Obstacles to EK dialogue
Jessica Weiss
wrote:
>Not my job to get it confirmed.
No, Lobsang, your unwillingness to substantiate any of your specious
claims well confirms that "Lobsang's statements cannot be trusted".
That's all we really need to know.
>Lobsang
>
>P.M. Dierking wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:14:05 -0500, Lobsang <lobs...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I guess you missed my post where I shared a conversation I had with H.E.
>> >Dagchen Sakya Rinpoche in the summer of 1987.
>> >
>> >I had the pleasure of spending several days with him and his wife in the
>> >summer of 1987.
>>
>> Dear Lobsang,
>>
>> As you are already personally acquainted with H.H. Jigdal Dagchen
>> Sakya and his wife H.E. Dagmo Kusho Sakya, I'm sure they'd be glad
>> to confirm your assertions for you in writing. Give him a call at his
>> monastery in Seattle (206) 789-2573.
>>
>> Hurry Lobsang, call before September 22, because they are going
>> on pilgrimage to India!
>
>
>
Nathan Zafran
Turns....
Also the mindset is vaguely reminiscent of the Salem witchcraft trials..Im
glad you made it through with your backside and sanity still intact.
Fawn
Jessica Weiss
there was a newsgroup with a WIDER spectrum for debate.
In all fairness to Ruth, if you are only replying to posts of interest to you,
personally, since you as you stated are not the moderator of this group, that
is understandable, but IF you are trying to protect people who come here to
look for recovery from religious beliefs or cults, etc., you will stay VERY
BUSY headbutting with a LOT of other posters here. It could become a full time
job doing battle with any number of these threads I have been sifting thru this
evening.
I haven't seen very many of your bylines in the L .Ron Hubbard posts, the XXX
posts ( or do the people recovering from religion perhaps NEED to see some
porno sites?!?!) <G>.......get my drift?
If Ruth decides to stop posting here, she is more gracious than you are giving
her credit for. :-) Maybe I missed something but I didn't think she was being
hostile.
This is a newsgroup that seems to be dwindling in quantity, never mind
quality.....perhaps we're recovering nicely and move on? I mean this as a
friendly observation. I save my anger for April 15th.
Jessica Weiss
Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <6tho8g$kn5$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
>Saabirah wrote in message ...
>>It's been pretty "intense" around here the past few days. Maybe the jinn
>>are not very happy ......>
>
>Either them or the misguided Missionaries who do not like
>to see a true picture of Islam portrayed in a civil and
>respectful environment.
>
>Salaam Brother
Yeah, that's what I said .... it's the jinn!
Your Sister -- saabirah
>
Nathan Zafran
Steve wrote in message <35F9EEF9...@mindspring.com>...
>In several messages yesterday I concluded with the following:
>
>
>> While dialogue is important, meaningful dialogue cannot be carried on on
>> this newsgroup. There are just a small number of individuals whose
>> intent is to disrupt any meaningful discussion. So, as much as I dislike
>> simply issuing quotes, that is what I expect to be doing here. If
>> anyone would like to discuss any of the issues one on one, please reply
>> to me personally.
>>
>
>A few Eckists did write to thank me for my posts.
>
>Six others, both Eckists and Anti-Eckists responded in public to what I
>had written. None of them wrote to me privately to discuss the topic.
>They are not interested in a dialogue. All they want to do is
>grandstand and pronounce their views.
>
>I repeat, meaningful dialogue cannot be carried on on this newsgroup.
>All it takes is a small number of individuals to disrupt any meaningful
>discussion. If any of these frauds wanted to have a real conversation
>and not a shouting match, they might have taken me up on my offer. None
>did.
>
>Sad.
>
>Steve
>
A lot of beautiful and positive things can be posted here if one will only do
so. There was a discussion about inner experiences here but all the inner
experiences were sent privately. So only one person benefited. Wish I could have
read some of those inner experiences sent to JT.
