loud will probably notice their tongue melting in their mouths...)

>1) Paul declared himself "the mahanta, the living eck master," and maintained
>that he came from a line of eck masters dating from the dawn of time. No
>evidence exists to corroborate this claim or any of these eck masters, in fact
>much evidence exists that strongly suggests Paul made up these masters, yet
>Harold Klemp flatly maintains that such masters are "real beings." And eckists
>are expected to flatly accept this claim.

No we aren't. Furthermore I don't CARE if Paul Twitchell was a
Vairagi. I care that such Beings exist, and that they help me figure out
what to do with this abundance of suffering found in the human condition.

>
>2) In every one of his books, Paul lifted material from a variety of authors
>without giving credit to any of them. The eck party line explanation for this
>is that Paul copied the material from astral records, as did the authors of the
>plagiarized books in question. The majority of eckists accept this
>explanation, despite it being much more evident that Paul simply didn't think
>he'd get caught. And you know what, he really didn't get caught, because in
>his lifetime most eckists were content with Paul's mystical claims. The same
>goes for the explanation that Paul was "in a hurry." Some eckists accept this,
>though it contradicts Paul's claims about the ability of the living eck master
>to know the future, i.e., that Darwin and Harold would succeed him.
>

Which future, baby? I can look into the oracles *right now* and
report half a dozen alternative probabilities. As I've grown less
stupified, there have been *more*, not less. Though they are increasingly
of 'one taste.'

>3) Evidence exists that Paul studied with, or was a devotee of, a variety of
>spiritual teachers. Paul did his best to wipe this evidence out, which was
>part of his effort to construct eckankar as wholly unique and even supreme, not
>beholden to any other spiritual teaching. Indeed, he went beyond even that to
>claim that eckankar is the source of all other spiritual teachings. His only
>evidence for this claim is his statements that this is so.
>

There *is* a very strong case to be made for a kind of
'proto-religion' based in the refining of human physiology/aesthesis. And
since we are in an era where things are not grasped, cognized without the
bludgeoning of overstatement, I don't see anything other than packaging in
Twitchell 'supremicist' claims. Unless, of course, the V. exist, and
he's one of 'em.

>For all of this and for much else, (like the rise and fall of Darwin Gross,)
>not to mention "Rama's Mission" and other eck histories, the eck mystical
>imperative is the bottom line. That is, the living eck master is in touch with
>the unseen and the unknowable, therefore, critical thinking in respect to
>eckankar is useless, even dangerous, and should be avoided. What's unprovable,
>irrational, contradictory, unethical, or otherwise just plain wrong is too
>frequently explained away as the workings of a Higher eck Purpose that we can't
>know, but that we can trust the living eck master has a grip on.
>

Yes, I'd say that this problem is detectable in the 'body of the
Mahanta' (the larger Satsang) right now. Critical thinking is feared by
*most* collectives whose enterprises are based on faith. Again my
question is: Do Beings like the V. exist or not? If Eckankar is one of
their experiments, how is that link expressed?

>All I want is some evidence before I believe in particulars like vairagi
>masters or "Rama's Mission."

I seriously don't do 'belief'. I don't recommend it for anyone as
the basis for a spiritual adventure. I start out with a premise and see
how vigorously it takes hold of my *imagination*. If it moves me, not
emotionally so much as *creatively* then I know I've picked up the scent
of Big Game.

>
>I should add that I don't consider the eck spiritual exercises, or dream
>experiences, or other unexplainable phenomena, as specific evidence of the
>authority of vairaigi masters, Paul's claims, or of eckankar today. (Neither
>do I think them worthless. I think spiritual practice is what it's all about,
>whatever path we're on.) But they aren't evidence that "eckankar" is all that
>it claims to be.

It may not be. Yet. But the sun still quickens and burns, and
we still whirl around it.

dfm

[KMerrymoon]

Joe,

I very much enjoyed your answers to Alana's questions.

And Richard, thanks once again for the research. Always enjoyable and
interesting.

Doug.

[sp...@gatezone.com]

In article <19980201201...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,

kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
>
> Richard, Kate and Joe all remembered about Paul's cat, Jadoo, same name
> as John Keel's book. Joe put it this way:

Uh, oh I'm off the 'A' list <VBG>

Not to worry I wasn't appointed by any ascended, semi-ascended, or descended
Chiefs while I was out running. Some one *did* give me their phone number but
that's something different...
<snipola>

> As any writer of fiction will tell you, you can simply make things up
> and have some very bad writing, or you can hit on fictional characters
> and stories that simply spring to life and write themselves. A good author
> does not feel they are actually the creator of such stories, but more like
> the discoverer of them. This is the source of our mythology.

Taking some big bites here.

>
> The thing that Paul made clear for me was that there was a difference
> between imaginary creations, and realities that only the imagination
> could discover. The realities have universal meaning, and have a life
> of their own. They do not belong to anyone, and they usually are copied
> and passed on through stories, religious teachings, songs, etc. They
> bring more meaning to us than we put into them, and they surprise us
> with unexpected insights.
>
> Simple imaginary creations, on the other hand, may appeal to wish
> fulfillment and ego gratification, but they give us back only what
> we put into them.
>
> Learning to discern the difference between the real and imaginary,
> is a part of the spiritual science that must be learned if one expects
> to make any real progress on the spiritual path. This learning can not
> come from books, but must be developed within the laboratory of our own
> inner selves, as the Radhasoami masters have put it. Those who insist
> on relying only on the objectively verifiable scientific facts, will
> never discover the real treasures of the imagination.

"Dey sher do dance..."

This post is amazing. If "one" reads it carefully I'm not sure there is any
net gain of information, yet there is a possible premise put forth about
imagination and reality not always being the same thing.

Is there a 'burr' under my saddle about Doug's posts... yes, there is.
There is a pseudo 'distancing' of himself from the topic at hand that I find
remarkably inauthentic.

I believe that Myths are a lot more than good fiction that comes to life.
Cobbling together a lot of images from lots of different sources doesn't
create a myth. The Shariyat-ki-Sugmad is a collection of many other cultural
creation (and other) myths. The Shariyat's value to me is what is not written
but to which it has 'pointers.' So, of course I agree, it isn't in books, or
even in Internet posts... I don't know anyone who still thinks it is.

Here are, perhaps, two interesting pieces of the Eckankar puzzle: "The Drums
of Eck" and "Key to Eckankar." I read the former years and years ago but at
that time I found it a good read (I was in the bookselling and publishing
business). It seems unlikely that this book was 'copied' from someone else,
yet it is one of the better written books Paul published. The "Key" is a
'hidden' Rebazar booklet that will make it suspect right away for some people,
but it is a very compact and highly dense 'transmittal' of some very
profound... you guessed it: keys. I have yet to hear that this booklet
contains previously published material. It too may fall under closer scrutiny,
but until it does it stands like a bright beacon in Paul's work.

David Lane must be out surfing somewhere, eh? Or else one of the true
believers got to him.

csk

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[sp...@gatezone.com]

In article <6b2mfk$8st$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana Keres) wrote:
>..With a Vairagi, what do you

> have? Continuous, tasteless, invisible, almost completely 'empty'

> sponsoring of more and more subtle "states" (hah!) of realization...

Nice. This is part of my 'problem' with the Eck 'rationalists.' They
seem to think they can dialectically 'incarnate' these states without
*being* them.

> No we aren't. Furthermore I don't CARE if Paul Twitchell was a
> Vairagi. I care that such Beings exist, and that they help me figure out
> what to do with this abundance of suffering found in the human condition.

Very nice. As any regular in these parts know, I don't always <g> see eye
to singular eye with the Myst being, but IMO she's really hitting the mark.

> Yes, I'd say that this problem is detectable in the 'body of the
> Mahanta' (the larger Satsang) right now. Critical thinking is feared by
> *most* collectives whose enterprises are based on faith. Again my
> question is: Do Beings like the V. exist or not? If Eckankar is one of
> their experiments, how is that link expressed?

This pointabout critical thinking being feared is more than an aside point
and is far more important than doing a search on the Net for Zadok. Sorry
Richard, I enjoyed the information, but that's the *easy* stuff.

Unlike Mysti, I'm not sure I see the same importance of the 'V's' existence
because if they don't then we can 'co-create' them and in fact maybe that is
the point... Remember symbiosis.

> I seriously don't do 'belief'. I don't recommend it for anyone as
> the basis for a spiritual adventure. I start out with a premise and see
> how vigorously it takes hold of my *imagination*. If it moves me, not
> emotionally so much as *creatively* then I know I've picked up the scent
> of Big Game.

It's almost against my religion to agree with Mysti so much in one year, let
alone one post, but *damn* this is good. Creativity is at the heart of all
this other shit that we are mucking around with from biology to beliefs. And,
No, I don't think this is the same thing Doug was intoning about. Close but
not the same and it's more than just the different colored 'vessel.'

> It may not be. Yet. But the sun still quickens and burns, and
> we still whirl around it.

Like so many whirled peas...

Isn't it time to do a clothing survey or something f'ing mundane?

[sp...@gatezone.com]

After running I went Goodwill hunting <...> and found some good stuff while
the laundry was spinning around and around (somewhat like we do in here).
Amazing how one person's junk is so much fun to find and get at bargain
prices.

I was at an Eckankar meeting today and someone was relating the story of how
their family cat died and their 2 1/2 hear old was having some difficulty
understanding that the cat was dead and not asleep. They came back to where
the cat was at one point and the little boy noticed it wasn't eating. That
helped. Dead things don't eat. Would the reverse be true, if you don't eat
you are dead? The father telling the story made it clear that the child was
more curious and interested than fearful or emotionally distraught.

Got me thinking and feeling. Having a young son myself I started visualizing
future conversations with him. Or visualized someone having a conversation
with him when his father might "not be eating" <gg>.

I heard myself tell him, in this imagined scenario, that death is when the
body no longer works, at all. I further told him that it was my understanding
that there was a part of each one of us that was more than the body. At some
age I thought of telling him about my various research and how there was no
iron-clad way that I knew of to determine the 'objective' existence of this
part of us (Soul/Spirit) that transcends the body. I'd share with him my
experiences with creating information and identity 'structures' that appear to
survive what is thought of as death. But I'd have to tell him that even when
I've experienced the sense of separation of Soul from the body it had an
intrinsic paradoxical illusion built right into it.

What with the continuity of consciousness, neural networks, the inner
information highway <g>, thought transmission, DNA links, atomic/quarkian
memory pathways, solid state entities, and so much more the very idea of
*what* incarnated to begin with seemed a little puzzling.

I sat with this for awhile as a whole 'seminar' room full of Eckists
clamored at me about what I was telling my son.

Then I smiled. And started eating again.

[floyd_pickett]

In article <6b35d3$h39$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>, sp...@gatezone.com says...

>
>In article <6b2mfk$8st$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana Keres) wrote:

>>..With a Vairagi, what do you

>> have? Continuous, tasteless, invisible, almost completely 'empty'

>> sponsoring of more and more subtle "states" (hah!) of realization...
>
> Nice. This is part of my 'problem' with the Eck 'rationalists.' They
>seem to think they can dialectically 'incarnate' these states without
>*being* them.
>

>> No we aren't. Furthermore I don't CARE if Paul Twitchell was a
>> Vairagi. I care that such Beings exist, and that they help me figure out
>> what to do with this abundance of suffering found in the human condition.
>

> Very nice. As any regular in these parts know, I don't always <g> see eye
>to singular eye with the Myst being, but IMO she's really hitting the mark.
>
>

>> Yes, I'd say that this problem is detectable in the 'body of the
>> Mahanta' (the larger Satsang) right now. Critical thinking is feared by
>> *most* collectives whose enterprises are based on faith. Again my
>> question is: Do Beings like the V. exist or not? If Eckankar is one of
>> their experiments, how is that link expressed?
>

> This point about critical thinking being feared is more than an aside point

>and is far more important than doing a search on the Net for Zadok. Sorry
>Richard, I enjoyed the information, but that's the *easy* stuff.
>

SNIP
>
>csk
>

Dear Kent,

There is much more on Zadok and The Teacher of Righteousness. I was bound
for Costa Rica on a trip to visit contemporary Essenes before joining up
with Eckankar.

