Michael Turner, False Sant Mat Master
shiv...@aol.com
***Michael Turner says:
You know, Shiv, we could play the mental ring around the rosie for the
next yuga and still never get anywhere. Just be playing those mind games
forever, using up one body and trading it in for a new one. Me, I'm
bored with the game already.
You know what you'll find? Inquisitions get old after a while (tho, as
Monty Python so aptly put it, "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
<g>). The faces change, but the tribunal of Kal remains the same - not a
whole lot different than when Jesus had to deal with similar questions
from the Sanhedrin pundits two millenia ago. The more we change...sigh
***Shivnetra responds:
So in your view, you are Jesus or the equivalent thereof, and I am Kal,
conducting an inquisition. This sounds delusional, which in view of your
bizzare claims of guruship is not surprising.
I was under the impression that according to Sant Mat teachings, fake
gurus are doing the work of Kal, and those who expose them are doing the
work of Sat Purush.
***Michael Turner says:
Tell you what. If you're so all fired curious as to what Sant Rajinder
Singh Ji Maharaj thinks of me, please feel free to write to Him and ask
Him yourself.
***Shivnetra responds:
First you said you "already have" asked him. You related a story about
how he autographed his book for you, as if it indicated his approval of
your Santhood, without mentioning that he has done this for hundreds of
people, including anyone who shows up at bookstores during his recent
appearances. When pressed for details on the "already have," you call me
Kal and yourself Jesus, and apparently admit you never have asked him and
don't want to.
I do not suffer from the delusion that you are a Sant Mat master, and
have no need to ask Rajinder Singh whether you are. You are the one
making the outlandish claims, which you obviously don't want punctured by
contacting Rajinder, who you and I both know will either ignore you or
tell you you are not a Sant Mat master.
I don't wish to be unkind, but I think it is healthy to point out to
unsuspecting readers that your claims are truly delusional and that you
are a pathetic case of a transparently fake guru. Anyone interested in
real Sant Mat should go elsewhere.
Some of the other evidence: - You were never initiated by a Sant Mat
master; but by Darwin Gross, whose predecessor, Paul Twitchell, is
regarded as a fraud by Rajinder Singh and his predecessors, as well as by
Charan Singh. - You claim in your magazine that various fraudulent
masters suffering from severe character faults and lack of control over
their minds are true Sant Satgurus. Sant Mat clearly teaches that
masters established in the 5th plane are beyond being led astray by the
errant mind, by the very nature of their level of spiritual development.
Problems such as substance abuse, succumbing to sexual temptation, theft,
lying, etc. are according to Sant Mat teachings indications that the
person cannot possibly be a Master. - You give out the 5 names, which you
didn't get from a Sant Mat guru but apparently from some weak-minded
satsangi, in violation of Sant Mat principles. Your giving them out in
turn is highly questionable. - You do not teach the ethical principles of
Sant Mat, but the Eckankar nullification or inversion of them. You do
not teach vegetarianism, abstinence from intoxicants, and chastity. - You
yourself do not practice the virtues Sant Mat expects satsangis to work
on and Masters to have perfected. - Sant Mat teachings state that anyone
not above sexual temptation and not filled with ojas (the fruit of sexual
continence) cannot possibly be a master. Kirpal Singh said that ojas is
the power that allows one to rise into the Beyond. - You claim to have
"inner contact" with Kirpal Singh and other Sant Mat masters, but have
never written for confirmation of their reality to a Sant Mat master.
You lack the five charged names from a master, which according to Sant
Mat are essential to allow you to differentiate real from false inner
visions.
***Michael Turner says:
As for myself, I'm just doing what I do because that's what I do. Trying
to keep the jam alive. Besides, it's 11 o'clock and time to get in bed
and cuddle up with my beloved.
<snip>
***Shivnetra responds:
In the Sant tradition, stretching back hundreds of years, the Beloved of
the Sants is God and one's Master. Kirpal Singh used to cry on his
pillow for God and his Master, not for his wife, excellent though she
might be. The level of spiritual development you display by cuddling up
with her and calling her your beloved is that of an ordinary human being,
not that of a Sant Satguru.
***Shivnetra concludes:
Whatever the truth may be of Sant Mat teachings (another topic beyond the
scope of this post), it is clear that Michael Turner, by the standards
and teachings of Sant Mat, is not a true master, is Grossly (so to speak)
distorting the teachings, and should not be followed or believed.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Galuuk
Shivnetra wrote.....