Ron McKernan
Clay Lewis wrote:
> You all may think that Lucifer is the all mighty but his fate has already
> been sealed......why do you think he is called the prince of lies....he has
> lied to you all.......it brings a tear to my eyes to read messages like
> this....not because i am offended but because Satan has won over another
> soul....and while you all curse the name of God and spit on the Bible Satan
> sets back laughing thinking that there is another soul that will have an
> eternity of torture......and as far as Jesus is concerned heis the only man
> that put Satan in his place....he was tempted 3 times and all 3 times he
> through Satans offer back in his face thats why the Devil wants you
> all....to get back at the Christ our Savior....all you have to do is believe
> that Jesus is the son of God and that he was nailed to the cross for your
> sins....and as much as you hate him he loves you more today than he ever has
> he will never love you less he died for your sins ........Please rethink
> what you are saying and realize that God is the light of the world.........
Well i'm converted. Thanks! Shame i see only now the folly of my ways...It's
good knowing i'm not going to hell, and all i did was believe in some dood who'm
i've never meet, and whom refuses to show himself to me in anyway shape or form!
Yeah some guy who was made a hero, during the Jewish rebellion against Rome, by
a guy called Mark. Pretty brilliant that i'm saved now huh?
Hey, it was the tree of KNOWLEDGE that adam ate that apple from wasn't it? And
Lucifer is the bringer of light?!?! So Lucifer is associated with knowledge? Why
does god prefer me to be ignorant and not know the difference between good and
evil? And would that make the amorale person more likely to go to heaven than
me?
Oh, will u explain to me where the 3 week old babe who died from Nestle's milk
substitutegoes, because he never even heard of Jesus!
fnord.
HoL
-Friendly PsYCHoPaTH-
"V is for VIRTUE so i aint gonna hurt you.
E is for EVEN if you want me too."
Nick Cave - LOVERMAN
Nathan Zafran
luap...@aol.com (Luap5150) wrote:
> >I have had disagreements and I've expressed my views openly, AND most
> >importantly, resolved issues for me by doing so. What's your problem?
> >
>
> Well, since priests are alledgedly the Treasure of the Law then aren't you
> comitting slander by disagreeing with one?
>
> Paul W
No. Go back to sleep.
--
Kurt
My new anti-spam measure:
to reply send to: martman at primenet dot com
Nathan Zafran
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Replication using other astrologer's would be important.
>This will never happen. Astrology is not a science-because LIFE is not a
>science.
No, Edie. Astrology is not a science because astrology doesn't work.
--
"EAT SHIT YOU UGLY BITCH!!!!!!"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/lies/wollmann/edlies01.txt
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Network/9009/
http://www.databasix.com/officialcharters/alt/astrology/metapsych/charter.html
webm...@cyberjockey.com
Is there any particular time of year when the presence of jinn
are most felt?
John
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
SoulWords
>Is there any particular time of year when the presence of jinn
>are most felt?
Yes John, New Year's Eve, when many
take their jinn with tonic!
(Isn't it spelled djinn????)
Seriously, I am pleased to know many Islamic students- very
interesting young people who totally go beyond
the media-driven stereotypes that are
"out there"!
Love in ECK, David
Sharon V Comstock
I think what it boils down to, Nathan, is that I'd rather serve in Hell
than rule in your illusion of Heaven.
Why are you so threatened by anything outside of your very narrow
beliefs? My Eckankar isn't like that!
Of course, I could be wrong. . .another thing I've always questioned most
of my life is "myself" -- what is myself, what do I want myself to be,
what is it about me that isn't myself --
But it just seems that the older I get the more clear I am about what
"myself" is. . .and whether it's "right" or "wrong", well it's me.