There is even more on The White Brotherhood . . . and the Rosicrucians . . . and
. . . etc. not to mention the VCC.

What is amazing is the way that Paul Twitchell cobbled all of these things
together.

Is Eckankar an experiment?

Does the sun shine in Dixie?

My ghod, man, use your head for something besides a Nike hatrack!

rfp

[floyd_pickett]

In article <6b342e$gdj$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>, sp...@gatezone.com says...

Or maybe its some of that old Jadoo.

That Old Black Magic

That old black magic has me in its spell
That old black magic that you weave so well
Icy fingers up and down my spine
The same old witchcraft when your eyes meet mine

The same old tingle that I feel inside
When that elevator starts its ride
Down and down I go, round and round I go
** Like a leaf that's caught in the tide

I should stay away but what can I do
I hear your name, and I'm aflame
Aflame with such a burning desire
That only your kiss can put out the fire

You are the lover that I've waited for
The mate that fate had me created for
And every time your lips meet mine

Baby down and down I go, all around I go
In a spin, loving the spin that I'm in
Under that old black magic called love

Harold Arlen (m) - Johnny Mercer (w)

rfp

[Kate McLaughlin]

In article <6b36k0$i1k$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>,

sp...@gatezone.com wrote:
>
>
> Got me thinking and feeling. Having a young son myself I started visualizing
> future conversations with him. Or visualized someone having a conversation
> with him when his father might "not be eating" <gg>.
>
> I heard myself tell him, in this imagined scenario, that death is when the
> body no longer works, at all. I further told him that it was my understanding
> that there was a part of each one of us that was more than the body. At some
> age I thought of telling him about my various research and how there was no
> iron-clad way that I knew of to determine the 'objective' existence of this
> part of us (Soul/Spirit) that transcends the body. I'd share with him my
> experiences with creating information and identity 'structures' that appear to
> survive what is thought of as death. But I'd have to tell him that even when
> I've experienced the sense of separation of Soul from the body it had an
> intrinsic paradoxical illusion built right into it.
>
> What with the continuity of consciousness, neural networks, the inner
> information highway <g>, thought transmission, DNA links, atomic/quarkian
> memory pathways, solid state entities, and so much more the very idea of
> *what* incarnated to begin with seemed a little puzzling.

So ... little Quentin says, "Daddy, what's 'death'?"

And Kent replies, "Son, despite my research, there's no iron-clad
way that I know of to determine the quote objective unquote existence
of this part of us (Soul slash Spirit) that transcends the body. I've
had experiences with creating information and identity quote structures
unquote that appear to survive what is thought of as death. But even
when I've experienced the sense of separation of Soul from the body it

had an intrinsic paradoxical illusion built right into it. What with
the continuity of consciousness, neural networks, the inner information

highway [Kent grins], thought transmission, DNA links, atomic slash
quarkian memory pathways, solid state entities, and so much more, the

very idea of *what* incarnated to begin with seemed a little puzzling."

Quentin: "Oh."

[Ram3Ram]

Doug writes:

>Richard, Kate and Joe all remembered about Paul's cat, Jadoo, same name as
>John
>Keel's book. Joe put it this way:
>

>>I'm willing to bet Paul read this book. Wasn't "Jadoo" the name of his cat
>in
>>"In My Soul . . ." or some other early writing?
>
>When I read Keel's book, I had the same impression, that Paul had read it,
>probably got the name for his cat from there, and must have stored away the
>name of the monastery. Jadoo, by the way, means black arts, if I remember
>correctly, which is a great name for a black cat.
>
>On the other hand, if people insist on being scientifically accurate, there
>is
>a problem here with assuming that Paul got the name of Katsupari from this
>book. The problem is this: If we find a similar record of what Paul wrote
>about
>that existed before Paul wrote it, then it looks like a source that he
>copied.
>On the other hand, if it was written after Paul wrote it, then we can simply
>assume that the author read Paul's account and had such experiences inspired
>by
>what he read from Paul. So, we have a wonderful way of discounting anything,
>before or after, that could corroborate Paul's writing.

JOE WRITES:

I can see your point, Doug. It was perhaps presumptuous of me to discount
Keel's book, which I've not read. I'll admit to being a bit influenced by the
way you described the book, its author, and also its title.

I'll admit to a high standard for what I'd consider "evidence" of the
particulars of Paul's eck history. For example, the katsupari monastery I'd
consider corroborated if the following could be provided:

1) That such a place, by such a name, is proven to exist (or to have existed)
by physical evidence, or an authentic history. I'm no historian, but there are
certain standards for good history vs. junk history that ought to be adhered
to. .

2) That evidence exists proving this monastery taught something at least more
similar to eckankar than to tibetan buddhism or other tibetan religion. If its
teaching focused on the light and sound, for example, and made mention of eck,
hu, the living eck master, and the mahanta.

Maybe you feel this is asking too much, for historical analysis is done by mere
humans and is therefore flawed, material evidence is lost forever over time,
etc. However, it's not up to me or anyone else to accept Paul's story because I
can't absolutely prove it untrue. The burden of proof for "Rama's Mission" is
on Paul Twitchell and on others who maintain this story IS true.

After all, "Rama's Mission" is a complete revision of mainstream religious
scholarship, a revision that essentially puts eckankar and its leaders atop the
rest of humanity. For this reason I think it demands legitimate historical
corroboration.

DOUG WRITES:
>
>Fortunately, there are other ways of knowing things.
>
>The other thing that all this misses is the meaning of what is really
>happening
>with this information that is being passed on from one person to another. Why
>do certain names, personages, places and experiences get passed along?
>Because
>they spark something within the people that hear about them, and connect them
>to something meaningful within themselves.
>

>As any writer of fiction will tell you, you can simply make things up and
>have
>some very bad writing, or you can hit on fictional characters and stories
>that
>simply spring to life and write themselves. A good author does not feel they
>are actually the creator of such stories, but more like the discoverer of
>them.
>This is the source of our mythology.
>

>The thing that Paul made clear for me was that there was a difference between
>imaginary creations, and realities that only the imagination could discover.
>The realities have universal meaning, and have a life of their own. They do
>not
>belong to anyone, and they usually are copied and passed on through stories,
>religious teachings, songs, etc. They bring more meaning to us than we put
>into
>them, and they surprise us with unexpected insights.
>
>Simple imaginary creations, on the other hand, may appeal to wish fulfillment
>and ego gratification, but they give us back only what we put into them.
>
>Learning to discern the difference between the real and imaginary, is a part
>of
>the spiritual science that must be learned if one expects to make any real
>progress on the spiritual path. This learning can not come from books, but
>must
>be developed within the laboratory of our own inner selves, as the Radhasoami
>masters have put it. Those who insist on relying only on the objectively
>verifiable scientific facts, will never discover the real treasures of the
>imagination.

JOE WRITES:

I guess that's true. Did anyone see the Dilbert cartoons of a few weeks ago,
featuring the skeptics? Dilbert calls the skeptic hotline to ask for help
about something, and spends hours on the phone unsuccessfully trying to
convince them he indeed IS "Dilbert."

What you have to say is very interesting Doug. My point is that there are
realms where imagination, or suspension of the logical mind, is appropriate.
And realms where it's not. History is one area where it's not. (Historical
novels notwithstanding.)

Joe O
Joe O

[KMerrymoon]

Alana wrote:
>> I seriously don't do 'belief'. I don't recommend it for anyone as
>> the basis for a spiritual adventure. I start out with a premise and see
>> how vigorously it takes hold of my *imagination*. If it moves me, not
>> emotionally so much as *creatively* then I know I've picked up the scent
>> of Big Game.

Kent wrote:
> It's almost against my religion to agree with Mysti so much in one year, let
>alone one post, but *damn* this is good. Creativity is at the heart of all
>this other shit that we are mucking around with from biology to beliefs. And,
>No, I don't think this is the same thing Doug was intoning about. Close but
>not the same and it's more than just the different colored 'vessel.'

Well, Kent, when I read what Mysti wrote, it sounded exactly like the same
point that I was making.

I was travelling on a business trip all last week, so I didn't get a chance to
read your reply to me until yesterday. I've now read it over a few times, and I
don't know what to say about it, except our dialog has somehow gotten way off
track.

I will say this, Kent, that I never wrote anything in my post to "torque" you
and I have no reason why I would. I've always enjoyed your writing and posts. I
did include a few jokes, but they were intended to be friendly ribbing, and
since you were criticizing what I had written, I certainly never expected that
you would take what I said the way you did.

The way I see it, you asked what my beliefs were. A rather general question. I
didn't go into my file cabinet and pull out my chapter on My Beliefs, but just
wrote the first thing that seemed appropriate. I thought you'd understand what
I was writing about, and if not then you'd asked for more clarification, or
you'd pick a point to debate about. But you didn't do that.

You came back criticizing me as spouting b.s. and saying nothing of substance.
This last response seemed to be saying the same thing. You never directly
discussed the points I was making, except to say that they sounded lame, and
you made no comment on the section I wrote about the belief systems on the
different planes, which I thought you'd find at least somewhat substantial. And
now you are in agreement with the same thing I was saying, but this time you
find it agreeable because someone else has written it.

Obviously there is something going on here, Kent, but I have no idea what it
is. If you just feel that you must criticize what I write, that's fine with me.
I don't particularly mind. I prefer some criticism once in a while. But I have
no idea what the point is here.

I'd be glad to start this dialog over again, if you want, but I really don't
know what you're really after. If it is just to try and make me look foolish,
well that shouldn't be too hard. It also wouldn't be much of an accomplishment
either. <ggg> I think I can accomplish that all by myself, without any help.
<ggg>

Doug.

[KMerrymoon]

Kent wrote:
> This post is amazing. If "one" reads it carefully I'm not sure there is any
>net gain of information, yet there is a possible premise put forth about
>imagination and reality not always being the same thing.

Doug:
Kent, I think you will find yourself alone in the way you see what I'm writing.
Joe didn't have any problem understanding what I was saying, and I thought his
response was very interesting. True, I may not be saying anything completely
new, but if all you got from what I wrote was that imagination and reality are
not always the same thing, then you missed quite a bit.

Kent:

> Is there a 'burr' under my saddle about Doug's posts... yes, there is.
>There is a pseudo 'distancing' of himself from the topic at hand that I find
>remarkably inauthentic.

Doug:
More than a burr, Kent. Huge overtones and undertones going on here. But while
you might find me the object of such strong feelings, I don't have any sense
that I've contributed to what you're going through. This seems to be something
of your own creation.

Kent, I really do like what you write...generally. For example, I'd been
thinking the same thing that you said, about using Jung's approach to UFO's
when looking at the meaning that Masters have on the spiritual path. I think
there is something there to explore.

As for my authenticity, well I really do exist. <g> I also really do believe
the things I write. I'm not trying to play any games with anyone, if that's
what you think. You might think that I'm taking the safe route, but if you knew
anything about me, or my past, you'd realize that this is a real laugh. I've
caused enough turmoil for a few lifetimes, and I'm considered a major risk
taker, and agressive driver of new ventures, where I work.