<<<< Anyone interested in
real Sant Mat should go elsewhere. >>>>>
cool,....very, very cool.............you tell em dude!!!!!......and....
......practice what you preach
and you wrote.....
<<<< The level of spiritual development you display by cuddling up
with her and calling her your beloved is that of an ordinary human being,
not that of a Sant Satguru. >>>>>
What a truckload of condesending, holier than thou bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!
Michael Turner
shiv...@aol.com wrote:
>***Michael Turner says:
>
>You know, Shiv, we could play the mental ring around the rosie for the
>next yuga and still never get anywhere. Just be playing those mind games
>forever, using up one body and trading it in for a new one. Me, I'm
>bored with the game already.
>
>You know what you'll find? Inquisitions get old after a while (tho, as
>Monty Python so aptly put it, "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
><g>). The faces change, but the tribunal of Kal remains the same - not a
>whole lot different than when Jesus had to deal with similar questions
>from the Sanhedrin pundits two millenia ago. The more we change...sigh
>
>***Shivnetra responds:
>
>So in your view, you are Jesus or the equivalent thereof, and I am Kal,
>conducting an inquisition. This sounds delusional, which in view of your
>bizzare claims of guruship is not surprising.
>
any big emotional buttons on Kal - he just is what he is, which is Lord
of the Mind - and he's just doing his job. Mind is great at picking
things apart and finding fault with other people and other perspective -
that's just its nature. And so throughout the ages there have always
been - and will always be - pundits who use the intellect to prove or
disprove that which is beyond intellect.
Using the rules you use, one could find fault with a myriad of masters.
Jesus drank wine, ate fish and hung out with publicans and prostitutes.
Kabir tricked his master (Ramananda) into initiating him and most
certainly his guru's chosen successor. Devotees of the Soamibagh lineage
look at Baba Jaimal Singh as a young upstart who wouldn't toe the line of
the Central Administrative Council, and have since written several books
(particularly Mr. Maheshwari) putting down the entire Beas lineage and
all of its offshoots. Indeed, if you want to check out some serious
comparative religions analysis in Sant Mat, by all means read "Truth
Unvarnished." Mr. Maheshwari slams Jaimal, Sawan and particularly
Kirpal, saying that none of them - according to objective criteria -
could be real masters.
And of course in the Kirpal lineage itself, there have been numerous
succession disputes, each sect using its own set of criteria to put down
the others. To wit: Russell Perkins (a devotee of Sant Ajaib Singh) felt
that Sant Darshan Singh could not possibly have been a true master
because Kirpal said repeatedly that familial successorship (via Last Will
and Testament) were not valid - so how could he possibly appoint his own
son? If his son's mastership is invalid, according to this
reasoning, then so too must be his grandson's. This line is also
somewhat followed by devotees of Sant Thakar Singh.
Personally, I don't believe that rites of successorship really matter a
whole heck of a lot. No master, regardless of how awakened he is, can
really predict if any of his students will be param sant satgurus. They
just make the best call they can when the time comes - not unlike parents
raising their kids. The real choice remains - as it has always been - up
to Divine Spirit, and It alone. It always seeks the path of least
resistance, the human conduit who is the most wide open channel for Its
flow and expression. This is why outwardly ordained lineages rarely last
for more than a few generations. After a while people get mired in dogma
and rules and regulations and ritual. What had formerly been an active,
alive teaching gradually becomes yet another edifice to past greatness.
When this happens, the Spiritual Current simply finds a new instrument
for Its expression. No need to find fault here, it's just the way it
happens. Even Charan Singh once said that sooner or later Dera Baba
Jaimal Singh would become a monument rather than a live spiritual
teaching.
You see, there's no reason to get all worked up about who's the real
master and who are the phonies. It's a pointless exercise in mental
you-know-what. Sometimes there is one Satguru on the planet, and
sometimes there are several. I've met too many devotees of nearly every
Shabd Yoga master active in America who have all had profound inner
experiences with their master - Ching Hai, Thakar Singh, Ajaib Singh,
Rajinder Singh, Gurinder Singh, Sri Gary Olsen, Sri Harold Klemp, Sri
Darwin Gross and Sri Jerry Mulvin - to cast judgement on who's real and
who's bogus. As far as I'm concerned, they are all doing the Lord's work
- and that's a good thing. And, as Sant Kirpal Ji used to say, every
saint has his past, and every sinner his future. I would add to that, no
person is irredemable. Even people who have grokked Sach Khand may have
periods of imbalance here in the material world, they can stumble and
fall. But that doesn't condemn them to a lifetime of hell. They may
also get back up, dust off their pants and do it better than ever.