We disagree on just a few of the issues Nathan. And one of them is that
thing about talking to "detractors". You know, one of the things I've
questioned about myself is my tendency to be a bit "too" friendly &
"trusting" . . . even just recently I've questioned that. But I keep
coming to the same conclusion. . .I'd rather be friendly *& trusting than
hide behind a bunch of brick walls & locked doors. Yeah, maybe sometimes
I get burned. . .but that's no big deal. Really.
I can talk to anyone I want because I've found it a good way to learn &
grow. Nothing and noone outside myself affects "me". Except when I start
feeling that "me" is wrong, and start trying to change myself & fit
myself into other people's boxes.
I'm just rambling a bit, but hey that's me. I can be quite organized &
stuff when I want to be.
Anyway, take this "Modern Prophet" stuff. I remember when this was
brought up on Chela Chat. Not much discussion. Of course, I popped
right in with my feelings about it. If I recall, there was another who
said she had the same feelings I did. . .a good friend of yours, if I
recall. An Eckist I truly like & respect. . .but none of that "awe of
rank" stuff, altho I'm sure she's an HI.
I would have like to have seen this discussed more, but it sort of died
out. I needed to discuss this to work it out & understand it more. It
was then brought up later on Vahana. . .well I did get some good feedback
there. And also a bit of being judged that I wasn't immediately
accepting. Actually, I feel I've come to understand this issue a bit more
here on ARE.
Whoops I suppose all this stuff should be kept private. Well, excuse me,
but one thing I've learned in life is when you're dealling with people
you're not sure about. . .make sure you have witnesses.
I really feel bad about making Eckankar look bad to anyone who's
searching. You know, I really feel strongly that it's not nice to
interfere with someone else's spiritual path. In fact, I was just
reading that. . .Harold addressed the issue in either ATM 2 or Wisdom
from the Heart. . .I'm sort of reading those two now, along with several
other books. . .a little problem with me, reading a bunch of stuff at the
same time. . .
Anyway, Harold wrote about the importance of not interfering, because he
loves everyone. Now, to be honest I don't remember if he was talking
about interfering with Eckists or interfering with anyone. . .well, maybe
that's my problem. . .maybe I interpret Harold the wrong way.
Well, I really have other things to do today eventually,, when I get
around to it. . .but I just want to say that whatever my spiritual path
is NO ONE is going to interfere with it. Not even Harold. And I believe
he wrote about that somewhere. . .the Kool-Aid thing. . .he told us to be
wary, not to blindly believe everything he says & writes. Well, I take
Harold quite seriously. . .he told us to watch, that if he said things
like that, well it wasn't really "him". . .
Nathan, I would much prefer to not ignore anyone. . .because I believe
that your fundamentalist approach to Eckankar is a good & useful one, that
many seekers want & need this approach, though it's not for me. Just as
some people also need to get OUT of Eckankar (and Harold understands this)
and so driving the detractors out of ARE would also be interfering. . .
Well, enough for now. It feels good not to be pissed off. Although I
may have more to say. . .from a place of love, of course,
In the Light & Sound,
Sharon
spark
Sharon V Comstock wrote in message ...
>I think what it boils down to, Nathan, is that I'd rather serve in Hell
>than rule in your illusion of Heaven.
Thank you for stating what should be obvious but continues to be
forgotten.
>Why are you so threatened by anything outside of your very narrow
>beliefs? My Eckankar isn't like that!
And neither is lots of other peoples'
>Of course, I could be wrong. . .another thing I've always questioned most
>of my life is "myself" -- what is myself, what do I want myself to be,
>what is it about me that isn't myself --
>
>But it just seems that the older I get the more clear I am about what
>"myself" is. . .and whether it's "right" or "wrong", well it's me.
>
>We disagree on just a few of the issues Nathan. And one of them is that
>thing about talking to "detractors". You know, one of the things I've
>questioned about myself is my tendency to be a bit "too" friendly &
>"trusting" . . . even just recently I've questioned that. But I keep
>coming to the same conclusion. . .I'd rather be friendly *& trusting than
>hide behind a bunch of brick walls & locked doors. Yeah, maybe sometimes
>I get burned. . .but that's no big deal. Really.