Kent, you may not be able to understand this, but I really do find that I can
relate to almost everyone. I sometimes disagree with trends, or misapplied
beliefs, but I've found that when I really understand another person, then I
really can relate to why they say and do what they have. I may not support
them, and I may find that I have to stand against them, but I still find that I
can relate to them.

People like to draw lines and separate people into groups. I don't go along
with that. I've had ECKists get mad at me before because they thought I should
take a stand, for or against something. And in their minds, if I wasn't for,
then I was against. But that's their problem, not mine. If they want to call me
their enemy, then that's the way it goes, but I won't see them as my enemy.

What's it going to be, Kent, my friend?

Doug.

[Alana Keres]

In article <6b3ivh$5...@drn.zippo.com> Floyd Pickett writes:

>What is amazing is the way that Paul Twitchell cobbled all of these things
>together.
>
>Is Eckankar an experiment?
>
>Does the sun shine in Dixie?
>

Well, Kent, *does* it? <vbg>

>My ghod, man, use your head for something besides a Nike hatrack!
>

Oh, I promise you, Richard, he does...

Flying South,

dba Mysti
(nee 1955 'Dixie',
[buncha grubby little
lifetimes snipped]
nee 1055 'Machig')

[Alana Keres]

In article <886395296....@dejanews.com> zep...@connectexpress.com (Kate McLaughlin) writes:
>
>So ... little Quentin says, "Daddy, what's 'death'?"
>
>And Kent replies, "Son, despite my research, there's no iron-clad

<snippissimo>
>
>Quentin: "Oh."
>

Actually, Kate, the conversation that Q and I had about three days went
like this:

Mom: So Q, where were you before you were born?

Q: I was dead.

M: You were dead?

Q: Yes, I was in a leeeetle green light with a big, giant, major daddy
mountain.

M: Were you alone?

Q: *You* weren't there.

M: I wasn't there?

Q: You was *not* there. I wasn't there either. I was a leeeetle green
light. Then I was born.

Pretty funny since a few hours before I went into labor I opened
at random to a passage in Beyers book on Green Tara about moving through
the bardo *just before birth*. Reading it was ummmm, a little different.

I'll bet he knows what 'death' is...

[Alana Keres]

In article <19980202043...@ladder02.news.aol.com> kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) writes:
>
>Doug:
>Kent, I think you will find yourself alone in the way you see what I'm writing.
>Joe didn't have any problem understanding what I was saying, and I thought his
>response was very interesting. True, I may not be saying anything completely
>new, but if all you got from what I wrote was that imagination and reality are
>not always the same thing, then you missed quite a bit.
>

You gets what you fish fer... mais non, Mr. Doug? But really,
it's not hard to see what and how Kent "missed" it. Kentstrument (as in
'blunt') just has a hard spot for Avicenna-style discourse. He prefers
the gleaming edge of an al'Arabi...

(Read *between* de lines, darlin')

>Kent:
>> Is there a 'burr' under my saddle about Doug's posts... yes, there is.
>>There is a pseudo 'distancing' of himself from the topic at hand that I find
>>remarkably inauthentic.
>
>Doug:
>More than a burr, Kent. Huge overtones and undertones going on here. But while
>you might find me the object of such strong feelings, I don't have any sense
>that I've contributed to what you're going through. This seems to be something
>of your own creation.
>

Is and isn't. You do 'distance'-- with a voice that is
weltenschauung mixed with resignation and some self-effacement. It's a
style, and not hard to see at all from out here in the vasties deeps
around your langue. But whether that is to be condemned as
'inauthentic'--that's the part I find (ahem) interesting. Maybe even
'inauthentic' <G>.

>
>As for my authenticity, well I really do exist. <g> I also really do believe
>the things I write. I'm not trying to play any games with anyone, if that's
>what you think. You might think that I'm taking the safe route, but if you knew
>anything about me, or my past, you'd realize that this is a real laugh. I've
>caused enough turmoil for a few lifetimes, and I'm considered a major risk
>taker, and agressive driver of new ventures, where I work.

~Ring. ~~Ring. ~~~Ring. "Doug, it's for you." Silence. "Ummm,
I'm sorry, but Doug can't come to the phone right now. He's busy taking
risks and driving new ventures."

Trust me. Letting kent work out some of his more hypoterranean
funhouse images on the surfaces of your retinas is not at *all* safe--if
you're up to the [I'm sorry but.. *GufFAH*] "challenge." But he can be,
as the DL likes to say: "Little bit useful."

>
>People like to draw lines and separate people into groups. I don't go along
>with that. I've had ECKists get mad at me before because they thought I should
>take a stand, for or against something. And in their minds, if I wasn't for,
>then I was against. But that's their problem, not mine. If they want to call me
>their enemy, then that's the way it goes, but I won't see them as my enemy.
>
>What's it going to be, Kent, my friend?
>

Ummm. Doug. Don't look now, but you verging on a little
separation of your own. Livingston is a splendid adversary/agon precisely
because of the 'excluded middle' that he mostly occupies: a place of
radical negation. Don't wind yourself fighting *that*. Ride it.

Now have another sip of water and put your teethguard back in...

Coach Myst

[Alana Keres]

In article <6b3ivh$5...@drn.zippo.com> Floyd Pickett writes:
>

>There is much more on Zadok and The Teacher of Righteousness. I was bound
>for Costa Rica on a trip to visit contemporary Essenes before joining up
>with Eckankar.
>
>There is even more on The White Brotherhood . . . and the Rosicrucians . . . and
>. . . etc. not to mention the VCC.
>

>What is amazing is the way that Paul Twitchell cobbled all of these things
>together.
>

Hooo boy. Richard, I had intended to thank you for the MIB and
Zadok posts--not only for their intrinsic interest, but also because you
so immediately understood and supported the point I was trying to make
about the Vairagi. (No matter what they 'call' themselves from century to
century).

And that is without taking *anything* away from KL observation
that if the Vairagi didn't exist, we'd need to 'invent' them. (Reminds me
that one my favorite theoretical essays on art is called 'Making a Find'
-- about the trialectical nature of 'invention'/'discovery' (that slash in
the middle is the oscillating 'third thing': either waking up to their
identity or dreaming their difference).

We do need to invent them. Even if they exist.

Tra-la-la....

dfm

[Alana Keres]

Joe, I have to go to bed someday, so I'm going to make this short and
*mean*:

>
>I'll admit to a high standard for what I'd consider "evidence" of the
>particulars of Paul's eck history. For example, the katsupari monastery I'd
>consider corroborated if the following could be provided:

It's possible that Paul made up a bunch of this stuff. It's also
possible that he wrote to deliberately obscure some locations. For
example, I know where the 'monastery' in the Drums of Eck is located. And
you *cannot* see Izta or Popo (the two volcanos he mentioned as being
visible from the site) from that place at all. I found the place after PT
showed up in a dream to tell me a word which I thought was the name of a
town near the volcanoes (since it was supposed to have been near them) but
turned out to be the name of rites that had been occurring at the site
since before the conquest. Once I had cracked that part of the puzzle it
all fell into place. But the whole experience was both a teaser and a
training. As Shiva's Headband once sang: "I was climbing up the mountain,
and tell you what did I see? Up in the far, far distance, I spotted the
back of me." Before any of this stuff becomes visible, you have to learn
to search with a certain disinterested intensity. It takes more than
practice; it takes de-karmafication.

>1) That such a place, by such a name, is proven to exist (or to have existed)
>by physical evidence, or an authentic history. I'm no historian, but there are
>certain standards for good history vs. junk history that ought to be adhered
>to. .
>

Tell that to the Nath Siddhas who can't rightly tell you if they
are Buddhist or Saivite, who argue whether there were five or nine orginal
Naths, and who lost a big chunk of their 'lineage' along the way.
Or to the Tibetans who didn't really have a first Dalai Lama till
around the end of the Fourth, but needed to spook up a lineage with which
to impress Genghis (who, like most arrivistes, was a little too awed
by Pedigree).
Or sit down and read Imagined Nation, which details the whimsical
way in which the French were sold on the 'idea' of an American
'republic'. It will forever change your idea of 'fixed' history.

>2) That evidence exists proving this monastery taught something at least more
>similar to eckankar than to tibetan buddhism or other tibetan religion. If its
>teaching focused on the light and sound, for example, and made mention of eck,
>hu, the living eck master, and the mahanta.

Sigh. Tritonal chanting produces the sound HU. I personally only
know of two Eck masters (both women) operating within Tibetan Buddhism:
one by the name of Ekajati who is scarier than your entrails on the tines
of a haybailer; the other quite gentle though ferociously funny most of
the time--Green Tara. I would wager that a basic description of an Eck
Master would produce their names. (Well, maybe not Ekajati's -- not under
the current paradigm anyway).

>
>After all, "Rama's Mission" is a complete revision of mainstream religious
>scholarship, a revision that essentially puts eckankar and its leaders atop the
>rest of humanity. For this reason I think it demands legitimate historical
>corroboration.

I know I'm banging my head against a wall here, but let's try
again: Religions are not about 'facts' -- they are about producing
certain effects in the adherents. They are about how one behaves as the
student of an adept, of a lineage. As an Eckist "I" am not on top of
anything. I am watching a string unwind that carries a particular pitch
through and through and through so many different forms and tastes. And
since, in good Heisenbergian fashion, I cannot be separated from this
spectacle, I watch *how* I watch -- per the instructions of my guru. My
other instructor --Kelsang Gyatso-- warns in the beginnings of *his* books
that these are the **highest**, most refined, dangerous and esoteric
teachings. And I treat them accordingly. There is a certain amount of
threatening and vajrabrandishing that goes on in those opening pages, and
I accept it as intrinsic -- every path is 'the only path'. I understand
fully that such exhortations are an injunction to purify my motives -- or
get ready for the blowback.

Errrp. I'm sorry, Joe, I'm crazy tired, and must get offline
before I zombify myself tomorrow too. More later.

Shalom,

M'over

[arel...@mindspring.com]

KMerrymoon wrote:
>
>
> On the other hand, if people insist on being scientifically accurate, there is
> a problem here with assuming that Paul got the name of Katsupari from this
> book. The problem is this: If we find a similar record of what Paul wrote about
> that existed before Paul wrote it, then it looks like a source that he copied.
> On the other hand, if it was written after Paul wrote it, then we can simply
> assume that the author read Paul's account and had such experiences inspired by
> what he read from Paul. So, we have a wonderful way of discounting anything,
> before or after, that could corroborate Paul's writing.

That's true, and I think Paul is responsible for the cloud of suspicion
that prevails. This is natural consequence, or this is the kind of
attention Paul brings to himself, when it is revealed how he has been
untruthful about things. It is because of his deception that we would
even ask such no-win questions today. He made his bed...

It's hard enough to figure out what is and is not bullshit within
ourselves, who needs the added burden of figuring out when Paul is
bullshitting (excuse me, myth making) and when he is not. Seems to
hinder learning discernment.

Lurk

[arel...@mindspring.com]

KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> Kent wrote:
> > This post is amazing. If "one" reads it carefully I'm not sure there is any
> >net gain of information, yet there is a possible premise put forth about
> >imagination and reality not always being the same thing.
>

> Doug:
> Kent, I think you will find yourself alone in the way you see what I'm writing.

Correction Doug...Kent is not alone in his perceptions of your writing.
I stand along side brother Kent's perceptions with regards to some of
your
writing. I not sure which post he is referring to above, but in general,
some of your writing is what I would consider opaque goop. What is goop
you ask? Well...

One time as I was coming out of Kmart with my little nephew when he hit
me up for a quarter to buy something out of those gumball or novelty
machines that are strategical placed in the entrance ways. I gave him a
quarter and he put it into a little machine and out comes a plastic egg
shaped container with some green stuff in it. I looked at the label and
it said goop.