Sant Mat is not about rules and regulations. It's about love,
forgiveness, compassion, and harmonizing our attention with the return
flow of Naam. It's about learning to be awakened, creative conduits for
Its expression. Naam doesn't care about lifestyle or practices or any of
that stuff. It just flows out of the heart of God and returns to it. If
we can relax, and let go to Its celestial symphony, It will lift us up
and take us home.
>
>As for myself, I'm just doing what I do because that's what I do. Trying
>to keep the jam alive. Besides, it's 11 o'clock and time to get in bed
>and cuddle up with my beloved.
>
><snip>
>
>***Shivnetra responds:
>
>In the Sant tradition, stretching back hundreds of years, the Beloved of
>the Sants is God and one's Master. Kirpal Singh used to cry on his
>pillow for God and his Master, not for his wife, excellent though she
>might be. The level of spiritual development you display by cuddling up
>with her and calling her your beloved is that of an ordinary human being,
>not that of a Sant Satguru.
You can respond to whatever preconception of Satgurus you desire, Shiv.
It's a free country (happy 4th of July, by the way), and I don't really
give a rat's paw. Call me crazy, call me a Sant Mat infidel (I've always
rather liked infidels), but check it out - you know what? I'll tell you
a secret. I love my wife. In fact, it's more than that: I adore her!
She is the light of my existence, and the source of my strength in so
many ways. And her devotion to Naam and God is unwavering and absolute,
as is my devotion to her. You can call me whatever names you want to
call me, bro, does't bother me. But don't you *dare* get down on me for
loving my wife - that is *completely* unnecessary.
So I've really got just one question. Do you have a master? If so,
who is he/she? Just curious.
Peace and Freedom,
Michael
KMerrymoon
Michael,
I read your last response to Shivnetra. I agree with a lot of what you
wrote. However, I do have a few concerns, which I would like to share with
you as a brother.
First, I do see your inner and outer committment to the spiritual
teachings, and this is commendable. But I also sense that you enjoyed the
attention, that you got from Shivnetra's post, a little too much. You
might want to check this out. I have seen some of the humblest people
become corrupted by the concept of being a spiritual teacher. It starts
out so subtly. Enjoying the attention that comes with this position, for
example. This is not a good sign.
Second, revolves around these comments that you wrote:
"Sometimes there is one Satguru on the planet, and sometimes there are
several. I've met too many devotees of nearly every Shabd Yoga master
active in America who have all had profound inner experiences with their
master - Ching Hai, Thakar Singh, Ajaib Singh, Rajinder Singh, Gurinder
Singh, Sri Gary Olsen, Sri Harold Klemp, Sri Darwin Gross and Sri Jerry
Mulvin - to cast judgement on who's real and who's bogus. As far as I'm
concerned, they are all doing the Lord's work - and that's a good thing."
You also said:
"Sant Mat is not about rules and regulations. It's about love,
forgiveness, compassion, and harmonizing our attention with the return
flow of Naam. It's about learning to be awakened, creative conduits for
Its expression. Naam doesn't care about lifestyle or practices or any of
that stuff. It just flows out of the heart of God and returns to it. If
we can relax, and let go to Its celestial symphony, It will lift us up and
take us home."
Michael, there is a very subtle little bit of confusion in these words.
Whether it was intentional or not, I do not know, but I felt it should be
pointed out.
I agree that all those teachers are "doing the Lord's work," but there is
a difference between the current that flows "out of the heart of God" and
the current that is attracted and drawn into the heart of God. The current
that flows out, also flows down, and into the lower states of
consciousness. Yes, it is the creative impulse so prized in our world,
because it benefits the world, but it also spreads itself out, losing
itself in the universe, and someday this spirit must be collected and
returned back to its source.