Sometimes getting 'burned' is process of learning and going beyond what
was known before. This process is almost unbearable to some people at
certain points in their experience. Courage to some is closing down and
getting the wagons in a circle. To others it is going out to meet the
'enemy' and realizing that 'he/she' is us.
>I can talk to anyone I want because I've found it a good way to learn &
>grow. Nothing and noone outside myself affects "me". Except when I start
>feeling that "me" is wrong, and start trying to change myself & fit
>myself into other people's boxes.
<snip>
>Anyway, take this "Modern Prophet" stuff. I remember when this was
>brought up on Chela Chat. Not much discussion. Of course, I popped
>right in with my feelings about it. If I recall, there was another who
>said she had the same feelings I did. . .a good friend of yours, if I
>recall. An Eckist I truly like & respect. . .but none of that "awe of
>rank" stuff, altho I'm sure she's an HI.
>I would have like to have seen this discussed more, but it sort of died
>out. I needed to discuss this to work it out & understand it more. It
>was then brought up later on Vahana. . .well I did get some good feedback
>there. And also a bit of being judged that I wasn't immediately
>accepting. Actually, I feel I've come to understand this issue a bit more
>here on ARE.
Amazing process this burning....<smile>
>Whoops I suppose all this stuff should be kept private. Well, excuse me,
>but one thing I've learned in life is when you're dealling with people
>you're not sure about. . .make sure you have witnesses.
You've got more than witnesses, Sharon. There are a lot of us who have
the freedom to explore, be open and learn, as well as make mistakes. We're
not
all in a group that expresses itself like a combine of sorts.
>I really feel bad about making Eckankar look bad to anyone who's
>searching. You know, I really feel strongly that it's not nice to
>interfere with someone else's spiritual path. In fact, I was just
>reading that. . .Harold addressed the issue in either ATM 2 or Wisdom
>from the Heart. . .I'm sort of reading those two now, along with several
>other books. . .a little problem with me, reading a bunch of stuff at the
>same time. . .
How on Earth have you made Eckankar look bad? Sounds like someone is
laying a guilt trip on you. Sometimes Eckankar makes it self look bad or,
at the very least, incredibly silly. Being open and honest with others
about your spiritual and personal discoveries usually results in a lot more
useful process than fear of interference. We could all stick our heads in
the sand and be very safe and never 'interfere' with anyone.
>Anyway, Harold wrote about the importance of not interfering, because he
>loves everyone. Now, to be honest I don't remember if he was talking
>about interfering with Eckists or interfering with anyone. . .well, maybe
>that's my problem. . .maybe I interpret Harold the wrong way.
Forget about interpreting Harold. Live life. Interpreting Harold will
only result in
living an interpreted life. "put on the festive clothes of life."
>Well, I really have other things to do today eventually,, when I get
>around to it. . .but I just want to say that whatever my spiritual path
>is NO ONE is going to interfere with it. Not even Harold. And I believe
>he wrote about that somewhere. . .the Kool-Aid thing. . .he told us to be
>wary, not to blindly believe everything he says & writes. Well, I take
>Harold quite seriously. . .he told us to watch, that if he said things
>like that, well it wasn't really "him". . .
Nice paradox. I applaud your anti-kool-aid stance even with our own
guru.
>Nathan, I would much prefer to not ignore anyone. . .because I believe
>that your fundamentalist approach to Eckankar is a good & useful one, that
>many seekers want & need this approach, though it's not for me. Just as
>some people also need to get OUT of Eckankar (and Harold understands this)
>and so driving the detractors out of ARE would also be interfering. . .
The funny thing about fundies is that no matter how much other's recognize
their
usefulness in the recycling business of spiritual education they have the
dardnest time
understanding and appreciating the flip side.
> In the Light & Sound,
You sure you and Nat aren't related <grin>.
csk