When we got home he immediately started playing with the stuff in his
hands. It was all gooey and stretched to great lengths without breaking
into pieces. After awhile, my nephew began to throw it up on the wall.
He watched intently as it stuck to the wall and kind of slithered
down the wall. It never would stick but for only a few seconds. Gravity
kind of got the best of the goop. One thing I did noticed when viewing
the
wall under a certain angle of light was there were marks on the paint
where
the goop was hitting.

I reached up with a wet rag and tried to wash the residue off the wall.
It didn't come off.

Moral of the story: When you play with goop, watch out for the residue
it leaves behind. <ggg>

Anyway, whether Kent is hocking up an emotional loogie or not, I agree
with some his honest/blunt/risky responses to you posts. Course I've
said similar stuff to you in the past.

And that's the way it is February 1, 1998. This is are-lurker saying
goodnight. <read last line with Walter Cronkite voice>

Lurk

[floyd_pickett]

In article <6b3nib$a8p$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, al...@actlab.utexas.edu says...

>
>In article <6b3ivh$5...@drn.zippo.com> Floyd Pickett writes:
>
>>What is amazing is the way that Paul Twitchell cobbled all of these things
>>together.
>>

>>Is Eckankar an experiment?
>>
>>Does the sun shine in Dixie?
>>
> Well, Kent, *does* it? <vbg>
>
>>My ghod, man, use your head for something besides a Nike hatrack!
>>
>
> Oh, I promise you, Richard, he does...
>
>
>Flying South,
>
>
>dba Mysti
>(nee 1955 'Dixie',
>[buncha grubby little
>lifetimes snipped]
>nee 1055 'Machig')
>
>

2 July 1955?

At the age of fourty-one, Machig Labdron stayed in a retreat cave in Chipug
which was blessed for practice. On the fourth day of the last month of spring,
in the middle of the night, the majestic Lady Tara appeared, surrounded by
numerous dakinis. She bestowed on Machig the four initiations of the five
primordial Buddhas according to the Udumvara Tantra...

Thereupon Machig composed a hymn of praise to each of the five Buddha families
and later improvised another one in twenty-one stanzas to Tara herself. She then
addressed Tara as follows:
"You have shown me great kindness and given me the most extraordinary power of
initiation and blessing. Yet I don't know if a woman like me, not particularly
bright, and of feeble capacities, will be able to accomplish the benefit of
beings..."

Tara smiled, then after a quick glance at the dakinis of her entourage, she
said: "Yogini, do not feel discouraged! In the course of previous lives you have
studied and mastered the meaning of the scriptures of Sutra and Tantra. So today
it is sufficient for me to reveal this meaning to you through mere symbols. You
are a mind emanation of the Great Mother Yum Chenmo: we are inseparable. You are
the wisdom dakini, the sovereign of the Vajradhatu and the source of the
liberation of all phenomena. Don't lose heart. Keep your determination."

But Machig replied: "How could I possibly be an emanation of the Great Mother,
inseparable from you? And in what way am I the source of the liberation of all
phenomena? And where is the residence of the Great Mother?"

Tara answered, "Yogini, although in your innermost heart there is clear
knowledge about the past, listen carefully and I'll explain it to you. The one
known as the primordial Mother Yum Chenmo is the ultimate nature of all
phenomena, emptiness, the essence of reality, free from the two veils. She is
the pure expanse of emptiness, the knowledge of the non-self. She is the matrix
which gives birth to all the Buddhas of the three times.

"However, so as to enable all sentient beings to accumulate merit, the Great
Mother appears as an object of veneration through my aspirations and prayers for
the sake of all beings. And so, through the power of my wishes and compassion,
from the dharmata there appears bright light in the shape of an orange-colored
bindu marked with the syllable MUM, ablaze with light. In turn this transforms
into the Great Mother Yum Chenmo, golden in color, with one face and four hands,
sitting in the vajra posture, her body beautiful with all the major and minor
marks of a Buddha. Surrounded by her princely sons, the Buddhas and bodhisattvas
of the ten directions, Yum Chenmo resides in the Gandavyuha sphere of the
celestial pure land of Akanistha, in a marvelous celestial palace.

"From my heart there radiates a greenish-black ray of light marked with the
syllable HUNG and it enters into the Mother's heart, awaking her. Then it
radiates out again gathering the power of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the
ten directions and it dissolves agiain into the Mother's heart. Instantly, she
transforms into a sky-blue dakini with one face and four hands. She is the
sovereign of Vajhradhatu. From her body, speech, mind, qualities and activity
appear innumerable manifestations. Among these, the mind emanation is the
bluish-black Vajra Lady with one face and two hands who subjugates all demons.
On the crown of her head is a boar's head emerging from her hair. Her splendor
illuminating the three worlds, she gathers all the dakinis under her power. She
sets all demonic forces to work as her servants; she is the source of the
liberation of all phenomena.

"Now this Vajra Ldy, who subjugates all demons for the sake of all sentient
beings, took numerous births in appropriate times and places. She mastered the
Pitakas and accomplished tremendous deeds for the sake of living beings. Finally
she took birth in Tibet. She is no other than yourself, Shining Light of Lab."

http://jeffsutherland.org/tara/machig.html

rfp

[SAMOREZ]

In article <6b3s2k$di6$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana
Keres) writes:

>We do need to invent them. Even if they exist.

The inverse is probably more correc, if they exist we still need to invent
them... because we are too ignorant, unworthy, boring, unevolved, karma-ridden,
unlovable, (you fill in the rest as they may apply)

Just another way to deal with the insufferable pain of *imagining* we are
separate from That.

Sam

Time makes more converts than reason ---- Thomas Paine

[SAMOREZ]

In article <19980201201...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kmerr...@aol.com

(KMerrymoon) writes:

>Those who insist on relying only on the objectively verifiable scientific
>facts, will never discover the real treasures of the imagination.

And those who insist on selling the fruits of their imagination by labeling it
"Truth", will never earn the respect of their peers......or their ex-followers.

[Alana Keres]

Dear Mr. Pickett,

Many thanks. I wrote a long reply and my newsreader ate it.
Since we are three hours into tomorrow, I'll not try to reconstruct it;
will only give you my most heartful appreciation.

Btw, did you know that those white silk reverential scarves are
called 'kata'-s?

Time to go emanate for a while,

M.

[Alana Keres]

Dear Friend,

Your post was quite moving -- especially this evening. I took Q to see
KUNDUN tonight. He was totally absorbed for almost three hours, amazing
for a two year old.

Then came home to read your lovely post. Different hagiographies give her
birthdate as sometime during the first week in July. The fun part was
reading the encounter (a story I hadn't heard) that you posted, then I
opened a text (which I had recently checked out but not yet read) to
*precisely* the same passage. Very cool.

Take care,

M.

[Alana Keres]

In article <19980203043...@ladder02.news.aol.com> sam...@aol.com (SAMOREZ) writes:
>In article <6b3s2k$di6$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana
>Keres) writes:
>
>>We do need to invent them. Even if they exist.
>
>The inverse is probably more correc, if they exist we still need to invent
>them... because we are too ignorant, unworthy, boring, unevolved, karma-ridden,
>unlovable, (you fill in the rest as they may apply)
>
>Just another way to deal with the insufferable pain of *imagining* we are
>separate from That.
>

Oh Sam... since 'my' (well, okay, the one I'm borrowing from God)
creative faculty is inherently synthetic (rather than dysthetic) if your
premise were true, my 'masters' would have to be correspondingly

"ignorant, unworthy, boring, unevolved, karma-ridden,>unlovable"

....now wouldn't they?

Not if I can help it, sweetie.

Mysti

[Alana Keres]

Misfired Letter Alert:

This was supposed to have gone into the *e-Mail* box.
To bed. To bed. Go to *bed*, Mysti...

Ack.

[TuzaTravlr]

>al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana Keres) wrote:

> I seriously don't do 'belief'. I don't recommend it for anyone as
>the basis for a spiritual adventure. I start out with a premise and see
>how vigorously it takes hold of my *imagination*. If it moves me, not
>emotionally so much as *creatively* then I know I've picked up the scent
>of Big Game.

So the "premise" that is begun with is not a "belief"? Ideas about ones self
and the world are not beliefs? The books, ideas, and teaching from various
sources one accepts and incorporates into the life expereince are not beliefs?
All expereinces follow this "idea construction".
And all action of consciousness is the "Big Game" and "spiritual". It is
viewing the camouflage ideas and "laws" and applying it to the inner senses and
vitality that make it appear to not be so....
But yes I know, most, believe experience follows beliefs and ideas, whereas it
is the other way around and one will only acquire those beliefs and ideas that
already agree with those they hold...until they view them and consciously work
in different directions.
All the methods, mantras, mandels and meditations in the world will only move
most deeper into already held beliefs and ideas....while thinking they have
"risen above" them. None exist in the physical without beliefs or ideas....a
child could not grow to an adult...a flower could not bloom if this were not
so. The inner vitality moves through idea construction to manifest. Limiting
ideas limit self and the constructions experienced...
And all actions are so-called "spiritual". Even if they are not from the
zman...... this is not stating any opposition to what you wrote but merely
showing that ideas, writing, expressing, breathing, and existing in the
physical is indeed "doing beliefs" .
your friend and monitor, (smiling)
Tman

[Alana Keres]

Dear Tuzatruths,

you opined:

<< this is not stating any opposition to what you wrote but merely
showing that ideas, writing, expressing, breathing, and existing in the
physical is indeed "doing beliefs" .>>

in response to my 'stylized' statement that I don't 'do beliefs'.

My response to your response is tht I am satisfied that *you* believe that
you cannot act, imagine or engage a premise outside of the structure of
belief. To insist that no one else does is presumptuous.

Simply, sumptuously,

M.

[TuzaTravlr]

>al...@actlab.utexas.edu (Alana Keres)

>My response to your response is tht I am satisfied that *you* believe that
>you cannot act, imagine or engage a premise outside of the structure of
>belief. To insist that no one else does is presumptuous.

So you believe.....

Tman

[rf_pickett]

In article <6baia1$c6d$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, al...@actlab.utexas.edu says...

>
>
>Dear Tuzatruths,
>
>you opined:
>
><< this is not stating any opposition to what you wrote but merely
>showing that ideas, writing, expressing, breathing, and existing in the
>physical is indeed "doing beliefs" .>>
>
>in response to my 'stylized' statement that I don't 'do beliefs'.
>

>My response to your response is that I am satisfied that *you* believe that

>you cannot act, imagine or engage a premise outside of the structure of
>belief. To insist that no one else does is presumptuous.
>

>Simply, sumptuously,
>
>M.
>
>
>
>
Believing

Q: Is it not useful to be quite sure about these matters before one makes
any progress in them? I feel that we must 'believe' before we can understand.

A: 'Being sure' and 'believing' each refers to various states of mind. Many
people, for example, think that they are 'sure' when they are only obsessed.
Others refer to their condition as 'believing' when they have merely been
indoctrinated. Until quite recently, those who pointed this out were often
regarded as agents of the Devil: which both indicates the aggressiveness
which goes with obsession and conditioning of some kinds, and also
illustrates the poverty of understanding of the victims.

So widespread is the false belief about believing, and about 'sureness,'
which is more likely to be cocksureness in a large number of cases, that
this was recently tested, in relation to supposed ESP (extra-sensory
perception).

There was an overwhelmingly negative correlation between 'believers' and ESP
capacity among people who claimed to have such perceptive abilities. That is,
people who claimed that they 'believed' generally had less ESP capacity than
those who did not. Again, people who claimed to be 'sure' about their
suitability for higher perceptive studies were found to be eight times
_less_ likely to understand these matters than the general population.