This outward flow has its face turned toward the outer world, and there is
a danger of being drawn by it into the world's desires and needs. Also, in
becoming a "conduit" for this flow, although your students might benefit,
it will only bring you a growth in psychic powers, and good karma, not in
spiritual growth, since true spiritual growth only comes from the
returning flow.
Therefore, in becoming a "conduit" for the outward flow, you may be doing
some very great and good deeds, that will benefit the whole world, and you
are being used by a greater power, but this greater power is the creative
power that is creating, maintaining and destroying the world. In other
words, there is a very subtle trap here, by becoming this "conduit" for
the outward flow, you are being flattered and used so that your attention
can be taken off of God, and used toward the job of maintaining this
world.
It is the returning flow that has its face turned toward God. It is always
detaching us from the outer world. As you said, all the succession
theories and organizational structures do not matter to It, because they
are all a part of the world, manifested through the outer flow.
One test you can take to tell which flow you are working with is to ask
yourself this question, "Do I see myself as a 'conduit' for spirit?" If
you do, then you are seeing the outward flow. If you have been caught up
in the arms of the returning flow, and your face is turned toward God, how
can the idea of you being a Satguru exist? It cannot. Such an idea can
only exist for the world.
I hope you will take these as words from a friend. Do with them as you see
fit.
Doug.
shiv...@aol.com
***Shivnetra wrote:
> >So in your view, you are Jesus or the equivalent thereof, and I am Kal,
> >conducting an inquisition. This sounds delusional, which in view of your
> >bizzare claims of guruship is not surprising.
***Michael Turner responds, and Shivnetra responds back:
> Whatever spreads your toes, Shiv. See here's the thing - I don't have
> any big emotional buttons on Kal - he just is what he is, which is Lord
> of the Mind - and he's just doing his job. Mind is great at picking
> things apart and finding fault with other people and other perspective -
> that's just its nature. And so throughout the ages there have always
> been - and will always be - pundits who use the intellect to prove or
> disprove that which is beyond intellect.
I see. So in your view it is invalid to use one's mental faculties to
ascertain the obvious fact that you are a fake guru. It has not escaped
my notice that fake gurus in general are fond of telling this to their
followers and those they hope to ensnare. Steven Hassan, in his book
Combatting Cult Mind Control, refers to a mind control technique called
"thought stopping." The way this would work with the disciple of a fake
guru like, say, Michael Turner, is that whenever the disciple's common
sense starts kicking in and he has doubts about Michael's divinity, he
would regard the thoughts as "of Kal" and start repeating the 5 names
given by Michael until reaching a state of autohypnotic bliss sufficient
to make the doubts go away.
I'm afraid you aren't Jesus, Michael.
> Using the rules you use, one could find fault with a myriad of masters.
> Jesus drank wine, ate fish and hung out with publicans and prostitutes.
Charan Singh points out that the Gospels are not necessarily reliable and
questions whether Jesus ate fish and drank wine. Non-public statements
of people like Kirpal Singh and Sawan Singh are that Jesus was a lower
order (third plane, I believe) master who screwed up by exhibiting
miracles. This has not been openly stated, to avoid controversy, but I
seem to recall that Johnson's book reflects it, and thatTwitchell and his
successors inherited and expressed this view.
> Kabir tricked his master (Ramananda) into initiating him and most
> certainly his guru's chosen successor.
Kabir is said to be the primal incarnation of Sat Purush in all 4 yugas,
so presumably he can get away with being slightly naughty.
> Devotees of the Soamibagh lineage
> look at Baba Jaimal Singh as a young upstart who wouldn't toe the line of
> the Central Administrative Council, and have since written several books
> (particularly Mr. Maheshwari) putting down the entire Beas lineage and
> all of its offshoots. Indeed, if you want to check out some serious
> comparative religions analysis in Sant Mat, by all means read "Truth
> Unvarnished." Mr. Maheshwari slams Jaimal, Sawan and particularly
> Kirpal, saying that none of them - according to objective criteria -
> could be real masters.
And devotees of the Beas lineages think the Soamibagh lineage is
suffering from serious misconceptions, apparently with good reason.
> And of course in the Kirpal lineage itself, there have been numerous
> succession disputes, each sect using its own set of criteria to put down
> the others. To wit: Russell Perkins (a devotee of Sant Ajaib Singh) felt
> that Sant Darshan Singh could not possibly have been a true master
> because Kirpal said repeatedly that familial successorship (via Last Will
> and Testament) were not valid - so how could he possibly appoint his own
> son? If his son's mastership is invalid, according to this
> reasoning, then so too must be his grandson's. This line is also
> somewhat followed by devotees of Sant Thakar Singh.
Kirpal said, in print that a family member can become the next guru if he
is competent. He said that the guruship cannot be transmitted by a will,
but is transmitted "through the eyes." Darshan Singh makes it clear that
the guruship was transmitted through the eyes. It was affirmed, but not
effected, by numerous verbal statements made by Kirpal Singh to him and
others, as well as a handwritten will made by Kirpal Singh.
Jagat Singh and his successors, on the other hand, say nothing about
transmission through the eyes and have in fact used wills to transmit the
guruship.
> Personally, I don't believe that rites of successorship really matter a
> whole heck of a lot. No master, regardless of how awakened he is, can
> really predict if any of his students will be param sant satgurus. They
> just make the best call they can when the time comes - not unlike parents
> raising their kids. The real choice remains - as it has always been - up
> to Divine Spirit, and It alone. It always seeks the path of least
> resistance, the human conduit who is the most wide open channel for Its
> flow and expression.
Oh really? One more among numerous, pervasive examples of made-up
fantasy from Michael Turner in direct contradiction to Sant Mat teachings
and history. In the lineage from Shiv Dayal Singh to Rajinder Singh,
each guru has explicitly appointed his successor during his lifetime, and
has thus known exactly who the successor is.
> This is why outwardly ordained lineages rarely last
> for more than a few generations. After a while people get mired in dogma
> and rules and regulations and ritual. What had formerly been an active,
> alive teaching gradually becomes yet another edifice to past greatness.
> When this happens, the Spiritual Current simply finds a new instrument
> for Its expression.
Does this mean that the Spiritual Current needed to find Michael Turner
as an outlet because everyone else teaching Surat Shabd Yoga was mired in
dogma, etc?
> No need to find fault here, it's just the way it
> happens. Even Charan Singh once said that sooner or later Dera Baba
> Jaimal Singh would become a monument rather than a live spiritual
> teaching.
According to Kirpal Singh, in print, that is exactly what the Dera had
become in the time of Charan Singh. Because according to Kirpal Singh,
Charan was not a real Master.
> You see, there's no reason to get all worked up about who's the real
> master and who are the phonies. It's a pointless exercise in mental
> you-know-what.
Why don't you tell this to Kirpal Singh next time you see him on the
inner planes? He strongly believed it is of cricital importance to
discern the real master from the phonies. Because of your widespread
disagreement with teachers such as Kirpal Singh on numerous issues, it
would behoove you to instruct these poor erring Sants in the truth.
Of course, it is very convenient for a fraud like you to say that
discerning your fraudulence is a bad thing, isn't it?
> Sometimes there is one Satguru on the planet, and
> sometimes there are several. I've met too many devotees of nearly every
> Shabd Yoga master active in America who have all had profound inner
> experiences with their master - Ching Hai, Thakar Singh, Ajaib Singh,
> Rajinder Singh, Gurinder Singh, Sri Gary Olsen, Sri Harold Klemp, Sri
> Darwin Gross and Sri Jerry Mulvin - to cast judgement on who's real and
> who's bogus. As far as I'm concerned, they are all doing the Lord's work
> - and that's a good thing.
In Sant Mat one is not supposed to tell one's inner experience to anyone
but the Master. How do you know what sort of experience they've had? Do
their bodies all go numb as their sensory currents are collected at the
Tisra Til? Do they all see the Radiant Forms of their Masters, who guide
them on into higher planes? Do they develop ethically and spiritually?
In *real* (as opposed to Turneresque) Sant Mat, embezzlers, sexual
predators, liars, murderers, disciple-beaters, and meat eaters - which
covers at least 7 of the 9 people you list - cannot possibly be Sant Mat
masters and are not doing the Lord's work by posing as Masters and
leading seekers astray. In *real* Sant Mat, ethical development is
paramount. Kirpal Singh said it is difficult to become a true human
being, but once one becomes so, it is not difficult to find God. He laid
a great stress on "man making."