'Believing' before understanding is, as we found, for many people 'becoming
indoctrinated so that one need not try to understand.' People who _want_ to
believe so that they can understand are therfore found in general to be
people who want inculcated belief, something which is not compatible with
deeper understanding.

Real belief comes after understanding. Once a thing is understood, it _must_ be
believed, because it now has the status of a fact. If, however, we are
talking about 'belief' as something which can take place without
understanding or knowledge, this is really only a synonym for obsession, and
belongs to a medical, rather than a spiritual or psychological, area.

---Idries Shah, "The Commanding Self," pp. 258-259.

rfp

[ramon_fernandez]

In article <6bbah9$69l$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, al...@actlab.utexas.edu says...
>
>In article <6baubd$b...@drn.newsguy.com> RF Pickett writes:
> (quotes...)
>
>>>
>>>
>> Believing

>>
>>
>>'Believing' before understanding is, as we found, for many people 'becoming
>>indoctrinated so that one need not try to understand.' People who _want_ to
>>believe so that they can understand are therfore found in general to be
>>people who want inculcated belief, something which is not compatible with
>>deeper understanding.
>>
>
>

> Thank you for the clarification. And yet there is another part of
>my experience in which perception is *direct* and does not mess around
>with the waltz-time rhythms of 'believing' (HINT: Are there twilights
>everywhere you don't look...?)
>
>
>"I'd as lief be <g> embraced by the porter at the hotel
>As to get no more from the moonlight
>Than your moist hand.
>
>Be the voice of night and Florida in my ear,
>Use dusky words and dusky images
>Darken your speech.
>
>Speak, even, as if I did not hear you speaking,
>But spoke perfectly for you in my thoughts,
>Conceiving words,
>
>As the night conceives the sea-sounds in silence..."
>
>
>(Wallace Stevens)
>
>
> Go'waaan. I dare ya....
>
>
>
>M.
>

Who can resist a dare?

When you might sit,
A scholar of darkness,
Sequestered over the sea,
Wearing a clear tiara
Of red and blue and red,
Sparkling, solitary, still,
In the high sea-shadow.

* * *
Domination of Black
by Wallace Stevens

At night, by the fire,
The colors of the bushes
And of the fallen leaves,
Repeating themselves,
Turned in the room,
Like the leaves themselves
Turning in the wind.
Yes: but the color of the heavy hemlocks
Came striding.
And I remembered the cry of the peacocks.

The colors of their tails
Were like the leaves themselves
Turning in the wind,
In the twilight wind.
They swept over the room,
Just as they flew from the boughs of the hemlocks
Down to the ground.
I heard them cry -- the peacocks.
Was it a cry against the twilight
Or against the leaves themselves
Turning in the wind,
Turning as the flames
Turned in the fire,
Turning as the tails of the peacocks
Turned in the loud fire,
Loud as the hemlocks
Full of the cry of the peacocks?
Or was it a cry against the hemlocks?

Out of the window,
I saw how the planets gathered
Like the leaves themselves
Turning in the wind.
I saw how the night came,
Came striding like the color of the heavy hemlocks
I felt afraid.
And I remembered the cry of the peacocks.
* * *

Now, of course, leaves and peacocks have more than one meaning.
A meaning unimagined by the poet, but amply demonstrated in this room.
* * *

Her terrace was the sand
And the palms and the twilight.

She made of the motions of her wrist
The grandiose gestures
Of her thought.

The rumpling of the plumes
Of this creature of the evening
Came to be sleights of sails
Over the sea.

And thus she roamed
In the roamings of her fan,
Partaking of the sea,
And of the evening,
As they flowed around
And uttered their subsiding sound.

* * *
The Idea of Order at Key West

Wallace Stevens

She sang beyond the genius of the sea.
The water never formed to mind or voice,
Like a body wholly body, fluttering
Its empty sleeves; and yet its mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry,
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.

The sea was not a mask. No more was she.
The song and water were not medleyed sound
Even if what she sang was what she heard,
Since what she sang was uttered word by word.
It may be that in all her phrases stirred
The grinding water and the gasping wind;
But it was she and not the sea we heard.

For she was the maker of the song she sang.
The ever-hooded, tragic-gestured sea
Was merely a place by which she walked to sing.
Whose spirit is this? we said, because we knew
It was the spirit that we sought and knew
That we should ask this often as she sang.
If it was only the dark voice of the sea
That rose, or even colored by many waves;
If it was only the outer voice of sky
And cloud, of the sunken coral water-walled,
However clear, it would have been deep air,
The heaving speech of air, a summer sound
Repeated in a summer without end
And sound alone. But it was more than that,
More even than her voice, and ours, among
The meaningless plungings of water and the wind,
Theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped
On high horizons, mountainous atmospheres
Of sky and sea.

It was her voice that made
The sky acutest at its vanishing.
She measured to the hour its solitude.
She was the single artificer of the world
In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,
Whatever self it had, became the self
That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we,
As we beheld her striding there alone,
Knew that there never was a world for her
Except the one she sang and, singing, made.

Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,
Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As the night descended, tilting in the air,
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.

Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker's rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.

. . . even the Devil can quote scripture . . .

rfp
Leaf Brother - Night Rider__________________________________________________
In the Carolinas

The lilacs wither in the Carolinas.
Already the butterflies flutter above the cabins.
Already the new-born children interpret love
In the voices of mothers.

Timeless mothers,
How is it that your aspic nipples
For once vent honey?

The pine-tree sweetens my body
The white iris beautifies me.

---Wallace Stevens

[Alana Keres]

[SAMOREZ]

In article <6bbj36$a...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ramon Fernandez writes:

>Wallace Stevens

Yes Ramon, a writer of scripture is there ever was one...

The Snow Man

One must have a mind of winter
To regard the frost and the boughs
Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;

And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place

For the listener, who listens in the snow,
And, nothing himself, beholds
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.

Wallace Stevens (1879-1955)

sam

[Alana Keres]

(*Twilight of the Leaf)

>>As the night conceives the sea-sounds in silence..."

In article <6bbj36$a...@drn.newsguy.com> Ramon Fernandez writes:

>. . . even the Devil can quote scripture . . .
>

Yes, well surely our friend Paul knew this as well.

Dear Leaf,

In response to my dare you offer hemlock and kalachakras turning
like leaves. What of my question? what say you of the sound that
outspeaks belief?

Auntie-Eck

[frank_richard_oznowicz]

In article <6bcp2f$sei$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, al...@actlab.utexas.edu says...
>
>(*Twilight of the Leaf)

>>>As the night conceives the sea-sounds in silence..."
>

>In article <6bbj36$a...@drn.newsguy.com> Ramon Fernandez writes:
>

>>. . . even the Devil can quote scripture . . .
>>
>

> Yes, well surely our friend Paul knew this as well.
>
>
> Dear Leaf,
>
> In response to my dare you offer hemlock and kalachakras turning
>like leaves. What of my question? what say you of the sound that
>outspeaks belief?
>
>
>Auntie-Eck
>
>
>
>

Dear Auntie,

But sound, she discovered, was more than beautiful resonation -- it was the
detonating force of creation. She wrote:

"The Vedantists tell us that sound is the elemental correspondence of etheric
spaces, the root of measurable things. And our hearing and our
speech, the part of the mind that receives impression, can all be resolved
into the element of sound--the strange grey world of sound, flashing or
detonating, imperceptibly subduing and mastering, or roaring maledictions
upon us, gasping in ecstasy or choking in death, thousand-tongued. The
mystery of sound is made manifest in words and in music . . . we are
overwhelmed by the chatter of those who profane it, and the din of the
traffic of the restless disturbs the peace of those who are listening for
the old magic, and watching till the new creation is heralded by the sound
of the new word."

---Florence Farr

rfp

[themissinglink]

Frank, Richard, Oznowicz wrote:

>
> "The Vedantists tell us that sound is the elemental correspondence of etheric
> spaces, the root of measurable things. And our hearing and our
> speech, the part of the mind that receives impression, can all be resolved
> into the element of sound--the strange grey world of sound, flashing or
> detonating, imperceptibly subduing and mastering, or roaring maledictions
> upon us, gasping in ecstasy or choking in death, thousand-tongued. The
> mystery of sound is made manifest in words and in music . . . we are
> overwhelmed by the chatter of those who profane it, and the din of the
> traffic of the restless disturbs the peace of those who are listening for
> the old magic, and watching till the new creation is heralded by the sound
> of the new word."
>
> ---Florence Farr
>
> rfp

beautiful...

and in the beginning there was the Word...
and He said...."Let there be Light"....

(so let it be written, so let it be done.....)

[William Martens]

On 2 Feb 1998, Ram3Ram wrote:

> Doug writes:
>
> JOE WRITES:
>
> I can see your point, Doug. It was perhaps presumptuous of me to discount
> Keel's book, which I've not read. I'll admit to being a bit influenced by the
> way you described the book, its author, and also its title.

>
> I'll admit to a high standard for what I'd consider "evidence" of the
> particulars of Paul's eck history. For example, the katsupari monastery I'd
> consider corroborated if the following could be provided:
>

> 1) That such a place, by such a name, is proven to exist (or to have existed)
> by physical evidence, or an authentic history. I'm no historian, but there are
> certain standards for good history vs. junk history that ought to be adhered
> to. .
>

> 2) That evidence exists proving this monastery taught something at least more
> similar to eckankar than to tibetan buddhism or other tibetan religion. If its
> teaching focused on the light and sound, for example, and made mention of eck,
> hu, the living eck master, and the mahanta.
>

> Maybe you feel this is asking too much, for historical analysis is done by mere
> humans and is therefore flawed, material evidence is lost forever over time,
> etc. However, it's not up to me or anyone else to accept Paul's story because I
> can't absolutely prove it untrue. The burden of proof for "Rama's Mission" is
> on Paul Twitchell and on others who maintain this story IS true.

The burden of proof is on each individual who is interested in ECKANKAR.

And I have absolutely no obligation to prove to someone else what I know
from my own experience in ECK.

The burdens of proof that you would place on ECKists and the ECK Masters
is politely rejected, thanks but no thanks:-)

If you want proof of the ECK and the historical claims that are made by
the ECK Masters than YOU are the one who will have to get to work. No one
is going to to your work for you!

-William Martens

[Ram3Ram]

William writes:

>
>The burden of proof is on each individual who is interested in ECKANKAR.
>
>And I have absolutely no obligation to prove to someone else what I know
>from my own experience in ECK.
>
>The burdens of proof that you would place on ECKists and the ECK Masters
>is politely rejected, thanks but no thanks:-)
>
>If you want proof of the ECK and the historical claims that are made by
>the ECK Masters than YOU are the one who will have to get to work. No one
>is going to to your work for you!
>
>
>-William Martens
>
>
>

Dear William,

Thank you for your letter.

The "Rama's Mission" thread has been pretty popular, with 50 + postings.
Everyone has contributed something different to the discussion. I've gotten
something from each point of view to broaden my perspective. Hopefully
everyone else has as well.

I still stand by all I've posted to this discussion. If I may be so bold, I
think some of the posters have their "categories" somewhat confused. That is,
what one sees and experiences within is one thing; but a history concerned with
physical times, places, events, and personages is open to critical scrutiny.
Particularly if that history attempts to authenticate someone as the supreme
spiritual being on the planet. Personally, I don't feel that one cancels out
the other--that eck experiences, for example, validate a history that has (to
date anyway) no historical cogency. Neither do I feel that spirituality is
necessarily invalidated if it can't "prove" everything.

Sincerely,

Joe O

[KMerrymoon]

Joe wrote:
>If I may be so bold, I
>think some of the posters have their "categories" somewhat confused. That is,
>what one sees and experiences within is one thing; but a history concerned
with
>physical times, places, events, and personages is open to critical scrutiny.
>Particularly if that history attempts to authenticate someone as the supreme
>spiritual being on the planet. Personally, I don't feel that one cancels out
>the other--that eck experiences, for example, validate a history that has (to
>date anyway) no historical cogency. Neither do I feel that spirituality is
>necessarily invalidated if it can't "prove" everything.

First, Joe, I agree, I think the posts in this series have been interesting. I
also agree with the point you're making here, but here are a few more things to
complicate the matter:

If Paul Twitchell never claimed any previous lineage to his teachings, then he
would have been accused of lying and making himself seem more important than he
was, since we can find all sorts of evidence that similar teachings have
existed before. On the other hand, if Paul acts as if his direct lineage comes
through Kirpal Singh, who he studied under, then Paul would be accused of
destroying and distorting Kirpal's teachings by all the changes that he made.

In fact, the differences between Kirpal's teachings and Paul's are huge, except
perhaps in the area of cosmology, in which there are still a number of
differences.

So Paul is going to be accused of something, no matter what he chooses to
claim. I think his somewhat fictional lineage was his attempt to point out that
these teachings have existed before, down through history, and yet are
different from any other teaching around today. Why was that important to Paul?
Simply because it was an important part of what he was trying to say.

Simply saying that Paul should have told the facts and nothing but the facts,
would not have helped Paul communicate the truths that he was trying to
communicate. And although he could have chosen other more factual approaches, I
think no matter how he approached it, he would still have been wide open for
all sorts of accusations. In other words, the nature of what he was trying to
describe and communicate will never stand up to factual examination, simply
because the subject is about something that is beyond the nature of facts.

So, if someone believes that Paul's lineage authenticates his teaching, then
they will be in for some upset when they find that Paul's lineage is mighty
hard to find any evidence for, but if we set aside our reactions, and simply
accept that Paul wrote all this to communicate something, then we are back to
simply understanding what Paul was trying to say.

This whole idea that Paul wrote these things to deceive others, intentionally,
is what distorts the matter. We have no way of knowing Paul's intentions, and
so as much as we'd like to completely diagnose Paul's psychological condition,
we are really just complicating the matter by trying to do so. What matters is
not whether we have been duped, or whether Paul's books work as good history
material, but has he written something that is useful to us, or does he help us
understand and catch that incredible subtlety of the spiritual path.

Mark Twain wrote almost all of his most treasured books simply because he was
in debt, from poor investments in foolish new technologies that turned out to
be bogus, and so he was forced to write something quickly to bring in some
cash. Should that change how we read his books? Should that color how we
interpret his books? If you think so, then read Twain's scathing introduction
to Tom Sawyer (or was that Huckleberry Finn?), where he attacks those who
interpret novels and look for symbolic meanings and motivations.

Just a few more thoughts to awaken Sam and Arelurker from the doldrums.

Doug.

[SAMOREZ]

In article <19980211053...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kmerr...@aol.com
(KMerrymoon) writes:

>Just a few more thoughts to awaken Sam and Arelurker from the doldrums.

I have only one thought right now.

Have you, KMerrymoon, ever called a spade a spade in your entire life?

Paul made-up Eckankar to serve himself. Live with it. Incessant spinning and
apologizing will never change that fact. If you want Eckankar to be something
it has heretofore not been, start now. Start with full disclosure. Instead of
spinning, disclose. Instead of apologizing, admit. It will be OK. You'll be a
hero for helping to save Eckankar from itself.

Sam

[KMerrymoon]

Sam wrote:
>I have only one thought right now.

Such singlemindedness, Sam. I am impressed. <g>

>Have you, KMerrymoon, ever called a spade a spade in your entire life?

So, are you saying that I should address you as Sam Spade? Is that what you're
saying? <ggg>

>Paul made-up Eckankar to serve himself. Live with it.

I seem to be living with it without any problem, Sam Spade. Does that bother
you?

>Incessant spinning and
>apologizing will never change that fact.

Not trying to change the facts. I just happen to enjoy seeing these things from
many different angles, while you seem stuck on just one viewpoint. Just because
I am bringing up other details and ways of looking at it, doesn't mean that I
don't see your viewpoint as well. But why does it bother you, that there might
be other viewpoints? I thought you were just interested in making sure that
people at least see the way you see it. Must everyone also see it only this
way?

>If you want Eckankar to be something
>it has heretofore not been, start now. Start with full disclosure. Instead of
>spinning, disclose. Instead of apologizing, admit. It will be OK. You'll be a
>hero for helping to save Eckankar from itself.

Mr. Spade, I have already disclosed. I wrote all about Paul's copying of large
amounts from Julian Johnson's books, along with lots of small sections from
many other authors. I also have "admitted" that I have seen for myself
manuscripts of Paul's where he has changed the names of the Masters that he
studied under. I wrote about these things in my article "In The Face of
Criticism" which Nathan seems to post every week.

Those are what I would consider the facts, but they tell us nothing about the
story. Is this Dragnet or something, where we must tell Detective Spade just
the facts, and nothing but the facts? I happen to find it all very interesting,
especially the story behind the facts.

If your point is that ECKANKAR should be disclosing these facts to all ECKists,
well I agree with you, and I'll do what I can to help with that.

But I also enjoy seeing Detective Spade spring into action, for, as we all
know, he knows the seemier side of life, like any good detective. He's walked
many a dark alley, and spent too many late nights in a motel room, or in run
down bars, watching men and women cheat on each other. He's seen their envy,
and anger, and he knows that whether rich or poor, both are closer to each
other than they like to think. Yes, Sam Spade, knows the dark side of humanity.
He's seen them up close. He's seen the booze and the drugs, but now he just
watches. He watches because he's paid to watch. That's his job. Anyone else
would hate it, but Sam Spade was born a gumshoe, and any other life would seem
fake to him. He feels sorry for the poor little people lost in the trivialities
of their happiness. Superficial happiness. He feels sorry, because Sam knows
underneath is that dark side. He knows it very well, and it can emerge at any
moment. And in a fit of anger that happiness turns into murder, or death, or
plagiarism. Yes, Detective Spade sees life as it is, no more, no less... <ggg>

Doug.

[kens...@erols.com]

SAMOREZ <sam...@aol.com> wrote ...
:
: Paul made-up Eckankar to serve himself.

Just as you, Sam, make these posts on a.r.e. to serve *yourself*. Does
anyone do **anything** that is not, on some level, self serving? Or at least,
self rewarding.

Ken

[arel...@mindspring.com]

KMerrymoon wrote:
>
> Joe wrote:
> >If I may be so bold, I
> >think some of the posters have their "categories" somewhat confused. That is,
> >what one sees and experiences within is one thing; but a history concerned with
> >physical times, places, events, and personages is open to critical scrutiny.
> >Particularly if that history attempts to authenticate someone as the supreme
> >spiritual being on the planet. Personally, I don't feel that one cancels out
> >the other--that eck experiences, for example, validate a history that has (to
> >date anyway) no historical cogency. Neither do I feel that spirituality is
> >necessarily invalidated if it can't "prove" everything.
>
> First, Joe, I agree, I think the posts in this series have been interesting. I
> also agree with the point you're making here, but here are a few more things to
> complicate the matter:
>
> If Paul Twitchell never claimed any previous lineage to his teachings, then he
> would have been accused of lying and making himself seem more important than he
> was, since we can find all sorts of evidence that similar teachings have
> existed before.

Accused of making himself more than he was? Probably the contrary would
have been true; he would stayed a hack Sci Fi writer, an obscure nobody.
I wonder how many people would have been star-struck if he didn't make
himself out to be this spiritual star with other people's writing.

I suspect his plagiarized religion was his chance to finally BE
somebody, to release himself from the abuse and pain in his life by
having this alternative superhuman view of himself. (Wow... that kind of
describes many eckist I knew, including myself)

You know, maybe Paul wasn't all that important in the grand scheme of
things. Maybe he was merely a regular guy trying despertely to
overcompensate for his shitty life with an obessive search.

> On the other hand, if Paul acts as if his direct lineage comes
> through Kirpal Singh, who he studied under, then Paul would be accused of
> destroying and distorting Kirpal's teachings by all the changes that he made.

Man Doug, you almost got me feeling sorry for Paul and his predicament.
I'm sure he deeply struggle many days over what to do. <lurk shakes Doug
out of his head> Ahhh...that's better.

What's wrong with simply saying "I learned many things from my teacher
Kirpal, but I have different ideas than his, here's what they are...."

No reason to sneak around with fictional masters and profiting from
other people's writing.

>
> In fact, the differences between Kirpal's teachings and Paul's are huge, except
> perhaps in the area of cosmology, in which there are still a number of
> differences.

I thought he did changed the cosmology to differentiate his product.

>
> So Paul is going to be accused of something, no matter what he chooses to
> claim. I think his somewhat fictional lineage was his attempt to point out that
> these teachings have existed before, down through history, and yet are
> different from any other teaching around today.

What do you mean "somewhat" fictional lineage.

As far as I'm concerned the lineage contains two: Paul and Harold, and
the other guy that wasn't really a master 'cause it wasn't a good fit
with the program all of a sudden.

> Why was that important to Paul?
> Simply because it was an important part of what he was trying to say.

I would say that his fictional lineage made him seem more important,
credible, or spiritually evolved than he really was, as did the
plagiarism. He probably benefited more than his audience. Afterall, he
got to be big man on campus for awhile.

>
> Simply saying that Paul should have told the facts and nothing but the facts,
> would not have helped Paul communicate the truths that he was trying to
> communicate. And although he could have chosen other more factual approaches,

How bout Honest approaches. I don't believe for a moment that it is
necessary, productive, or useful to tell lies to communicate whatever
spiritual truths someone wants to convey to people. I think only eckist
believe this since this is their heritage.

> I think no matter how he approached it, he would still have been wide open for
> all sorts of accusations.

Poor Paul...the trials and tribulations of starting a religion, er path.
The burden must have been great. Nobody will understand. Somebody's had
to do and by God if he
had to steal other people's words to do it...well what's wrong with
that! <help! help! Doug is seeping into my brain, call a priest Zuma, I
need to be exorcised>

> In other words, the nature of what he was trying to
> describe and communicate will never stand up to factual examination, simply
> because the subject is about something that is beyond the nature of facts.

Is the word "facts" the semantic straw man, the euphemism of the day?
Simply relegate things as facts and place these facts below the
spiritual.

>
> So, if someone believes that Paul's lineage authenticates his teaching, then
> they will be in for some upset when they find that Paul's lineage is mighty
> hard to find any evidence for, but if we set aside our reactions, and simply
> accept that Paul wrote all this to communicate something, then we are back to
> simply understanding what Paul was trying to say.

No were back to Paul's lie about a lineage to make himself legitimate in
the eyes of the people he was teaching. (and probably to himself...after
a while, a liar starts to believe their own lies) He's the one that was
trying to authenticate his teachings with a lineage.

The lineage of eckankar has always been presented by Paul, by Harold, by
HI's as very special, ancient, ultimate teaching with an unbroken
lineage.

Now, in the usual situational style, you're saying that the lineage is
not important and people who believe this are missing the teachings? Now
there's a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

Geez, how can eckist can believe anything that Harold or HI's say now.
In a few years they'll learn it was all fiction that they have been
silly to believe.

>
> This whole idea that Paul wrote these things to deceive others, intentionally,
> is what distorts the matter.

So you're saying that Paul plagiarized and made up masters
unintentionally? Wow...talk about distortions.

Doug, what can I say but this: When the student is ready, the eck
master's self-interest will appear.

> We have no way of knowing Paul's intentions, and
> so as much as we'd like to completely diagnose Paul's psychological condition,
> we are really just complicating the matter by trying to do so.