> And, as Sant Kirpal Ji used to say, every
> saint has his past, and every sinner his future. I would add to that, no
> person is irredemable. Even people who have grokked Sach Khand may have
> periods of imbalance here in the material world, they can stumble and
> fall. But that doesn't condemn them to a lifetime of hell. They may
> also get back up, dust off their pants and do it better than ever.
According to *real* Sant Mat teachings, a Sant - one who is established
on the 5th plane - cannot stumble or have periods of imbalance here in
the material world. This, like much of your anti-Sant Mat teachings, is
warmed over Eckankar bastardization and degeneration of Sant Mat.
> Sant Mat is not about rules and regulations. It's about love,
> forgiveness, compassion, and harmonizing our attention with the return
> flow of Naam. It's about learning to be awakened, creative conduits for
> Its expression. Naam doesn't care about lifestyle or practices or any of
> that stuff.
More Eckankar anti-Sant Mat babbling. The very essence of following Sant
Mat is 1) lifestyle, and 2) meditation practices
Michael, did you decide to become a fake Sant Mat guru instead of a fake
Mahanta because Eckankar's litigious nature would make the latter
unfeasible?
> It just flows out of the heart of God and returns to it. If
> we can relax, and let go to Its celestial symphony, It will lift us up
> and take us home.
It would appear that some of us are entirely too relaxed.
***Shivnetra pointed out:
> >In the Sant tradition, stretching back hundreds of years, the Beloved of
> >the Sants is God and one's Master. Kirpal Singh used to cry on his
> >pillow for God and his Master, not for his wife, excellent though she
> >might be. The level of spiritual development you display by cuddling up
> >with her and calling her your beloved is that of an ordinary human being,
> >not that of a Sant Satguru.
***Sri Turnerji Maharaj responds:
> You can respond to whatever preconception of Satgurus you desire, Shiv.
> It's a free country (happy 4th of July, by the way), and I don't really
> give a rat's paw.
I am merely relating what the Sant Mat teachings say regarding a true
Master being beyond the desire for sensual pleasures and being sexually
continent. And Kirpal Singh says it very, very emphatically.
> Call me crazy, call me a Sant Mat infidel (I've always
> rather liked infidels),
I don't think it's a question of being an infidel, but a question of
whether you meet the standards for Sant Mat masters related by Sant Mat
masters.
> but check it out - you know what? I'll tell you
> a secret. I love my wife. In fact, it's more than that: I adore her!
> She is the light of my existence, and the source of my strength in so
> many ways. And her devotion to Naam and God is unwavering and absolute,
> as is my devotion to her. You can call me whatever names you want to
> call me, bro, does't bother me. But don't you *dare* get down on me for
> loving my wife - that is *completely* unnecessary.
Michael, I am not at all getting down on you for loving your wife. It is
a wonderful thing, and I am happy for you. But the fact that your wife
rather than your guru is the light of your existence, sweet as it may be,
shows that you are an ordinary human being and not a Sant Mat Master.
Sant Mat masters, in this respect, have emotional make-ups which are
quite strange by ordinary standards. They long for and love their
Masters above all else. I have not noticed you saying that Darwin Gross
is the light of your life, your Beloved, your God, your very soul.
Speaking of your Master, what does he think of your guruship? Has he
blessed it? As you may recall, real Sant Satgurus consider themselves
slaves of their Master and would never disobey him.
***Shivnetra concludes:
I cannot devote further time to this dialog, but I think the essential
facts have been brought out.
David R Brooks
shiv...@aol.com wrote (criticising Michael Turner):
[snip]
: - You give out the 5 names, which you
:didn't get from a Sant Mat guru but apparently from some weak-minded
:satsangi, in violation of Sant Mat principles. Your giving them out in
:turn is highly questionable.
But Sri Michael Turner has stated he was initiated by Sri Darwin
Gross - of the Eckankar branch of the Path. Now accept Eckankar or not
- it's your choice - but this is all in accordance with their way. I
myself have seen the 5 Names (and more) openly published in print by
Eckankar.
Now by the teachings of the Master I follow (Suma Ching Hai), to
publish the 5 Names is very wrong. But it is consistent with the
teachings of Eckankar, so Michael is only faithful to his Path in
doing so.