I disagree. I think determining who Paul and Harold are on a practical
level, and speculating about their motivations about lying or covering
up the lying is exceedingly important. If there is a pattern of
deception in their life, in the way they conduct their affairs, I would
want to know about it if I was a student of eckankar.

I mean, eckists don't want to one day wake up and realize that the
person they have been following is the Codependent King of the universe
instead of the person with the highest consciousness.

> What matters is
> not whether we have been duped, or whether Paul's books work as good history
> material, but has he written something that is useful to us, or does he help us
> understand and catch that incredible subtlety of the spiritual path.

The old ends-justifys-the-means explanation is kind of a cultic thing,
in my opinion.

>
> Mark Twain wrote almost all of his most treasured books simply because he was
> in debt, from poor investments in foolish new technologies that turned out to
> be bogus, and so he was forced to write something quickly to bring in some
> cash. Should that change how we read his books? Should that color how we
> interpret his books? If you think so, then read Twain's scathing introduction
> to Tom Sawyer (or was that Huckleberry Finn?), where he attacks those who
> interpret novels and look for symbolic meanings and motivations.
>

> Just a few more thoughts to awaken Sam and Arelurker from the doldrums.

Do you really belief some of the crap you post, Doug?

Is that the reaction you were looking for?

On cue,

Lurk

[arel...@mindspring.com]

Ken, this was on the AP wire a couple of days ago and reminded me of
this NG:

************************
By RON FOURNIER
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Another late night phone call with bad news. ``Oh
no,'' the presidential adviser muttered, then swore under his breath.
``This is a killer.''

That call triggered another and another - until President Clinton's
inner circle hustled up the support of a friendly defense lawyer, calmed
an
agitated press corps and plotted a morning attack against Whitewater
prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Around midnight, the adviser stumbled off to
bed -
confident that his boss would survive another day.

All in a day's work inside Clinton's ``crisis cabinet,'' where four
rules apply: Deny the accusations, reveal as little as possible, defuse
embarrassing news stories and - above all - try to tar Starr.
*****************************

Sounds like eckankar's current disposition with regards to it's
contraversial beginning and subsequent cover-up. <g>

Lurk

[Ram3Ram]

Doug writes:

>If Paul Twitchell never claimed any previous lineage to his teachings, then
>he
>would have been accused of lying and making himself seem more important than
>he
>was, since we can find all sorts of evidence that similar teachings have

>existed before. On the other hand, if Paul acts as if his direct lineage

>comes
>through Kirpal Singh, who he studied under, then Paul would be accused of
>destroying and distorting Kirpal's teachings by all the changes that he made.

JOE WRITES:

Twitchell should have simply TOLD THE TRUTH about where he'd been, who he
studied under, and what he was trying to do with eckankar! Why does it all
have to be so complicated, so byzantine?

If he never claimed any lineage, yes, that would be a lie.

If he said his lineage came through Kirpal Singh, no doubt he'd have detractors
calling him a renegade. Kirpal Singh himself is considered a renegade by the
Radha Soami group, though his teachings are virtually identical to RSSB (which
many Sikhs consider renegade). But Singh never lied about his past, and gave
credit to his teacher. Neither did Singh make up a new, fictional lineage.

This third option that Paul chose is, I think, far worse than the two you
presented. He lifted his teachings from elsewhere, gave no credit to anyone,
concocted a comic book lineage, and put himself on the top of it!

Imagine an eckankar that was totally honest about where it came from. What
would be missing from it? Certain people's authority, to be sure. And most
important: the eck teaching that Truth is so very, very subtle, slippery, and
relative.

DOUG WRITES:
>
>In fact, the differences between Kirpal's teachings and Paul's are huge,
>except
>perhaps in the area of cosmology, in which there are still a number of
>differences.

JOE:

How exactly are they "huge"? Light and sound, inner master, karma,
reincarnation, mantra repetition . . .Where they are different can be traced to
other teachings that Paul studied, e.g., Scientology.

DOUG:

>snip.

>
>Simply saying that Paul should have told the facts and nothing but the facts,
>would not have helped Paul communicate the truths that he was trying to
>communicate. And although he could have chosen other more factual approaches,

>I
>think no matter how he approached it, he would still have been wide open for
>all sorts of accusations.

In other words, the nature of what he was trying to

>describe and communicate will never stand up to factual examination, simply
>because the subject is about something that is beyond the nature of facts.

JOE:

To quote (from distant memory) from the intro to the Tiger's Fang, "Some may
say all this is a fantasy. But if even fantasy is woven from the cloth of God,
then how can fantasy be a complete untruth?" I remember this because I think
it the most interesting thing Paul ever wrote.

If that's the essence of what Twitchell really wanted to get across to eckists,
fine. But in all his writings, it's the only occasion I can recall where he
was so upfront about the true theme of his "eckankar."

And still, that doesn't legitimize the orthodoxy of Eckankar: eck masters like
Yaubl Sacabi are "real beings," that led real lives on earth. It's not about
"facts' as the be-all-end-all of spirituality, it's about (as Sam wrote)
calling a spade a spade. And again, it's about categories: if there are bold
claims about real people, real events, real places, etc., these claims demand
empirical backup.
What people experience and infer from meditation is something else entirely.

I wish at least that eckankar would acknowlege this distinction.

DOUG:

>So, if someone believes that Paul's lineage authenticates his teaching, then
>they will be in for some upset when they find that Paul's lineage is mighty
>hard to find any evidence for, but if we set aside our reactions, and simply
>accept that Paul wrote all this to communicate something, then we are back to
>simply understanding what Paul was trying to say.

JOE:

Yes, and I'd like to see Klemp take the same position. But I don't agree that
we should set aside our reactions. In my experience, there's more to be
learned and gained from these bubble-bursting reactions than from faithful
acceptance eck writings.

DOUG:

>This whole idea that Paul wrote these things to deceive others,
>intentionally,

>is what distorts the matter. We have no way of knowing Paul's intentions, and

>so as much as we'd like to completely diagnose Paul's psychological
>condition,

>we are really just complicating the matter by trying to do so. What matters

>is
>not whether we have been duped, or whether Paul's books work as good history
>material, but has he written something that is useful to us, or does he help
>us
>understand and catch that incredible subtlety of the spiritual path.

JOE:

Let's thoroughly investigate both the pro and the con. It's all important.
It's the only way to truth, or rather to approaching truth--taking everything
into consideration as honestly as we're able.

Joe O

[SAMOREZ]

In article <19980212063...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kmerr...@aol.com
(KMerrymoon) writes:

>So, are you saying that I should address you as Sam Spade? Is that what you're
>saying? <ggg>

Uh oh. I feel a wall of weak humor going up to trivialize the fact that Doug is
conflicted in his feelings about Eckankar.

>>Paul made-up Eckankar to serve himself. Live with it.

>I seem to be living with it without any problem, Sam Spade. Does that bother
>you?

Yes. It bothers me that I was fooled and didn't know it. It bothers me more
that you know you were fooled and don't seem to care.

>Those are what I would consider the facts, but they tell us nothing about
>the story.

Bullshit. Ex pede Herculem. (from a part we may judge the whole) I hate to be
so simplistic, but do you think we can understand the story around Nicole
Simpson's and Ron Goldman's murders by considering the facts? I mean, whatever
VIEWPOINT you want to look at this case of homicide, factually there is no
doubt 2 people are dead and OJ's a heinous murderer, free to walk the streets
with whatever HIS viewpoint might be..(you know, he just loved her TOO much...)
:((

>But I also enjoy seeing Detective Spade spring into action, for, as we all
>know, he knows the seemier side of life, like any good detective.

"Seemier" ?? Do you mean things are not always as they *seem*, regardless of
the literature and the Party Line and the Official Apologizers? On that score,
we have full agreement. And yes, I have found more freedom and downright fun in
embracing the so-called 'dark side' of life than I ever did when I was afraid
to wear anything but a blue shirt and frantically chant HU every time someone
was mean to me.

So tell me Doug. When you give an intro. talk and repeat info. about Eckankar
and Paul you know to be untrue, or give your tacit approval of egregious lies
by just not talking about them, tell me, just how do you justify that to
yourself?

My hunch is that you've personally (response, recognition, security, etc.) got
too much at stake to pull the plug on what you know to be a Grand Deception.

Calling a spade a spade.

Sam S.

[SAMOREZ]

In article <6c0ag1$b...@drn.newsguy.com>, Richard Pickett writes:

>Vintage Twitchell. Wonderful stuff.

Well, vintage *somebody*. <GGG>

Castro's brother, Sam

[SAMOREZ]

In article <34E381...@mindspring.com>, arel...@mindspring.com writes:

>I mean, eckists don't want to one day wake up and realize that the person
>they have been following is the Codependent King of the universe instead of
>the person with the highest consciousness.

HA! I just wanted to read again. Mebbe we should spell it Kodependent King. <G>

Smoke 'em if you got 'em,

[arel...@mindspring.com]

SAMOREZ wrote:
>
> In article <19980212063...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, kmerr...@aol.com
> (KMerrymoon) writes:
>

Doug:

> >Those are what I would consider the facts, but they tell us nothing about
> >the story.

Sam:

> Bullshit. Ex pede Herculem. (from a part we may judge the whole) I hate to be
> so simplistic, but do you think we can understand the story around Nicole
> Simpson's and Ron Goldman's murders by considering the facts? I mean, whatever
> VIEWPOINT you want to look at this case of homicide, factually there is no
> doubt 2 people are dead and OJ's a heinous murderer, free to walk the streets
> with whatever HIS viewpoint might be..(you know, he just loved her TOO much...)
> :((

Hey Sam, maybe eckankar should set up an 800 number for eckist to call
when they spot an eck masters in the physical. <GGG>

Lurk

[zep...@connectexpress.com]

In article <34E432...@mindspring.com>,

Yeah, and then on the evening of October 21 every year, they can
get the TV weatherpeople to pretend that the U.S. Weather Service
is tracking Rebazar as he flies across the Pacific toward wherever
the Worldwide is going to be, like they do for Santa Claus...

Kate

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[KMerrymoon]

Sam waxes poetic:

>Uh oh. I feel a wall of weak humor going up to trivialize the fact that Doug
is
>conflicted in his feelings about Eckankar.

Doug:
Sam, stick with the Spade detective business. Sherlock Holmes you are not.

Sam:

>Yes. It bothers me that I was fooled and didn't know it. It bothers me more
>that you know you were fooled and don't seem to care.

Doug:
This is really funny, Sam. I really laughed over this one. Is this some sort of
boomerang guilt that you've got here? Will you also die to save the sins of all
people? And this suffering you go through, Sam, does it only last for as long
as you are logged onto a.r.e., or does it last for an hour or so? <ggg>

Sam:

>And yes, I have found more freedom and downright fun in

>embracing the so-called 'dark side' of life than I ever did...

Doug:
Sam, that's exactly the point I was making, and why I thought you'd enjoy the
Sam Spade reference.

You see, the difference between you and me is that I like joking around *with*
you, while you seem to gain great pleasure in trying to cut as deeply into
others as you can. As if there is some sort of achievement in this.

Sam:

>So tell me Doug. When you give an intro. talk and repeat info. about Eckankar
>and Paul you know to be untrue, or give your tacit approval of egregious lies
>by just not talking about them, tell me, just how do you justify that to
>yourself?

Doug:
Like I said, Sherlock Holmes you are not. It really isn't hard to understand
why you would be so far off judging Paul Twitchell, when you consistently show
such poor recognition of other people.

To my knowledge, I have only given talks about what I have learned is true, and
what I have discovered through my own experiences in ECKANKAR. I have never
seen a need to sell ECKANKAR. I remember talking to other ECKists, only a few
months after beginning my study, recommending that they stick to sharing only
what they knew was true from their own experience, when talking about ECKANKAR.
There is no need to give out a party line, when it comes to the spiritual path.