-- Dave Brooks <http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb>
PGP public key: finger da...@opera.iinet.net.au
servers da...@iinet.net.au
fingerprint 20 8F 95 22 96 D6 1C 0B 3D 4D C3 D4 50 A1 C4 34
What's all this? see http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb/crypto.html
Michael Turner
da...@iinet.net.au (David R Brooks) wrote:
>
> But Sri Michael Turner has stated he was initiated by Sri Darwin
>Gross - of the Eckankar branch of the Path. Now accept Eckankar or not
>- it's your choice - but this is all in accordance with their way. I
>myself have seen the 5 Names (and more) openly published in print by
>Eckankar.
> Now by the teachings of the Master I follow (Suma Ching Hai), to
>publish the 5 Names is very wrong. But it is consistent with the
>teachings of Eckankar, so Michael is only faithful to his Path in
>doing so.
Thanks for the feedback, Dave. As a quick point of clarification, I do
not publish the Names - though variations are readily available in print
from a variety of sources. I give them out at the time of initation, and
request that my students keep them confidential.
Hope this clears things up.
Peace,
Michael
ShabdaLion
If there's only one thing I could get across, it'd be: Michael is a Sat
Guru.
<laugh> I've just written Michael a semilengthy e-mail... I was about to
go
and saw a brief note, "Have you looked in a.r.e., a.m.s., lately?" And I
look
over here... wOw. <laugh> Aaaaah...
There are so many things being said for all sorts of reasons... To
answer to
every single question would take yugas. That doesn't mean there aren't
answers, it just means that it takes to long to answer them, and it's a
bit
discouraging when people don't want to hear them.
To anyone out there who has never known me, forget this message. I can't
possibly say anything to you. This is not an insult, this is just
saying, "I don't
know you, you don't know me."
To the person who have known me for some time, like say, from when this
newsgroup was started, I can only say,
Trust Me,
Michael Is Legitimate.
I could answer a million questions, explain a million things, but when
it gets
down to it, you and I both know you'd just find more questions, more
reasons
to believe that Michael is a phony, if you just don't believe me.
If Michael is not a Sat Guru, then there are no Sat Gurus. If Michael is
not
a Sat Guru, then there is no Mahunta, in Eckankar lingo.
The fabrications that an angry consciousness can draw up amaze me in
their
illogical constructions. Ever read Creationist literature? And the
illogical
constructions can be shown for what they are; It just takes aeons. And
while those ones are being shown out, more are being made elsewhere.
This is one of those faith moments, where you just take someone's Word
for it.
It's really basic, and it's really important. In fact, I *dare* say it's
connected
with the basic principle of the necessity of a master.
I'm not a master, but I'm a friend to you.
If you trust me, if you trust my awareness, if you think I'm not stupid
in the
head, if you think that just perhaps, I've actually considered all of
the questions
you have at some point or another, then trust me on this one.
Michael is a Sat Guru.
And if you won't believe it, do me this coutesy, and at least consider
it, and be
a little more respectful the next time you decide to say something with
conviction to the contrary.
If there is doubt that this message speaks to you, then it doesn't.
Those who I am writing to, you know your names.
Lion
ShabdaLion
>> If Michael is not a Sat Guru, then there are no Sat Gurus.
>> If Michael is not a Sat Guru, then there is no Mahunta,
>> in Eckankar lingo.
>
> reading the rest of your
> post , I guess not. But there are no sat gurus, only
> those who believe
> they are and those who believe in them.
<laugh>
You know, Tuza, as I was writing this I was thinking, "You
know, there's going to be that... What's his name... Ah, I
forget. But you know, that one guy is going to have a
hay day with this one.." <laugh> I was, of course, thinking
of you at that moment. "TuzaTraveler".
Yes, that's your name, I had forgotten it (strangly enough,
given the length of conversation we have had before).
No Tuza, I'm still lost and confused, having this odd
belief in the necessity of a master. But, lest you worry
for my being lost, I _do_ believe that God will show itself
to me some day through Michael, and if it as you say,
that the reality is shaped by the beliefs, well, then I
should be found by God anyways, right? So don't worry
about me, I'll be fine. {:)}=
Also, a brief note to clarify something that is fairly obvious
from my post, but perhaps needs clarification... I was talking
about my Master, Michael Turner.
Since this is the Eckankar area, I think it'd be appropriate
to end the message with the Eckankar farewell.. I don't
think this is a "farewell" that is reserved only for the
Master, but if it is, I don't mean any disrespect.
Baraka Bashad,
May the Blessings Be.
Lion Kimbro