And yes, I do speak up when I see others getting the wrong ideas about the
teaching.

Sam, you really must be sitting on a whole load of buried guilt. Or are you
just flailing about hoping that your knife blade will draw some blood?

Sam:

>My hunch is that you've personally (response, recognition, security, etc.) got
>too much at stake to pull the plug on what you know to be a Grand Deception.
>
>Calling a spade a spade.

Doug:
Sam, that's not calling a spade a spade. Those are just some really bad
guesses.

But I'm glad that the piece I wrote to Joe inspired both you and Lurk. It was
getting a little too quiet here on a.r.e., and so I thought you'd enjoy that
piece. But you and Lurk are getting way too predictable. How about some new
stuff? This one note you guys keep playing over and over gets a little boring.

Sam, how about sharing some of the new thoughts and observations you have had
about the world, or life, recently. What do you find interesting, at this point
in your life?

[arel...@mindspring.com]

KMerrymoon wrote:
>
>
> Doug:

>
> But I'm glad that the piece I wrote to Joe inspired both you and Lurk. It was
> getting a little too quiet here on a.r.e., and so I thought you'd enjoy that
> piece. But you and Lurk are getting way too predictable.

I'd like to think of it as being dependable.

You can count on me, at least for now, to respond to your notions that
presenting or having multiple viewpoints about Paul's lies is somehow
means less attachment or that it is better than a singular viewpoint. I
don't agree. I mean three or four viewpoints with little substance or
probability doesn't necessarily invalidate a substantive singular
viewpoint just because it is singular. <g> Also, presenting three or
four viewpoints as a way to de-emphasize, minimize or dilute the impact
of a significant singular viewpoint is not all that clever.

Generally speaking, I like to post my observations here on the newgroup.
There is something about eckists in their forties and fifties, who wear
this badge of authority that says "I know the absolute truth," and use
it to not only seduce themselves in a self-confirming way or with the
ego-satisfaction of "helping" people, but intellectually seduce less
experienced people by pumping them up with all these positive "high
sounding" eckankar concepts.... luring people who are in their twenties
and thirties and just looking for any authority figure to tell what's
what, or can't deal with the repressed pain of coming from dysfunctional
families and want to checkout for awhile.....you know, that just strikes
me the wrong way.

And behind it all, feeding these relationships, is eckankar's system
that Paul devised in a dishonest, haphazard manner and Harold uses to
maintain his power base because he lacks the courage to be honest about
it.

This motivates me to want to post stuff about such enmeshed
relationships that I saw in Eckankar. The more information people have
about how they can exploit themselves and others in eckankar, the
better. Part of that includes understanding Pauls' creating his Kentucky
Fried Enlightenment business and how Harold's hybrid is played out
today.

> How about some new
> stuff? This one note you guys keep playing over and over gets a little boring.

As is your one note you play that is masked in the multiple notes you
play.

I got your tune. <g>

Lurk

[zep...@connectexpress.com]

In article <19980214084...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:
<snip>

> Sam:
> >Yes. It bothers me that I was fooled and didn't know it. It bothers me more
> >that you know you were fooled and don't seem to care.
>
> Doug:
> This is really funny, Sam. I really laughed over this one. Is this some sort
of
> boomerang guilt that you've got here? Will you also die to save the sins of
all
> people? And this suffering you go through, Sam, does it only last for as
long
> as you are logged onto a.r.e., or does it last for an hour or so? <ggg>

"Boomerang guilt"? It looks like compassion to me.

[KMerrymoon]

>> Sam:
>> >Yes. It bothers me that I was fooled and didn't know it. It bothers me more
>> >that you know you were fooled and don't seem to care.
>>
>> Doug:
>> This is really funny, Sam. I really laughed over this one. Is this some sort
>>of boomerang guilt that you've got here? Will you also die to save the sins
>>of all people? And this suffering you go through, Sam, does it only last for
>>as long as you are logged onto a.r.e., or does it last for an hour or so?
<ggg>
>

>Kate:

>"Boomerang guilt"? It looks like compassion to me.

Doug:
Kate, if Sam meant it as compassion, he would not have added "and don't seem to
care" at the end. It is quite obvious that we all do care about this, which is
why we keep talking about it.

It looks to me like there are a number of ECKists who look out at others in the
world and feel a bit sorry (compassion) for those who have not learned about
the ECK. It also appears that there are a number of ex-ECKists who look at
those in ECKANKAR and feel sorry for the ECKists. Both seem to feel that others
who don't believe what they believe are deluded and lost.

Besides the fact that you have changed from one side of this imaginary line to
the other, do you really think this represents progress? Whenever I see people
thinking large numbers of others are deluded simply because they don't know or
think as they do, I see an inability to recognize the individuality of others.

[KMerrymoon]

Lurk wrote:
>You can count on me, at least for now, to respond to your notions that
>presenting or having multiple viewpoints about Paul's lies is somehow
>means less attachment or that it is better than a singular viewpoint. I
>don't agree. I mean three or four viewpoints with little substance or
>probability doesn't necessarily invalidate a substantive singular
>viewpoint just because it is singular. <g> Also, presenting three or
>four viewpoints as a way to de-emphasize, minimize or dilute the impact
>of a significant singular viewpoint is not all that clever.

Lurk, you do a good job of expressing your singular viewpoint, and how strongly
you believe in it. And when you were an ECKist, I'm sure you did the same back
then. That's why I like to look at multiple viewpoints, because it's the habit
of picking only one viewpoint and becoming committed to it, that is the
problem.

I'm not showing other angles as a way of de-emphasizing your viewpoint. It
might seem that way to you, because unless I agree with you, you naturally
assume that I'm trying to devaluate your viewpoint. But that's not what I'm
saying at all.

I think your viewpoint is fine. You have good points. It is a valid viewpoint.
But you have committed yourself to one way of seeing things, just as you did
before. Now, you look back and realize that was a mistake. But now, once again,
you feel confident that you have gained the right and true viewpoint. Don't you
see that this approach is what caused the delusions that you feel you suffered?
You still want to be the flagbearer of the right and true viewpoint. You just
have changed flags, Lurk, but you're saying the same thing.

I bring up multiple viewpoints because I find there is value in all things, and
that I can learn from all sides and all experiences. I also know, from my own
experience, that we like to draw lines that separate us from others, because we
like to project evil on the others, to make us feel more like heroes.

[cinder]

To the Rama dancers:

"Love letters straight from my heart"

Blue Velvet

--

[cinder]

Oh, Merrymoon (Mr. Equivocator <g>), what would happen if you dropped
the "one's" and royal "we's?" I'm cheering you on, come on, break on
through to the other side. "We" know you can make it.

csk

In article <19980214214...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
kmerr...@aol.com (KMerrymoon) wrote:

-> Lurk wrote:
-> >You can count on me, at least for now, to respond to your notions that
-> >presenting or having multiple viewpoints about Paul's lies is somehow
-> >means less attachment or that it is better than a singular viewpoint. I
-> >don't agree. I mean three or four viewpoints with little substance or
-> >probability doesn't necessarily invalidate a substantive singular
-> >viewpoint just because it is singular. <g> Also, presenting three or
-> >four viewpoints as a way to de-emphasize, minimize or dilute the impact
-> >of a significant singular viewpoint is not all that clever.
->
-> Lurk, you do a good job of expressing your singular viewpoint, and how
strongly
-> you believe in it. And when you were an ECKist, I'm sure you did the
same back
-> then. That's why I like to look at multiple viewpoints, because it's
the habit
-> of picking only one viewpoint and becoming committed to it, that is the
-> problem.
->
-> I'm not showing other angles as a way of de-emphasizing your viewpoint. It
-> might seem that way to you, because unless I agree with you, you naturally
-> assume that I'm trying to devaluate your viewpoint. But that's not what I'm
-> saying at all.
->
-> I think your viewpoint is fine. You have good points. It is a valid
viewpoint.
-> But you have committed yourself to one way of seeing things, just as you did
-> before. Now, you look back and realize that was a mistake. But now,
once again,
-> you feel confident that you have gained the right and true viewpoint.
Don't you
-> see that this approach is what caused the delusions that you feel you
suffered?
-> You still want to be the flagbearer of the right and true viewpoint. You just
-> have changed flags, Lurk, but you're saying the same thing.
->
-> I bring up multiple viewpoints because I find there is value in all
things, and
-> that I can learn from all sides and all experiences. I also know, from my own
-> experience, that we like to draw lines that separate us from others,
because we
-> like to project evil on the others, to make us feel more like heroes.

--

[SAMOREZ]

In article <34E432...@mindspring.com>, arel...@mindspring.com writes:

>Hey Sam, maybe eckankar should set up an 800 number for eckist to call when
>they spot an eck masters in the physical. <GGG>

Hey, isn't it true that the Vairagi Masters are really Columbian drug lords??

Kato

[SAMOREZ]

>If this is true, it could explain your fondness for certain illicit drugs.

To paraphrase Salvador Dali, I no longer take drugs, I AM drugs.
<G>

>When was the last time that you were in Colombia??

Well, me and Al Cowlings went down there for an evasive manuvering seminar
right before OJ shot the pilot for 'Frogmen'.
One of the classes was called Rubber Tires.

Do you think this qualifies as a Sighting?

Sam

[Aemorrow1]

Richard Pickett writes:

>Dear zerO maS,
>
>Didn't they teach you how to spell
>"maneuvering" in your course?
>
>You MUST BE drugs if you can't differentiate
>between Colombia and Puerto Rico.
>
>Since OJ was shooting the movie in
>Puerto Rico and not Colombia, it does not
>qualify as a Sighting.
>
>"And then
>he went to Puerto Rico to shoot this movie Frogmen and he
>called her all the time. . . .
>
>"Going to April, now, of 1994, you're going hear that Nicole
>and Mr.
>Simpson and the children went on an abbreviated vacation in Cabo
>San Lucas. You're going to hear that the relationship just wasn't
>working at that time, and after this vacation, that ended it. It was
>just April 1st to the 3rd of 1994.
>
>Mr. Simpson went onto Puerto Rico, where he was filming a
>movie, and
>Nicole went back to her home on Bundy with her children.
>
>On May
>1, Mr. Simpson returns from Puerto Rico. At this point, the
>relationship between he and Nicole goes into a free-fall and
>irreversible downward spiral."
>
>Court TV Casefiles: O.J. Simpson Transcript (10/24/96)
> PUBLIC
>NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
>WARNING: This electronic
>transmission of the official transcript of proceedings
>is deemed...
>
>http://courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/transcripts/oct/oct24.html
>
>rfp
>
>
>The Stacks family of New York has just received an official notice bearing
>bad news - their California house is going to be sold for the back taxes
>that are owed on it. Daughter Mary Ellen (played by Bessie Love) suggests
>they all pull up stakes, go to California, pay the taxes and live in the
>home there. "We'll sell the furniture, buy an auto, and roll to California
>on rubber tires," she says with enthusiastic determination.
>

-------------------

I *still* think you need to find something to do.

A
-----------All commercial email will be deleted on sight----------------

[KMerrymoon]

Cinder arises from the ashes to speak:

> Oh, Merrymoon (Mr. Equivocator <g>), what would happen if you dropped
>the "one's" and royal "we's?"

Not much.

>I'm cheering you on, come on, break on
>through to the other side. "We" know you can make it.

And what is the reward for such an arduous journey?

Out of the silence Cinder emerges. Having meditated for many days. He comes
forth to reveal the wisdom he has discovered. What does he say?

"Stop that noise!" From this "we" know that he is the "one" that "we" have been
waiting for. <ggg>

Doug.